Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In this week's Northwest Current is a report on legislation moving through Congress which could facilitate a Ward 3 pool on National Park Service land at Fort Reno, which would be larger than what needs to fit at Hearst Park.

This could be a definite win-win.

https://currentnewspapers.com/viewpoint-a-new-hope-for-a-pool-at-fort-reno/

Sure. That'll happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In this week's Northwest Current is a report on legislation moving through Congress which could facilitate a Ward 3 pool on National Park Service land at Fort Reno, which would be larger than what needs to fit at Hearst Park.

This could be a definite win-win.

https://currentnewspapers.com/viewpoint-a-new-hope-for-a-pool-at-fort-reno/

Sure. That'll happen.

It seems that even Mary Cheh now prefers Fort Reno over Hearst, assuming that it can be made t work with the Park Service.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In this week's Northwest Current is a report on legislation moving through Congress which could facilitate a Ward 3 pool on National Park Service land at Fort Reno, which would be larger than what needs to fit at Hearst Park.

This could be a definite win-win.

https://currentnewspapers.com/viewpoint-a-new-hope-for-a-pool-at-fort-reno/

Or we could keep moving forward with the plans for a pool at Hearst which would also be a win-win - an actual certain win-win instead of maybe it will somehow work out to put the pool on Federal land and maybe we'll get the pool in 5 or 10 years instead of two.

Like everything else the opponents have come up with it is a misleading and inaccurate letter though at least it acknowledges that none of the legacy oak trees will be lost which is the favorite lie of the immediate neighbors.

So Ward 3 should not get a pool because money should not be spent in Ward 3 in an election year? Huh? The Ward 3 Councilmember is up for re-election and getting a pool in her Ward will be a big boost for her popularity.

And no one cares about a 6 million expenditure in a city with a 10 billion dollar annual budget.

Money that was budgeted years ago.

And we shouldn't get a pool because it requires an elevator to be ADA compliant? I think that means the entire park is not ADA compliant so maybe it should be locked up!

And I love the line about the "Hearst Community" being opposed to the pool. No the "Hearst Community" is not opposed to the pool - the immediate neighbors are.

And what are the serious environmental drawbacks and how is it not economical or practical?

Coming up with a bunch of non-sense and getting it published in the NW Current does not make it rational, reasonable or true. It is just a bunch of non-sense.

Next please.

No particular dog in the pool here. But the Hearst plan sounds a little nutty: a small pool with a narrow deck, pushed up against two steep slopes often in shadow and an elevator tower from the street to the bottom of the slope. That doesn't seem especially rational or reasonable.

[Anonymous]

"And no one cares about a 6 million expenditure in a city with a 10 billion dollar annual budget."

They could give the $6 million to John Eaton School, which unlike Hearst has not been renovated. But the preliminary budget numbers for Eaton are far below other recent school projects, because the DC government is saying everything is tight now. So we will be happy to take that $6 million -- rather than using it less wisely by shoehorning in a glorified kiddie pool at a site that it seems that most folks (even pool proponents) admit is not ideal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In this week's Northwest Current is a report on legislation moving through Congress which could facilitate a Ward 3 pool on National Park Service land at Fort Reno, which would be larger than what needs to fit at Hearst Park.

This could be a definite win-win.

https://currentnewspapers.com/viewpoint-a-new-hope-for-a-pool-at-fort-reno/

Sure. That'll happen.

It seems that even Mary Cheh now prefers Fort Reno over Hearst, assuming that it can be made t work with the Park Service.

I don't know what you base that statement on - I've attended all but one of the public meetings and the DPR oversight hearing last spring and never heard Cheh utter or imply this.

In any case I'd prefer a pool at Fort Reno as it is a better location.

But Hearst is a perfectly good location.

And most of all I'd prefer a pool get built while my kids are actually children. When I first signed a petition in favor of a pool my oldest was a toddler. Now in a best case scenario he will be a teenager when the pool opens.

There is nothing inherently wrong with or difficult about the Hearst location that justifies how long this has taken nor is there anything about the Fort Reno location that is so superior that it is worth any additional delays.

Build the damn pool now - Ward 3 deserves what every other Ward has.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"And no one cares about a 6 million expenditure in a city with a 10 billion dollar annual budget."

They could give the $6 million to John Eaton School, which unlike Hearst has not been renovated. But the preliminary budget numbers for Eaton are far below other recent school projects, because the DC government is saying everything is tight now. So we will be happy to take that $6 million -- rather than using it less wisely by shoehorning in a glorified kiddie pool at a site that it seems that most folks (even pool proponents) admit is not ideal.

DC Government is not in any way lacking for funds right now. The city has been running large surpluses for more than a decade (and has 2 billion in its rainy day fund - so much that it is no longer adding to it) and has been spending lavishly on schools in particular.

Every school project that has come up in Ward 3 has, in the end, been fully funded.

