Anonymous wrote:To the person refers to Hearst as a dust bowl. You are a liar. Anybody can see that. 95% of Hearst Field is covered in green grass. A very small section is bare in front of the soccer goals. That is where most grass fields are worn. Please don't misrepresent in order to destroy what is a beautiful urban oasis. Soccer should be played a Hearst but on natural grass.

Anonymous wrote:Just because the incoming pk class has kids from the neighborhood doesn't mean the school will now be filled with in-bound children. It remains a largely out-of-bound population in what is intended to be a neighborhood school. The Hearst neighbors don't want a pool and they don't want a shelter. They want to keep everything just the way it has always been, but that's not an option.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hearst would just have to stop accepting out of boundary students. Without out of boundary, it has lots of capacity. It should serve as a neighborhood school. If people around Hearst don't want a pool, the homeless shelter for families is the next most appropriate use, if a shelter has to go somewhere in Ward 3. Then the pool can go in the park next to the police station.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I seriously don't understand why Hearst was not considered for the homeless shelter. There are only a handful of kids at the school there relative to most other elementary schools in upper nw dc. Hearst could easily absorb the extra students, and there is plenty of extra space there nominally for recreation. Has this been raised with Cheh?

Surprise: Hearst ES is at capacity. And, the shelter is not within the Hearst ES boundaries. Using your logic, should the kids who live in the new buildings being built in Tenleytown not attend their neighborhood schoo. (Janney).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You think having a recreation facility full of kids adjacent to a police station where perpetrators are regularly brought is a good idea? On more than one occasion I've seen guys just released from the precinct holding cell sitting on the curb putting their shoe laces back in. You would endorse this idea over upgrading a park that is currently a dust bowl doggy toilet? Please, please, please publically suggest this idea so everyone can laugh at you.

Signed,
Entitled Ward 3 resident who is actually worried about homeless kids dipping their toes in the same pool as her over-protected upper caucasian toddler.

uh...actually, the Mayor's proposal would put 50 families (as many as 100+ kids) in residence next to the police station and the existing park grounds. If it's appropriate to live next to, and appropriate to garden next to, and appropriate to play next to, why shouldn't it be appropriate to swim next to?

And by the way, have you seen the land on which the park sits? MUCH HUUUGER than Hearst. Why not put a pool there? There are a slew of gardens that are ? leased ? to private individuals in a very sunny area. This would be a perfect spot for a pool. Why was this spot not considered?

Is it funny at all to throw one group of kids (oob) under the bus for another (homeless)? The mini shelters were a terrible idea to begin with. How bout no mini shelters and a big, nice full service shelter somewhere that does not negatively impact the neighborhood? And bus the kids to school. These are supposed to be 120 day dwellings, not a permanent home .

Anonymous wrote:Responding to the top comment. The incoming PK class has only a handful of OOB with sibling, so there, in fact, is not extra room at Hearst. Call Mary Cheh if you have concerns about Hearst Park, but leave the school out of this discussion. It already is a neighborhood school.

Anonymous wrote:Hearst would just have to stop accepting out of boundary students. Without out of boundary, it has lots of capacity. It should serve as a neighborhood school. If people around Hearst don't want a pool, the homeless shelter for families is the next most appropriate use, if a shelter has to go somewhere in Ward 3. Then the pool can go in the park next to the police station.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I seriously don't understand why Hearst was not considered for the homeless shelter. There are only a handful of kids at the school there relative to most other elementary schools in upper nw dc. Hearst could easily absorb the extra students, and there is plenty of extra space there nominally for recreation. Has this been raised with Cheh?

Surprise: Hearst ES is at capacity. And, the shelter is not within the Hearst ES boundaries. Using your logic, should the kids who live in the new buildings being built in Tenleytown not attend their neighborhood schoo. (Janney).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You think having a recreation facility full of kids adjacent to a police station where perpetrators are regularly brought is a good idea? On more than one occasion I've seen guys just released from the precinct holding cell sitting on the curb putting their shoe laces back in. You would endorse this idea over upgrading a park that is currently a dust bowl doggy toilet? Please, please, please publically suggest this idea so everyone can laugh at you.

