Anonymous
Post 07/11/2016 09:44     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:I can not believe rational people want another plastic field in DC. I hate the self-interested soccer tot folks. All my kids play soccer, one of them at the most advanced high school level and they can't stand playing on those fields int he summer. Literally feel the heat coming off the field burning through their shoes. It will make the park unusable in the summer.


I call BS. If your kid really played at a high level you wouldn't say "the most advanced high school level" because there is no such thing in the US. If your kid really played at a high level he would have been playing primarily on artificial turf for the past half decade because there just aren't many full-size natural grass fields around, and none of them would be considered playable for high level games. You'd know it's a false choice between artificial turf and nice grass, the choice is between artificial and mud, rocks and dust.
Anonymous
Post 07/11/2016 09:40     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:I can not believe rational people want another plastic field in DC. I hate the self-interested soccer tot folks. All my kids play soccer, one of them at the most advanced high school level and they can't stand playing on those fields int he summer. Literally feel the heat coming off the field burning through their shoes. It will make the park unusable in the summer.


I would like to avoid a turf field as well at Hearst. It would definitely be hotter, and imagine how much hotter if there's less shade because some number of surrounding taller trees have to be removed for a pool.
Anonymous
Post 07/11/2016 09:09     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
I can not believe rational people want another plastic field in DC. I hate the self-interested soccer tot folks. All my kids play soccer, one of them at the most advanced high school level and they can't stand playing on those fields int he summer. Literally feel the heat coming off the field burning through their shoes. It will make the park unusable in the summer.
Anonymous
Post 07/11/2016 08:27     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Why don't you ask her? Why do you think any of us have more information than what was discussed at the public meeting?
Anonymous
Post 07/11/2016 08:20     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:The pool advocates no longer have a leg to stand on. If the pool is going to charge fees, there is no difference between a public pool and the many pools in the area that one can join. It is also a way to keep interlopers out. The park is free now. Restricting access while damaging the environment is a non-starter.


No fee, check.
No damage to environment, check.
Improve the environmental impact of the park for those of us who live on Springland Lane, check.

Please stop lady. You really don't know what you are talking about and do not speak for all of us who live within a stone's throw of the park.


How will covering grass with concrete and other impermeable surfaces and cutting down mature oaks whose root structure will be adversely affected by the pool result in "no damage" to the environment? Moreover, replacing permeable landscape with impermeable surface will only make worse drainage issues for those who live downhill from Hearst Park.

Check.



Turf fields are designed with stormwater migitation practices that are better than what is currently there.

There are not plans or discussion of plans to chop down any of the mature oaks.

We don't know where a pool could go such that any root systems would be compromised. The BMP at the park site for stormwater and drainage for any construction there will be better for those of use downstream. Doing nothing would perpetuate an untenable situation.

You are making ASSumptions. Keep it up, you undermine your cause with hyperbole.


DPR doesnt have to pave one third of Hearst park in order to address any drainage issues.

Where is Mary Cheh's plan?
Anonymous
Post 07/11/2016 06:19     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:The pool advocates no longer have a leg to stand on. If the pool is going to charge fees, there is no difference between a public pool and the many pools in the area that one can join. It is also a way to keep interlopers out. The park is free now. Restricting access while damaging the environment is a non-starter.


No fee, check.
No damage to environment, check.
Improve the environmental impact of the park for those of us who live on Springland Lane, check.

Please stop lady. You really don't know what you are talking about and do not speak for all of us who live within a stone's throw of the park.


How will covering grass with concrete and other impermeable surfaces and cutting down mature oaks whose root structure will be adversely affected by the pool result in "no damage" to the environment? Moreover, replacing permeable landscape with impermeable surface will only make worse drainage issues for those who live downhill from Hearst Park.

Check.



Turf fields are designed with stormwater migitation practices that are better than what is currently there.

There are not plans or discussion of plans to chop down any of the mature oaks.

We don't know where a pool could go such that any root systems would be compromised. The BMP at the park site for stormwater and drainage for any construction there will be better for those of use downstream. Doing nothing would perpetuate an untenable situation.

