Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

Community meeting about the Hearst Pool information is below:

Date: April 5, 2018
Location: Hearst Elementary School (in the gym)
Time: 6:30 pm - 8:00 pm

[Anonymous]

I wish they would build the pool already. Hearst is a great location for the pool. The field and tennis courts are always deserted except on weekends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wish they would build the pool already. Hearst is a great location for the pool. The field and tennis courts are always deserted except on weekends.

Not true. Moreover, the field and tennis courts are used 9 months out of the year. A pool, even if DC DPR maintains and staffs it (a big IF in DC), will be open at most 3 months per year. Not a great tradeoff. Better to build a pool where there's more room available and existing recreational assets won't have to be sacrificed for something that will sit barricaded and empty for three quarters of the year.

[Anonymous]

I am more than happy to sacrifice 1-2 tennis courts for 3 months of an outdoor pool.

No brainer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish they would build the pool already. Hearst is a great location for the pool. The field and tennis courts are always deserted except on weekends.

Not true. Moreover, the field and tennis courts are used 9 months out of the year. A pool, even if DC DPR maintains and staffs it (a big IF in DC), will be open at most 3 months per year. Not a great tradeoff. Better to build a pool where there's more room available and existing recreational assets won't have to be sacrificed for something that will sit barricaded and empty for three quarters of the year.

What a dumb post - the tennis courts are barely used full of nonsensical hyperbole.

Thanks for the earlier post about tomorrow nights meeting - someone from our household will be at the meeting to speak up against these selfish and entitled neighbors and hopefully someone from Mary Cheh's office will be there to hear what we have to say so she knows in an election year it would be a good idea to get this one over the finish line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish they would build the pool already. Hearst is a great location for the pool. The field and tennis courts are always deserted except on weekends.

Not true. Moreover, the field and tennis courts are used 9 months out of the year. A pool, even if DC DPR maintains and staffs it (a big IF in DC), will be open at most 3 months per year. Not a great tradeoff. Better to build a pool where there's more room available and existing recreational assets won't have to be sacrificed for something that will sit barricaded and empty for three quarters of the year.

What a dumb post - the tennis courts are barely used full of nonsensical hyperbole.

Thanks for the earlier post about tomorrow nights meeting - someone from our household will be at the meeting to speak up against these selfish and entitled neighbors and hopefully someone from Mary Cheh's office will be there to hear what we have to say so she knows in an election year it would be a good idea to get this one over the finish line.

PP, as property owners they have the right to self-interest as do you as someone who supports the pool. Characterizing them as "selfish" for opposing a pool that obviously impacts them as park neighbors. is inviting karma to eminent domain your neighboring house to build a waste treatment facility. What would be selfish is if they proposed it in another location that negatively impacted a similar group of neighbors. For example, the group that Mary Cheh conceded to by moving the ward 3 homeless shelter plan to another terribly chosen location were "selfish" if they knew they were simply bumping the challenges they faced to another group of homeowners. Moving the pool to Ft. Reno (the best sounding suggestion so far) does not do that.

[Anonymous]

I wouldn't mind seeing a pool, even at Hearst, but the proposed location is about the worst place for it. It's sandwiched in next to two steep hillsides (requiring an expensive elevator tower) and will be completely in shade for much of the day. It will feel like swimming at the bottom of a bathtub. Either find a better site, like below the Hearst Park shelter, or better yet, build the pool at Fort Reno where it will have more room and be more accessible to more people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish they would build the pool already. Hearst is a great location for the pool. The field and tennis courts are always deserted except on weekends.

Not true. Moreover, the field and tennis courts are used 9 months out of the year. A pool, even if DC DPR maintains and staffs it (a big IF in DC), will be open at most 3 months per year. Not a great tradeoff. Better to build a pool where there's more room available and existing recreational assets won't have to be sacrificed for something that will sit barricaded and empty for three quarters of the year.

What a dumb post - the tennis courts are barely used full of nonsensical hyperbole.

Thanks for the earlier post about tomorrow nights meeting - someone from our household will be at the meeting to speak up against these selfish and entitled neighbors and hopefully someone from Mary Cheh's office will be there to hear what we have to say so she knows in an election year it would be a good idea to get this one over the finish line.