Signed,
Entitled Ward 3 resident who is actually worried about homeless kids dipping their toes in the same pool as her over-protected upper caucasian toddler.

uh...actually, the Mayor's proposal would put 50 families (as many as 100+ kids) in residence next to the police station and the existing park grounds. If it's appropriate to live next to, and appropriate to garden next to, and appropriate to play next to, why shouldn't it be appropriate to swim next to?

And by the way, have you seen the land on which the park sits? MUCH HUUUGER than Hearst. Why not put a pool there? There are a slew of gardens that are ? leased ? to private individuals in a very sunny area. This would be a perfect spot for a pool. Why was this spot not considered?

Anonymous wrote:Hearst would just have to stop accepting out of boundary students. Without out of boundary, it has lots of capacity. It should serve as a neighborhood school. If people around Hearst don't want a pool, the homeless shelter for families is the next most appropriate use, if a shelter has to go somewhere in Ward 3. Then the pool can go in the park next to the police station.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I seriously don't understand why Hearst was not considered for the homeless shelter. There are only a handful of kids at the school there relative to most other elementary schools in upper nw dc. Hearst could easily absorb the extra students, and there is plenty of extra space there nominally for recreation. Has this been raised with Cheh?

Surprise: Hearst ES is at capacity. And, the shelter is not within the Hearst ES boundaries. Using your logic, should the kids who live in the new buildings being built in Tenleytown not attend their neighborhood schoo. (Janney).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You think having a recreation facility full of kids adjacent to a police station where perpetrators are regularly brought is a good idea? On more than one occasion I've seen guys just released from the precinct holding cell sitting on the curb putting their shoe laces back in. You would endorse this idea over upgrading a park that is currently a dust bowl doggy toilet? Please, please, please publically suggest this idea so everyone can laugh at you.

Signed,
Entitled Ward 3 resident who is actually worried about homeless kids dipping their toes in the same pool as her over-protected upper caucasian toddler.

uh...actually, the Mayor's proposal would put 50 families (as many as 100+ kids) in residence next to the police station and the existing park grounds. If it's appropriate to live next to, and appropriate to garden next to, and appropriate to play next to, why shouldn't it be appropriate to swim next to?

And by the way, have you seen the land on which the park sits? MUCH HUUUGER than Hearst. Why not put a pool there? There are a slew of gardens that are ? leased ? to private individuals in a very sunny area. This would be a perfect spot for a pool. Why was this spot not considered?

Anonymous wrote:Hearst would just have to stop accepting out of boundary students. Without out of boundary, it has lots of capacity. It should serve as a neighborhood school. If people around Hearst don't want a pool, the homeless shelter for families is the next most appropriate use, if a shelter has to go somewhere in Ward 3. Then the pool can go in the park next to the police station.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I seriously don't understand why Hearst was not considered for the homeless shelter. There are only a handful of kids at the school there relative to most other elementary schools in upper nw dc. Hearst could easily absorb the extra students, and there is plenty of extra space there nominally for recreation. Has this been raised with Cheh?

Surprise: Hearst ES is at capacity. And, the shelter is not within the Hearst ES boundaries. Using your logic, should the kids who live in the new buildings being built in Tenleytown not attend their neighborhood schoo. (Janney).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You think having a recreation facility full of kids adjacent to a police station where perpetrators are regularly brought is a good idea? On more than one occasion I've seen guys just released from the precinct holding cell sitting on the curb putting their shoe laces back in. You would endorse this idea over upgrading a park that is currently a dust bowl doggy toilet? Please, please, please publically suggest this idea so everyone can laugh at you.

Signed,
Entitled Ward 3 resident who is actually worried about homeless kids dipping their toes in the same pool as her over-protected upper caucasian toddler.

uh...actually, the Mayor's proposal would put 50 families (as many as 100+ kids) in residence next to the police station and the existing park grounds. If it's appropriate to live next to, and appropriate to garden next to, and appropriate to play next to, why shouldn't it be appropriate to swim next to?

And by the way, have you seen the land on which the park sits? MUCH HUUUGER than Hearst. Why not put a pool there? There are a slew of gardens that are ? leased ? to private individuals in a very sunny area. This would be a perfect spot for a pool. Why was this spot not considered?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I seriously don't understand why Hearst was not considered for the homeless shelter. There are only a handful of kids at the school there relative to most other elementary schools in upper nw dc. Hearst could easily absorb the extra students, and there is plenty of extra space there nominally for recreation. Has this been raised with Cheh?