You are making ASSumptions. Keep it up, you undermine your cause with hyperbole.
Anonymous
Post 07/10/2016 22:05     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Hey Che-

Find some other park to pave over!
Anonymous
Post 07/10/2016 21:55     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:The pool advocates no longer have a leg to stand on. If the pool is going to charge fees, there is no difference between a public pool and the many pools in the area that one can join. It is also a way to keep interlopers out. The park is free now. Restricting access while damaging the environment is a non-starter.


Except that the pools you can join have fees that are 2-3 times higher than those DPR charges (if they ever do). So to say there is no difference is ridiculous and out of touch. Not to mention that some of those pools also have tight geographic restrictions for who can join, or long waitlists.
Anonymous
Post 07/10/2016 21:15     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:Screw Stoddart and its surrogates who want to put plastic on he field. It works fine as is. Plastic fields create heat and are as permeable as concrete.


Artificial turf is highly permeable. It's designed to absorb and dissipate enormous amounts of rain, so that puddling is prevented in just about any conceivable conditions. The whole point is to be able to play in as much as possible, regardless of the weather.
Anonymous
Post 07/10/2016 20:42     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:The pool advocates no longer have a leg to stand on. If the pool is going to charge fees, there is no difference between a public pool and the many pools in the area that one can join. It is also a way to keep interlopers out. The park is free now. Restricting access while damaging the environment is a non-starter.


No fee, check.
No damage to environment, check.
Improve the environmental impact of the park for those of us who live on Springland Lane, check.

Please stop lady. You really don't know what you are talking about and do not speak for all of us who live within a stone's throw of the park.


How will covering grass with concrete and other impermeable surfaces and cutting down mature oaks whose root structure will be adversely affected by the pool result in "no damage" to the environment? Moreover, replacing permeable landscape with impermeable surface will only make worse drainage issues for those who live downhill from Hearst Park.

Check.
Anonymous
Post 07/10/2016 20:37     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Screw Stoddart and its surrogates who want to put plastic on he field. It works fine as is. Plastic fields create heat and are as permeable as concrete.


No it doesn't. It is a chronic dust bowl. And when it isn't a dust bowl, it is a mud bog. And to boot the selfish doggie people leave their dogshit all over the place, so it becomes a health risk for the people who are using it to run around.

It is a failure for anyone who wants to use it except the close by neighbors who like the peace and quiet and the dog people who let their dogs shit at ill and don't clean up after them. Most of these are the same people.



Yes. So it is necessary to destroy Hearst Park* in order to save it.

*or al least to pave it in concrete.
Anonymous
Post 07/10/2016 20:35     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
When will Mary Cheh release her Gosplan showing where the pool, deck and pool house will be situated?


IN SOVIET RASSHA CHEY MEANS "WHOSE!"


As in whose interests vill be liquidated to fulfill Commissar Che's central plan for Hearst?
Anonymous
Post 07/10/2016 20:34     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
When will Mary Cheh release her Gosplan showing where the pool, deck and pool house will be situated?


IN SOVIET RASSHA CHEY MEANS "WHOSE!"


As in whose interests vill be liquidated to fulfill Commissar Cheh's central plan for Hearst?
Anonymous
Post 07/10/2016 20:27     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:
When will Mary Cheh release her Gosplan showing where the pool, deck and pool house will be situated?


IN SOVIET RASSHA CHEY MEANS "WHOSE!"
Anonymous
Post 07/10/2016 18:13     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:The pool advocates no longer have a leg to stand on. If the pool is going to charge fees, there is no difference between a public pool and the many pools in the area that one can join. It is also a way to keep interlopers out. The park is free now. Restricting access while damaging the environment is a non-starter.


No fee, check.
No damage to environment, check.
Improve the environmental impact of the park for those of us who live on Springland Lane, check.

Please stop lady. You really don't know what you are talking about and do not speak for all of us who live within a stone's throw of the park.