Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ShimbyHimbo t1_iuhhash wrote

The important part is what are they trying to "save" it from?

151

NotAnActualPers0n t1_iuhjzz5 wrote

  1. Setup campaign to help X public works
  2. Co-opt idiot fringe through messaging
  3. Idiot fringe hits the ground running
  4. ???
  5. Non-Profit.
145

jayzfanacc t1_iuhscnr wrote

This is actually a brilliant idea.

Somebody do it but for ending kill shelters

11

ponderingaresponse t1_iui0kaw wrote

That term is so destructive and divisive. Let's collectively create a massive overpopulation problem,grossly under fund animal shelters and public programs to reduce population, and then blame the people who work there.

43

IcyWillow1193 t1_iui7fu8 wrote

found the PETA member

−15

ponderingaresponse t1_iui7tq2 wrote

LOL, hardly. Those folks do a lot of damage, too.

Nope, I'm not employed by any of those folks. I do foster care for local shelters, and have placed over 200 animals over time. "Kill" vs. "No Kill" is language that was invented to divide animal welfare and for fundraising purposes. Really awful what it has done over the decades, and how many people are fooled into thinking "no kill" is a responsible position to take.

31

koalapsychologist t1_iuicxx1 wrote

Thank you! "No kill" can mean warehousing unadoptable dogs for years instead of giving them a good last day and a humane death. Warehousing is torture and cruelty. It can also mean knowingly adopting out dogs with massive behavioral issues that should not be adopted and then just praying that a tragedy doesn't strike. Responsible animal stewardship involves proper care from birth to death.

21

cheeeeesey t1_iui8e4y wrote

Thank you for vocalizing this opinion!! So important. The term and concept is destructive and actually leads to more suffering.

14

IcyWillow1193 t1_iuiolm1 wrote

How about we adequately fund shelters and population control, and also agree that euthanasia should never be an acceptable answer for inconvenient animals any more than it is for humans?

1

ponderingaresponse t1_iuioyqa wrote

Yup.

FWIW, I've been around animal sheltering for over 2 decades, in various parts of the country, and never seen an animal euthanized for inconvenience. Overwhelmed, emotionally numb staff, yes. Pointing fingers at them is lazy and ineffective.

5

Kriegerian t1_iuicqz7 wrote

They probably think child rape tunnels are under it or going to be installed or something.

1

Just_Type_2149 t1_iuhnde5 wrote

Maybe it's a reverse psychology way of getting the school built faster.

123

9throwawayDERP t1_iui4us9 wrote

I wish they had built/kept the school for DCPS a decade ago. I have a feeling that this school is on the chopping block though - but not for NIMBY reasons. Many of the kids that would go to this school are currently zoned for and walk to Stoddert.

Unlike Foxhall, the Stoddert area has built about ~800 new apartments in the last ~7ish years (Glover House and a bunch of conversions). In Ward 3, the Stoddert area is one of the highest density catchment areas - it doesn't really have detached homes at all (there are technically 4). All the kids are close enough to walk to school. The only drivers are kids who lottery in/commit DC residency fraud (which admittedly is a non-trivial number).

The council has just decided to try to make Stoddert expand, rather than try to make all the parents drive to the 'suburbs/foxhall' for elementary schooling. They are slowly realizing that getting kids from census tracts with 20K people/sq mi (Glover Park) to 5K people/sq mi (Foxhall/Palisades) is really silly.

Basically building a school in a very low-density area isn't good urbanism. The school really only made sense if they upzoned the surrounding area to get to about 10K people/sq mi.

The central problem is the NIMBYism of the area.

33

superdookietoiletexp t1_iuipogf wrote

There is density along MacArthur Blvd., but the lack of a neighborhood elementary school and distance from other schools has driven parents away. The new schools will attract parents and change the character of the neighborhood, which is what has got the retirees so upset. None of us knows exactly how many elementary school age kids live in Foxhall, but there are probably more than enough to fall a small (300 student) school.

5

9throwawayDERP t1_iuj3jv4 wrote

bit of a chicken-egg thing, huh?

Density along mcarthur is 1/5 of that of wisconsin south of tenly circle. We do know how many school age children live in the Foxhall-ish area. IRS, as well as 2020 Census data know exactly. DC also has access to this.

I'm counting 399 using block group data as the average of the last 5-years between 5 and 10 years old. But since I'm lazy, I'm including a good chunk of the Wesley/Mann catchment and going pretty much all the way to Key ES and who can't really walk to it. This includes kids who go to privates, which are quite popular in the area. I'm betting you can't really get more than 250 students who can walk to it; even accounting for diversion from privates)

DC was planning a 500 student school there. Mechanically they cannot get enough students for that within walking range. I don't think the fixed cost of a 250 or even 300 student school is worth it for DC. If they build it, it will be to mostly bus/drive in students. I'm ok with that, but let us not kid ourselves into thinking there are tons and tons of elementary school kids there now.

Really, unless they completely upzone the area, you aren't going to get many more people and that includes kids.

2

superdookietoiletexp t1_iuj52m2 wrote

I agree that a ~500 student school is too big for right now. A ~300 student school would however relieve overcrowding at the other elementaries feeding Hardy and give the city the classroom space it needs to guarantee Pre-K via DCPS across the city (which would be a huge deal).

The area will inevitably densify as families move in to the area to access the new high school and so it’d make sense to build it large enough to add additional classrooms as necessary. LAB is only using 1/2 of the Old Hardy building as it is so hopefully the city to take back what they are not using and use that for the new school with an annex on the parking lot beside the building. Best case scenario is to overturn the lease extension but I can’t see how that would ever happen.

0

sdforbda t1_iuhhonq wrote

Well I know there's been talk about building another school and that group isn't big on education.