Surprise: Hearst ES is at capacity. And, the shelter is not within the Hearst ES boundaries. Using your logic, should the kids who live in the new buildings being built in Tenleytown not attend their neighborhood schoo. (Janney).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You think having a recreation facility full of kids adjacent to a police station where perpetrators are regularly brought is a good idea? On more than one occasion I've seen guys just released from the precinct holding cell sitting on the curb putting their shoe laces back in. You would endorse this idea over upgrading a park that is currently a dust bowl doggy toilet? Please, please, please publically suggest this idea so everyone can laugh at you.

Signed,
Entitled Ward 3 resident who is actually worried about homeless kids dipping their toes in the same pool as her over-protected upper caucasian toddler.

uh...actually, the Mayor's proposal would put 50 families (as many as 100+ kids) in residence next to the police station and the existing park grounds. If it's appropriate to live next to, and appropriate to garden next to, and appropriate to play next to, why shouldn't it be appropriate to swim next to?

And by the way, have you seen the land on which the park sits? MUCH HUUUGER than Hearst. Why not put a pool there? There are a slew of gardens that are ? leased ? to private individuals in a very sunny area. This would be a perfect spot for a pool. Why was this spot not considered?

Anonymous wrote:I love the classic NIMBY tactic of "Let's put it 'over there'"

This is a DPR facility. DPR doesn't control land in McLean Gardens. It does control Hearst. Hence, DPR needs to program Hearst to provide facilities and programming for District residents on property it controls. You, fine lady, do not get to decide how Hearst is programmed. It is a city decision based on gaps in programming, which were part of a report that indicated that Ward 3 needed 2 outdoor pools.

If you don't like it, then move. There will be plenty of people more than happy to pay for your house. I fact, do it sooner rather than later and save yourself the angst of trying to fight this.

Anonymous wrote:I seriously don't understand why Hearst was not considered for the homeless shelter. There are only a handful of kids at the school there relative to most other elementary schools in upper nw dc. Hearst could easily absorb the extra students, and there is plenty of extra space there nominally for recreation. Has this been raised with Cheh?

Surprise: Hearst ES is at capacity. And, the shelter is not within the Hearst ES boundaries. Using your logic, should the kids who live in the new buildings being built in Tenleytown not attend their neighborhood schoo. (Janney).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You think having a recreation facility full of kids adjacent to a police station where perpetrators are regularly brought is a good idea? On more than one occasion I've seen guys just released from the precinct holding cell sitting on the curb putting their shoe laces back in. You would endorse this idea over upgrading a park that is currently a dust bowl doggy toilet? Please, please, please publically suggest this idea so everyone can laugh at you.

Signed,
Entitled Ward 3 resident who is actually worried about homeless kids dipping their toes in the same pool as her over-protected upper caucasian toddler.

uh...actually, the Mayor's proposal would put 50 families (as many as 100+ kids) in residence next to the police station and the existing park grounds. If it's appropriate to live next to, and appropriate to garden next to, and appropriate to play next to, why shouldn't it be appropriate to swim next to?

And by the way, have you seen the land on which the park sits? MUCH HUUUGER than Hearst. Why not put a pool there? There are a slew of gardens that are ? leased ? to private individuals in a very sunny area. This would be a perfect spot for a pool. Why was this spot not considered?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You think having a recreation facility full of kids adjacent to a police station where perpetrators are regularly brought is a good idea? On more than one occasion I've seen guys just released from the precinct holding cell sitting on the curb putting their shoe laces back in. You would endorse this idea over upgrading a park that is currently a dust bowl doggy toilet? Please, please, please publically suggest this idea so everyone can laugh at you.

Signed,
Entitled Ward 3 resident who is actually worried about homeless kids dipping their toes in the same pool as her over-protected upper caucasian toddler.

uh...actually, the Mayor's proposal would put 50 families (as many as 100+ kids) in residence next to the police station and the existing park grounds. If it's appropriate to live next to, and appropriate to garden next to, and appropriate to play next to, why shouldn't it be appropriate to swim next to?

And by the way, have you seen the land on which the park sits? MUCH HUUUGER than Hearst. Why not put a pool there? There are a slew of gardens that are ? leased ? to private individuals in a very sunny area. This would be a perfect spot for a pool. Why was this spot not considered?