PP, as property owners they have the right to self-interest as do you as someone who supports the pool. Characterizing them as "selfish" for opposing a pool that obviously impacts them as park neighbors. is inviting karma to eminent domain your neighboring house to build a waste treatment facility. What would be selfish is if they proposed it in another location that negatively impacted a similar group of neighbors. For example, the group that Mary Cheh conceded to by moving the ward 3 homeless shelter plan to another terribly chosen location were "selfish" if they knew they were simply bumping the challenges they faced to another group of homeowners. Moving the pool to Ft. Reno (the best sounding suggestion so far) does not do that.

Moreover, sometimes the Hearst pool pushers themelves come across as whiny, "selfish and entitled." Lots of talk about how they demand their neighborhood pool, without regard to consideration of more central, accessible locations in the ward, the negative impact of a pool on other recreational uses at Hearst Park and the fact that the Hearst neighborhood is not exactly deprived when it comes to swimming opportunities today (including being within walking distance to a year-round public pool, a short bus ride to two public outdoor pools and various private and apartment complex options in the area as well). Let's have a thoughtful, respectful discussion about the pool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish they would build the pool already. Hearst is a great location for the pool. The field and tennis courts are always deserted except on weekends.

Not true. Moreover, the field and tennis courts are used 9 months out of the year. A pool, even if DC DPR maintains and staffs it (a big IF in DC), will be open at most 3 months per year. Not a great tradeoff. Better to build a pool where there's more room available and existing recreational assets won't have to be sacrificed for something that will sit barricaded and empty for three quarters of the year.

What a dumb post - the tennis courts are barely used full of nonsensical hyperbole.

Thanks for the earlier post about tomorrow nights meeting - someone from our household will be at the meeting to speak up against these selfish and entitled neighbors and hopefully someone from Mary Cheh's office will be there to hear what we have to say so she knows in an election year it would be a good idea to get this one over the finish line.

PP, as property owners they have the right to self-interest as do you as someone who supports the pool. Characterizing them as "selfish" for opposing a pool that obviously impacts them as park neighbors. is inviting karma to eminent domain your neighboring house to build a waste treatment facility. What would be selfish is if they proposed it in another location that negatively impacted a similar group of neighbors. For example, the group that Mary Cheh conceded to by moving the ward 3 homeless shelter plan to another terribly chosen location were "selfish" if they knew they were simply bumping the challenges they faced to another group of homeowners. Moving the pool to Ft. Reno (the best sounding suggestion so far) does not do that.

Moreover, sometimes the Hearst pool pushers themelves come across as whiny, "selfish and entitled." Lots of talk about how they demand their neighborhood pool, without regard to consideration of more central, accessible locations in the ward, the negative impact of a pool on other recreational uses at Hearst Park and the fact that the Hearst neighborhood is not exactly deprived when it comes to swimming opportunities today (including being within walking distance to a year-round public pool, a short bus ride to two public outdoor pools and various private and apartment complex options in the area as well). Let's have a thoughtful, respectful discussion about the pool.

This sounds like a rational response.

Except for the somewhat relevant fact that none of your arguments are actually true. I'm not going to waste time responding to your arguments because they've been debunked over and over in this thread.

So how about we have a fact based discussion?

And you are asking for a thoughtful discussion by suggestion that the proponents have not been thoughtful - how is that thoughtful and respectful exactly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't mind seeing a pool, even at Hearst, but the proposed location is about the worst place for it. It's sandwiched in next to two steep hillsides (requiring an expensive elevator tower) and will be completely in shade for much of the day. It will feel like swimming at the bottom of a bathtub. Either find a better site, like below the Hearst Park shelter, or better yet, build the pool at Fort Reno where it will have more room and be more accessible to more people.

Again these things are not true.

Please go to the Bethesda Pool in summer (it is the one we go to because it is 20 minutes closer to where we live than any outdoor DC Public Pool) and the first filled spaces around the pool are always those in the shade. I realize it is hard to remember this is April when it is 35 degrees out but we have hot summers here.

Which is why we need a pool.

And why the many people who go to a pool and don't necessarily swim like shade.

Again Ft Reno is a non-starter. There is not going to be a public pool on NPS land.

And like swimming at the bottom of a bath tub? I've actually played tennis on those tennis courts (they are always available since they are barely used) and it is not like playing tennis in the bottom of a bath tub so not sure why you think this bit of hyperbole will resonate with anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish they would build the pool already. Hearst is a great location for the pool. The field and tennis courts are always deserted except on weekends.

Not true. Moreover, the field and tennis courts are used 9 months out of the year. A pool, even if DC DPR maintains and staffs it (a big IF in DC), will be open at most 3 months per year. Not a great tradeoff. Better to build a pool where there's more room available and existing recreational assets won't have to be sacrificed for something that will sit barricaded and empty for three quarters of the year.