88

NotYourSnowBunny t1_iuhpz3g wrote

Not at all, long term they want to erode all research in the STEM field after cutting education funding and attacking teachers. All it does is give China the upper hand and facilitate their expansion goals. It’ll set the US back decades.

17

__mud__ t1_iui4t96 wrote

Obviously they hate any sort of social science, but Q is against STEM now?

4

NotYourSnowBunny t1_iui4zxn wrote

Q has always been against STEM because part of STEM is science, and their anti-mask and anti-vaccine stances inherently are anti-science.

14

__mud__ t1_iui7007 wrote

Ah, good point. I think I got Q confused with redpillers who worship the Elon Musk types. So many conspiracy hate groups it's hard to tell them apart.

7

NotYourSnowBunny t1_iui7cvq wrote

When you say “redpillers” you mean incels right? Isn’t the whole red/blue/black pill stuff just rhetoric they use to describe outlook on life? I’m not too familiar with it because I’ve always kept the incel community away from me, or tried to at least.

They’ve tried to bring me into their cult of self loathing and it’s always amused me because I’m not a virgin and don’t have any problems getting laid. Still, they’ve messaged me on Reddit before saying that I’m a liar and haven’t ever had sex. Once I woke up in bed with my at the time boyfriend to messages saying I was a virgin. Like “how? do you even know what I did last night?”

1

__mud__ t1_iui9bxb wrote

I think of redpillers as being incels that really bought into and actively seek out the toxic side.

Like an incel can be someone grumpy about their lack of sex life and puts the blame on others, but that's not down the conspiracy rabbit hole like the people who think women/leftists/minorities are deliberately emasculating men in order to take control and...whatever they think the endgame is, idk.

4

vertknecht t1_iuidc6m wrote

Pilled/redpilled is a matrix reference. All it means is that you “see the world the way it really is” based on the context of the conversation

1

AnnaPhor t1_iuhjhgi wrote

<checks date>

I suspect that's what passes for spooky in some parts of DC, no?

66

vanmac82 t1_iuhglz1 wrote

I’m not sure if this is interesting or alarming.

Decided on alarming

41

Flame87 t1_iuhi6nf wrote

Are they tearing down the park because it's where Republicans take their child lovers?

12

blueeeyeddl t1_iuhkpb3 wrote

They want to build a school on Hardy Park and the neighborhood wants to keep the park. Idk what QAnoners have to do with it tho?

10

superdookietoiletexp t1_iuhrm65 wrote

No one has any plan build a school “on” Hardy Park. The proposal is to build a school beside the park that would keep all playing surfaces and facilities intact (and enhance many of them). Many people in the neighborhood have ES-age children and want the neighborhood public school that all other DC neighborhoods have. However, a handful of retirees - who have opposed proposals for a public school in the neighborhood even when it would have occupied an existing building - are peddling scary falsehoods to make the proposal out to be something it is not.

50

9throwawayDERP t1_iui30mh wrote

the school is mostly for the rest of the city. the neighborhood doesn't have enough density to support a school. And now that the council has 'protected' stoddert-zoned kids from going there, at least 50% of the enrollment will be from out of boundary.

now why doesn't the neighborhood have enough density to support a walkable school? NIMBYism from the same retirees who are don't want a school.

issue: palisades are NIMBY haven. we should just jack up taxes on all of them.

12

dcearthlover t1_iuhugrk wrote

Wasn't there a school there that was torn down before they made it a park bc it was not being used and now that schools are overcrowded they are building it again?

9

9throwawayDERP t1_iui2v93 wrote

Nah, they gave to building away to a private school in a sweetheart deal due to standard issue corruption,

10

Formergr t1_iuhlnph wrote

It took me a second but I guess it’s the “Q:” on the sign that prompted that. But maybe it’s just a Q as in Q&A.

ETA: I was wrong, looks like it’s very much a Q Anon thing.

0

blueeeyeddl t1_iuhlsbv wrote

No it’s the WWG1WGA that’s the QAnon fckery. “Where we go one we go all”

38

Formergr t1_iuhmmtu wrote

Aaah thank you; didn’t know about that one. Yuck.

9

AdvisorSuspicious915 t1_iuht8gw wrote

From what I’ve gathered they don’t need an origin point grounded in logic, could be anything with those people 😂

8

Davidious2000 t1_iuigiil wrote

Because they failed Jan. 6 and trying to start again with smaller goals.

4

Panda_alley t1_iuhu86s wrote

its a joke, folks

&#x200B;

edit: for the classic wound-way-too-tight redditors. the point is that its a joke, whether you find it funny or unfunny. half the thread are people unironically thinking its serious. (i personally think its kind of funny, if you think its a pro-school person mocking the save hardy park side, given what I've read of the "no new school" positions)

2

IcyWillow1193 t1_iuin8rv wrote

It's a stupid joke. It's about as funny as dressing up as a Nazi for Halloween.

−1

blakespot t1_iuipe9u wrote

The neighborhood across the street from Hardy Park, behind Jetties, is so lovely. We were walking around there (again) not long ago and there were many signs like this - not sure about the Q:, but Save Hardy Park. From what, we asked ourselves.

1

Introverts_United t1_iuimfk4 wrote

Wow. I thought anything Q was over and done with. Surprise,surprise.

0

3Effie412 t1_iuia2ye wrote

Why do people not want to save the park?

−1

revbfc t1_iuij418 wrote

The park isn’t the issue, QAnon dummies aren’t welcome in DC.

1

3Effie412 t1_iujc5yi wrote

So you share their concerns about the park?

−2

ponderingaresponse t1_iuie50n wrote

Yes. Unfortunately a lot of well meaning people get fooled. Animal sheltering is moving away from shelters and into communities, which is where the real opportunity seems to be

−1