And the money comes from different department's budgets - obviously money is fungible but DPR has had this money in its budget for 3 years now.

There is no reason Ward 3 cannot have nice schools and a an outdoor pool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In this week's Northwest Current is a report on legislation moving through Congress which could facilitate a Ward 3 pool on National Park Service land at Fort Reno, which would be larger than what needs to fit at Hearst Park.

This could be a definite win-win.

https://currentnewspapers.com/viewpoint-a-new-hope-for-a-pool-at-fort-reno/

Or we could keep moving forward with the plans for a pool at Hearst which would also be a win-win - an actual certain win-win instead of maybe it will somehow work out to put the pool on Federal land and maybe we'll get the pool in 5 or 10 years instead of two.

Like everything else the opponents have come up with it is a misleading and inaccurate letter though at least it acknowledges that none of the legacy oak trees will be lost which is the favorite lie of the immediate neighbors.

So Ward 3 should not get a pool because money should not be spent in Ward 3 in an election year? Huh? The Ward 3 Councilmember is up for re-election and getting a pool in her Ward will be a big boost for her popularity.

And no one cares about a 6 million expenditure in a city with a 10 billion dollar annual budget.

Money that was budgeted years ago.

And we shouldn't get a pool because it requires an elevator to be ADA compliant? I think that means the entire park is not ADA compliant so maybe it should be locked up!

And I love the line about the "Hearst Community" being opposed to the pool. No the "Hearst Community" is not opposed to the pool - the immediate neighbors are.

And what are the serious environmental drawbacks and how is it not economical or practical?

Coming up with a bunch of non-sense and getting it published in the NW Current does not make it rational, reasonable or true. It is just a bunch of non-sense.

Next please.

No particular dog in the pool here. But the Hearst plan sounds a little nutty: a small pool with a narrow deck, pushed up against two steep slopes often in shadow and an elevator tower from the street to the bottom of the slope. That doesn't seem especially rational or reasonable.

There is nothing nutty about the proposal at all which makes me doubt you are really an impartial commenter - it is a standard size pool that has an elevator to meet ADA requirements. Not sure what the steep slopes have to do with anything - they aren't even that steep - or why shade in the summer would be a bad thing. If you've been to the Bethesda Pool (which is where we go to and have to pay) the shady areas around the pool are always the first to fill up.

Maybe you aren't a pool opponent but the pool opponents are now moving the goal posts - after spending years falsely claiming that a pool won't fit or that it can be added without impacting the historic oak trees now we have a design that disproves both arguments. So they are left with with nonsensical arguments and wildly inaccurate letters to the editor.

[Anonymous]

How can a pool and deck surround that are smaller than a tennis court be worth building? This seems like a waste. If the pool were put in a more accessible area rather than being crammed against the hillsides, it wouldn't be necessary to spend $1 million for an outdoor elevator to go down the hillside. One can imagine that the elevator after a couple of years will be less clean than the condition of Metro elevators.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How can a pool and deck surround that are smaller than a tennis court be worth building? This seems like a waste. If the pool were put in a more accessible area rather than being crammed against the hillsides, it wouldn't be necessary to spend $1 million for an outdoor elevator to go down the hillside. One can imagine that the elevator after a couple of years will be less clean than the condition of Metro elevators.

I use a Metro elevator every day and have never noticed any issues with cleanliness so not sure if you are an actual user though reliability is another story.

The other stuff is simply not true - not sure if you are knowingly repeating the lies of the anti pool neighbors or simply repeating them because you don't know better but DPR is proposing a standard size DC swimming pool.

And again nothing is "crammed" against a hillside. People have been playing tennis in the same location for years though perhaps the reason hardly anyone uses these courts is because they are "crammed" against the hillside.

Also the entirety of the park is located downhill from the street so I'm not sure they have an alternative to putting in some means of getting mobility impaired folks up and down - in fact thinking out loud this location is about the highest point inside of the park and also adjacent to the street so this location probably requires the least expense to locate an ADA compliant pool here. You'd need an elaborate ramp system or multiple elevators to locate it elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Build the damn pool now - Ward 3 deserves what every other Ward has.

I hate the "Ward 3 needs a pool" argument because it's so illogical. Ward boundaries are invisible lines, they don't keep anyone from going anywhere. Just because the Volta pool and the Jelleff pool are in Ward 2 doesn't mean that people in Ward 3 can't use them. And are the people who live in Ward 4 in Chevy Chase somehow well-served because parts of their ward which are miles away have outdoor pools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Build the damn pool now - Ward 3 deserves what every other Ward has.

I hate the "Ward 3 needs a pool" argument because it's so illogical. Ward boundaries are invisible lines, they don't keep anyone from going anywhere. Just because the Volta pool and the Jelleff pool are in Ward 2 doesn't mean that people in Ward 3 can't use them. And are the people who live in Ward 4 in Chevy Chase somehow well-served because parts of their ward which are miles away have outdoor pools?

