Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Homeless shelter is going on the parking lot, not the tennis courts. It wouldn't matter, those courts are always open. Just like the ones at Hearst.

I won't take my kids to the playground on the corner there. Who wants to have their kids play (or play tennis for that matter), right up against a dog park with lots of barking dogs and the frequent odor of dog waste wafting in the air? DPR's construction of the dog park is perhaps a cautionary tale for Hearst. I am not making a direct comparison with a pool, but in McLean Gardens, DPR had to wedge the dog park in with a shoe horn. A variety of uses and stakeholder priorities are shoved right next to each other (including a community garden which is down the drainage slop from the dog park) in a parcel that is too small to accommodate all of them. The result is a mish-mash that doesn't work particularly well for any use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Homeless shelter is going on the parking lot, not the tennis courts. It wouldn't matter, those courts are always open. Just like the ones at Hearst.

What happens to the parking lot? Where will the police park? I've been to the station and the lot seems to be full.

[Anonymous]

I would rather go to a kids park with a dog run next to it then let my kid play soccer in the mine field of dog crap that the Hearst field is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its C-R-A-Z-Y to build on the field when there is a tennis court to build on. If DPR and Cheh would commit to building on the tennis courts, the number of opponents would drop dramatically.
1. It solves concern about preserving the park
2. It preserves the size of the field
3. No additional eyesore

+1

For the handful of people who use the courts, there are at least 13 public courts and another 14 private courts within about a 1/2 mile of Hearst. They benefit so few people per hour that it is barely a blip on the radar.

I don't know whether you are the one who is always quoting the hackneyed "you are not entitled to your own facts" phrase, but I call B.S. on your 'facts.' I would love to know where the 13 public tennis courts are within a half mile of Hearst. I can't find any. There are several tennis courts at UDC on Yuma -- at 0.7 miles away -- but they are not public. Members of the public have to pony up $325 annually for a family membership to UDC's "Firebirds" club to use them. http://udcfirebirds.com/information/Tennis_Court_Usage_and_Membership. Over a mile away, north of Tenley, are 3 public courts at Ft Reno and there are two courts at the Forest Hills Playground at 1.2 miles away. There are two courts at Turtle Park in AU Park, about 1.1 miles away. Removing the Hearst public courts would remove all of the public courts from the neighborhood, and a considerable fraction of the courts within 2 miles.

There are also courts in McLean Gardens behind the police station that are always empty. I use the UDC courts and have never paid a dime. Ok, so there are a lot of courts within a mile or so of Hearst. Most of them are almost never used. Thanks for making the point.

The UDC website says that the public has to pay approx. $300 for an annual membership to use the courts. So much for public use. Do you just ignore the membership requirement?

Apparently. Now THAT'S entitled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Quick quiz: Fill in the blanks in the following paragraph, using the words "swimming," "tennis" and "soccer."

My favorite recreational activity is ________. I like it so much more than ________ and ________ that I think more public space should be devoted to ________ so that I will have the opportunity for ________ at a location that is convenient to my house. It's OK if people who like ________ and ________ have to get in their cars and drive, and pay lots of money to use private facilities.

Given that 2 - 4 people at a time can use a tennis court, that hardly seems the best use of public space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Its C-R-A-Z-Y to build on the field when there is a tennis court to build on. If DPR and Cheh would commit to building on the tennis courts, the number of opponents would drop dramatically.
1. It solves concern about preserving the park
2. It preserves the size of the field
3. No additional eyesore

Agreed. The pool should go where the tennis courts are and should fully use that space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its C-R-A-Z-Y to build on the field when there is a tennis court to build on. If DPR and Cheh would commit to building on the tennis courts, the number of opponents would drop dramatically.
1. It solves concern about preserving the park
2. It preserves the size of the field
3. No additional eyesore

Agreed. The pool should go where the tennis courts are and should fully use that space.

It would mean that a large number of the oak shade trees would come down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quick quiz: Fill in the blanks in the following paragraph, using the words "swimming," "tennis" and "soccer."

My favorite recreational activity is ________. I like it so much more than ________ and ________ that I think more public space should be devoted to ________ so that I will have the opportunity for ________ at a location that is convenient to my house. It's OK if people who like ________ and ________ have to get in their cars and drive, and pay lots of money to use private facilities.

Given that 2 - 4 people at a time can use a tennis court, that hardly seems the best use of public space.

How many people at one time with use Cheh's itty-bitty pool?

[Anonymous]

If one were to cite a large number, it would drive the NIMBYs nuts, but if one were to cite a ow number, it would counter a cliam of "no one will use it" - so there is no point in hypothesizing, other than, more than the 4 who would use a tennis court each hour.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its C-R-A-Z-Y to build on the field when there is a tennis court to build on. If DPR and Cheh would commit to building on the tennis courts, the number of opponents would drop dramatically.
1. It solves concern about preserving the park
2. It preserves the size of the field
3. No additional eyesore

Agreed. The pool should go where the tennis courts are and should fully use that space.

It would mean that a large number of the oak shade trees would come down.

The pool destroys the current park. Putting it where the tennis courts are now would have the least impact on the core of the park. This is a horrible project but it they are going to do it, they should at least build on land that it is already covered in cement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its C-R-A-Z-Y to build on the field when there is a tennis court to build on. If DPR and Cheh would commit to building on the tennis courts, the number of opponents would drop dramatically.
1. It solves concern about preserving the park
2. It preserves the size of the field
3. No additional eyesore

Agreed. The pool should go where the tennis courts are and should fully use that space.

It would mean that a large number of the oak shade trees would come down.

The pool destroys the current park. Putting it where the tennis courts are now would have the least impact on the core of the park. This is a horrible project but it they are going to do it, they should at least build on land that it is already covered in cement.

A fair point, but then a lot of trees come down because the excavation for the pool and pool house would cut trees roots (the tennis court footprint is within the drip line) and most people wouldn't want a pool that is shaded most of the day anyway. And then if a couple of tennis courts are built elsewhere (as provided in two alternatives), even more green area is paved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quick quiz: Fill in the blanks in the following paragraph, using the words "swimming," "tennis" and "soccer."

My favorite recreational activity is ________. I like it so much more than ________ and ________ that I think more public space should be devoted to ________ so that I will have the opportunity for ________ at a location that is convenient to my house. It's OK if people who like ________ and ________ have to get in their cars and drive, and pay lots of money to use private facilities.

Given that 2 - 4 people at a time can use a tennis court, that hardly seems the best use of public space.

How many people at one time with use Cheh's itty-bitty pool?

You mean the Chitty-Bitty-Pity Pool?

[Anonymous]

At the end of the day there will be environmental concerns, perhaps even lawsuits, about plans to build a pool at Hearst. My guess is that a pool there will not happen.

[Anonymous]

i knew we could make 100 pages!

[Anonymous]

I walked by the park today. One possible site is to the east of the school and the shelter, where the portable classrooms used to be. It's quite possible to picture the pool there, as the site is even surrounded by a chain link fence! The site wouldn't bother the school, as the pool would be used on late spring weekends and during the summer, when school isn't in session. And the location right next to the parking lot would be so convenient. And it would mean that no current park feature would have to be sacrificed - not the big field or little field, the playground, tennis courts, trees. That might be a win-win spot.