Hearst Playground story in Current
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Ha! Isn't the problem that Hearst is so small that at the end of the day, they likely will end up having to cut the size of the field and literally move the goal posts for a petite pool? It's the wrong place for a wrong-sized facility |
Anonymous
I'm ready for someone new but his website is just about useless - what does he even stand for? Would he, for example, stand up to the NIMBYIST neighbors of Hearst Park and do what Cheh hasn't done and get this project to the finish line which would more broadly benefit the Ward he wants to represent? Or would he say the issue needs to be studied more and a greater effort to listen to the neighbors is needed and we should waste a few more years hoping for a different answer from NPS? If we cross paths I'll ask and post his response here. |
Anonymous
Nope nope and nope - none of those things are actual problems - I'd tell you to go and read the rest of this thread but you already know that. |
Anonymous
The pools at Uphsur, Volta and Jelleff are less than a 20 min drive and free. Have you tried them out? |
Anonymous
Yup been to all 3 - myself and my neighbors want, and deserve, a pool in our own neighborhood. A pool our kids can get to on their own. A pool we can walk or ride our bikes to. Or take the bus to. Or get to in 3 minutes if we decide to drive. A pool where we are likely to run into our neighbors, none of whom are going across town for a pool. A pool that is close enough that it would be worth our time to go to for an hour at the end of the day instead of being a half day expedition. A pool that is close enough our kids could on their own participate in an aquatics program or swim team. But CP keeping on being NIMBY's - Mary Cheh is listening unfortunately. |
Anonymous
Ah, the deserving poor.... |
Anonymous
Ah, the anguished wealthy of Cleveland Park, having to share their public park with.... the public. |
Anonymous
You've clearly never been to Hearst Park on a weekend in the fall and spring soccer seasons when there are nonstop games from 8 in the morning until 6 in the evening, involving hundreds of players and family members coming and going from Hearst. Hearst is not, and has never been, a private park. In fact, the concern with the pool is that it will impact the facilities (tennis courts, field, etc.) that the PUBLIC uses during most of the year, for a facility that will sit empty at least nine months out of the year. |
Anonymous
I thought it was the anguished wealthy of Cleveland Park who are whining about "deserv[ing] a pool in [their] own neighborhood. Which is it? |
Anonymous
Actually I've been to Hearst Park many, many times. The only time that park is used with any intensity is by Stoddert on Saturdays in the spring and fall. And there is just one field so there have never, ever, been hundreds of players and family members coming and going it just might feel like that if you are paranoid and peering out from behind your curtain. The reality is that most of the year, including when the weather is nice, hardly anyone is using the park. Including the tennis courts which are barely used. In any case this is a dumb argument by the opponents - the latest proposal would not touch the soccer field and would only impact the barely used tennis courts. |
Anonymous
Huh?? The immediate neighbors, who live in Cleveland Park, have been opposing the pool. Literally everyone else in Ward 3 (which is where Cleveland Park is located in case you are confused) would like to have a pool somewhere in their neighborhood. |
Anonymous
I live in AU Park. Hearst Park isn't my neighborhood, and I'd prefer a larger ward pool in a more central location. It seems that someone who lives nearby to Hearst and REALLY, REALLY WANTS THEIR OWN NEIGHBORHOOD POOL is demonizing her own neighbors who want to preserve Hearst. It's a stretch to dismiss those who don't want the pool as "immediate neighbors who live in Cleveland Park" yet suggest that those who support a pool belong to a Ward 3 "neighborhood." |
Anonymous
|
I would like a pool in walking or easy biking distance for me and my kids. Hearst checks that box in a way that no other outdoor DPR pool in the city does.
|
Anonymous
Well you are repeating one of the false talking points (Hearst needs to be preserved) of the Hearst neighbors - so you are either one of those neighbors or have been misinformed by one of those neighbors. Hearst is a very central location - it is just as central as Fort Reno. And as has been repeatedly stated NPS has never signaled a willingness to allow a pool at Fort Reno. And if you'd attended the meetings you'd also know that DPR has repeatedly stated that they are going to put the same size pool in Ward 3 as they do everywhere else. I too would like a bigger pool and Fort Reno would be a better location for us (and more important my kids) but we've been discussing this for more than 5 years and there is no end in sight nor is there a path to a pool at Fort Reno. Hearst is a great location for a pool and the neighbors arguments in opposition are almost entirely typical NIMBYIST nonsense so it is time for a decision and some construction so the pool will open while I still have kids. |
Anonymous
Turtle Park would be the best. More than any other location in Ward 3, it is definitely "kid central." It's also walking distance from the Tenley Metro and the bus lines on Wisconsin and Mass. |