What a dumb post - the tennis courts are barely used full of nonsensical hyperbole.

Thanks for the earlier post about tomorrow nights meeting - someone from our household will be at the meeting to speak up against these selfish and entitled neighbors and hopefully someone from Mary Cheh's office will be there to hear what we have to say so she knows in an election year it would be a good idea to get this one over the finish line.

PP, as property owners they have the right to self-interest as do you as someone who supports the pool. Characterizing them as "selfish" for opposing a pool that obviously impacts them as park neighbors. is inviting karma to eminent domain your neighboring house to build a waste treatment facility. What would be selfish is if they proposed it in another location that negatively impacted a similar group of neighbors. For example, the group that Mary Cheh conceded to by moving the ward 3 homeless shelter plan to another terribly chosen location were "selfish" if they knew they were simply bumping the challenges they faced to another group of homeowners. Moving the pool to Ft. Reno (the best sounding suggestion so far) does not do that.

The nearby neighbors certainly have the right to advocate for what they perceive to be their interests.

But lets be clear those interests in this case are selfish ones - what is in their interests versus what is in the interests of the broader neighborhood.

And I love the straw man trash transfer station argument!

We are debating the best use of a public park.

Again for the ten thousandth time a pool is not happening at Ft Reno.

These neighbors bought homes adjacent to a park that is older than anyone living in the neighborhood. I don't think it is unreasonable to think those folks should have been aware that the public would have an interest in using that park and that the use might change over time. That is certainly something that happens with publicly owned properties all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish they would build the pool already. Hearst is a great location for the pool. The field and tennis courts are always deserted except on weekends.

Not true. Moreover, the field and tennis courts are used 9 months out of the year. A pool, even if DC DPR maintains and staffs it (a big IF in DC), will be open at most 3 months per year. Not a great tradeoff. Better to build a pool where there's more room available and existing recreational assets won't have to be sacrificed for something that will sit barricaded and empty for three quarters of the year.

What a dumb post - the tennis courts are barely used full of nonsensical hyperbole.

Thanks for the earlier post about tomorrow nights meeting - someone from our household will be at the meeting to speak up against these selfish and entitled neighbors and hopefully someone from Mary Cheh's office will be there to hear what we have to say so she knows in an election year it would be a good idea to get this one over the finish line.

PP, as property owners they have the right to self-interest as do you as someone who supports the pool. Characterizing them as "selfish" for opposing a pool that obviously impacts them as park neighbors. is inviting karma to eminent domain your neighboring house to build a waste treatment facility. What would be selfish is if they proposed it in another location that negatively impacted a similar group of neighbors. For example, the group that Mary Cheh conceded to by moving the ward 3 homeless shelter plan to another terribly chosen location were "selfish" if they knew they were simply bumping the challenges they faced to another group of homeowners. Moving the pool to Ft. Reno (the best sounding suggestion so far) does not do that.

The nearby neighbors certainly have the right to advocate for what they perceive to be their interests.

But lets be clear those interests in this case are selfish ones - what is in their interests versus what is in the interests of the broader neighborhood.

And I love the straw man trash transfer station argument!

We are debating the best use of a public park.

Again for the ten thousandth time a pool is not happening at Ft Reno.

These neighbors bought homes adjacent to a park that is older than anyone living in the neighborhood. I don't think it is unreasonable to think those folks should have been aware that the public would have an interest in using that park and that the use might change over time. That is certainly something that happens with publicly owned properties all the time.

I would use Hearst pool, but I think it's careless wording to call neighbors who object selfish. Buying a home next to a park doesn't mean you anticipate and value every possible change (what if they put in a roller coaster?). I think neighbors have every right to weigh in, and their opinions should be respectfully evaluated even if not ultimately agreed with. Calling them selfish seems mean spirited.

[Anonymous]

Can we shut this thread down? Clearly neither side of the debate is going to change their increasingly shrill opinions, though I have the feeling it's basically just the same five people yelling at each other.

Just build it. Or don't. Just decide on something so these obnoxious people will finally shut up about this stupid pool.

[Anonymous]

So anyone go to the meeting?

[Anonymous]

Ft. Reno would be a substantially better location, and I say this as someone who lives EOTP and has no dog in the fight. The Hearst site is too small to have a pool and maintain other uses, while Ft. Reno could accommodate a pool and still have room for two large soccer fields. It is also closer to metro and would have a lot more sunshine, while a pool at Hearst would be very shaded.