What's even more illogical is that the Van Ness/Reno area, from where presumably a lot of the cheerleading for "their own" Ward 3 pool is coming, is one of the more likely areas to be shifted from Ward 3 to Ward 4 in a future redistricting. Au revoir!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Build the damn pool now - Ward 3 deserves what every other Ward has.

I hate the "Ward 3 needs a pool" argument because it's so illogical. Ward boundaries are invisible lines, they don't keep anyone from going anywhere. Just because the Volta pool and the Jelleff pool are in Ward 2 doesn't mean that people in Ward 3 can't use them. And are the people who live in Ward 4 in Chevy Chase somehow well-served because parts of their ward which are miles away have outdoor pools?

There isn't anywhere in upper NW west of the park, regardless of ward, where there is a public outdoor pool. There are two in Georgetown, one in west end, several east on the east end and several on the east side and east of the park.

So I don't care about Ward placement, but I do care that there isn't one within walking or biking distance of where I live. That is ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Build the damn pool now - Ward 3 deserves what every other Ward has.

I hate the "Ward 3 needs a pool" argument because it's so illogical. Ward boundaries are invisible lines, they don't keep anyone from going anywhere. Just because the Volta pool and the Jelleff pool are in Ward 2 doesn't mean that people in Ward 3 can't use them. And are the people who live in Ward 4 in Chevy Chase somehow well-served because parts of their ward which are miles away have outdoor pools?

What's even more illogical is that the Van Ness/Reno area, from where presumably a lot of the cheerleading for "their own" Ward 3 pool is coming, is one of the more likely areas to be shifted from Ward 3 to Ward 4 in a future redistricting. Au revoir!

Not likely. First, with all of the new development on H Street, the Wharf, Anacostia and Petworth, with little new in Ward 3 other than around Tenley, it is unlikely that the Ward 3 boundaries would change significantly. if they were to change and get smaller, then the most likely scenarios are either parts of Woodley Park go to Ward 1 or parts of Palisades go to Ward 2. the Reno/Van Ness area is in the center of the ward and not likely to get redistricted out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can a pool and deck surround that are smaller than a tennis court be worth building? This seems like a waste. If the pool were put in a more accessible area rather than being crammed against the hillsides, it wouldn't be necessary to spend $1 million for an outdoor elevator to go down the hillside. One can imagine that the elevator after a couple of years will be less clean than the condition of Metro elevators.

I use a Metro elevator every day and have never noticed any issues with cleanliness so not sure if you are an actual user though reliability is another story.

The other stuff is simply not true - not sure if you are knowingly repeating the lies of the anti pool neighbors or simply repeating them because you don't know better but DPR is proposing a standard size DC swimming pool.

And again nothing is "crammed" against a hillside. People have been playing tennis in the same location for years though perhaps the reason hardly anyone uses these courts is because they are "crammed" against the hillside.

Also the entirety of the park is located downhill from the street so I'm not sure they have an alternative to putting in some means of getting mobility impaired folks up and down - in fact thinking out loud this location is about the highest point inside of the park and also adjacent to the street so this location probably requires the least expense to locate an ADA compliant pool here. You'd need an elaborate ramp system or multiple elevators to locate it elsewhere.

Not the PP but metro elevators smell like pee and have grime covered windows. Are you sure you ride them frequently?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can a pool and deck surround that are smaller than a tennis court be worth building? This seems like a waste. If the pool were put in a more accessible area rather than being crammed against the hillsides, it wouldn't be necessary to spend $1 million for an outdoor elevator to go down the hillside. One can imagine that the elevator after a couple of years will be less clean than the condition of Metro elevators.

I use a Metro elevator every day and have never noticed any issues with cleanliness so not sure if you are an actual user though reliability is another story.

The other stuff is simply not true - not sure if you are knowingly repeating the lies of the anti pool neighbors or simply repeating them because you don't know better but DPR is proposing a standard size DC swimming pool.

And again nothing is "crammed" against a hillside. People have been playing tennis in the same location for years though perhaps the reason hardly anyone uses these courts is because they are "crammed" against the hillside.

Also the entirety of the park is located downhill from the street so I'm not sure they have an alternative to putting in some means of getting mobility impaired folks up and down - in fact thinking out loud this location is about the highest point inside of the park and also adjacent to the street so this location probably requires the least expense to locate an ADA compliant pool here. You'd need an elaborate ramp system or multiple elevators to locate it elsewhere.

Not the PP but metro elevators smell like pee and have grime covered windows. Are you sure you ride them frequently?
M

DPR has allowed an abandoned cart full of old stuff to sit for month in the spot where DC says it will build an elevator. If this is any indication of how DC will clean and maintain it, then yes, the elevator will be smelly and filthy.