Reply to Hearst Playground story in Current

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Hearst Playground story in Current"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I will add:

- people I know who signed the anti-pool petition came away from the evening supportive of the idea, because they can see that DGS came up with several solutions that keep the open spaces while providing the amenities that all currently enjoy.

- now the anti-pool crowd is trying to make the argument that the proposed pool is too small, and there should be a full size pool that can host competitions and what

[/quote]

Actually,  I think you missed the point.  People were saying either (1) that the pool shown on the plans was unrealistically small...didn't show the full extent of what a pool complex requires,  once the concrete deck (which is several times the area of the water ), pool house,  chemical facility,  first aid etc are included. All of that needs to be in a secured enclosure with high fencing etc.  The pool shown on the plans looked more like a 'water feature' as a result. Or (2) those who were pro pool were critical because the pool shown was smaller than DPR had originally said would be built.

At least,  that is how I heard it.  But man that one guy trying to argue that we needed an outdoor pool so his daughters could have gender equity...what was up with that.  Whackor.
[/quote]

It was crystal clear what I heard. I think the PP above at 00:48 summarized it perfectly. The pool opponents (ie a handful of nearby neighbors) are grasping at whatever straws they (you) can to throw whatever you can against the wall hoping one thing sticks. As 00:48 summarized, when the opponent are so scattered in their message, it gets lost. Which is it? Is the pool too big or too small? Will it be overrun by people from all over the city, or will it be a barren pool of tumbleweeds?

You don't know, so you say whatever you want with whatever hyperbole attached to it that you like in the hopes that someone will listen. The other thing, ther were about 20 of us in the back of the room who didn't get to speak because the opponents were incredibly disrespectful of the amount of time they were taking to grandstand points and issues that had nothing to do with the park or a pool.

I have lived in Ward 3 since 1972 and since day one of my living in the Ward, not having an outdoor pool has been one of the issues that existed then that still eists today. It has actually been a conversation of disdain for residents I have lived around for all of that time, so this long time resident is thrilled to see the city and DGS/DPR finally taking action to address this issue.

Wacko is the residents who don't understand that having this $10 Million investment into the park is going greatly enhance their property values. People want to live near a park and having easy access to a neighborhood pool is a major bonus. And if you are going to use names to refer to one of your neighbors who raises an interesting perspective - one that hadn't been raise before, then that is just rude. You don't agree with him, that's fine. I don't have girls, so it isn't an issue that is on my mind. However, every single person who spoke last night complained about how the boys bathroom is inaccessible and the boys had to pee outside. No one talked about their girls. Not one. And most of the pool opponents are long time residents whose mantra was "my kids grew up loving the park as it is" - that is great, but we have an opportunity to have all of the same amenities - a big field, the grand trees, tennis courts and yes a pool too!

So please, give a real reason as to why there shouldn't be a pool at Hearst. The ones presented thus far boil down to "we don't like change" and "we don't want others coming to OUR park"

[/quote]

You were in the back of the room because you were late and that was the only seating left. [/quote]

We were later because we have jobs that fund your social security. We don't hang around all day at the lamp store in Cleveland Park coming up with ridiculous NIMBY arguments. [/quote]

Yup I was also late and in the back of the room because I have young children and after working a full day needed to get them from school and get them fed before I could come to the meeting.  I'm pretty confident that most of the opponents who filled the front seats (and completely dominated the meeting) don't have young children to look after and I bet many of them no longer work either.

There is a reason why public meetings in DC tend to be dominated by the older keep the status quo crowd - but that representation at meetings is in no way representative of the larger population.  Sadly the pro status quo crowd often dominates the process and wins the arguments and the entire city suffers as a result.

But at least Ward 3 will continue to have an excess of available tennis courts.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics