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]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 [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.  [/quote]

Wait - so let me get this straight - it is ok for people who need to go to the pool to have to drive all over the region to get to one even though that demographic often includes kids who should be able to go to the pool by themselves in the summer to congregate with their friends but the older tennis crowd should be entitled to a tennis court they can walk to?  Does that seem at all equitable or reasonable?

As for available tennis courts I'm not the earlier poster but off the top of my head:

Ft Reno - 2 courts
Turtle Park - 2 courts
Livingston Park - 2 courts
Palisades Park - 2 courts
Volta - 2 courts
Rock Creek Park - 2 courts
Forest Hills Playground - 2 courts
Lafayette - 2 courts
Hardy - 2 courts
Rose Park - 2 courts
Carter Barron - 20 courts?

So I've got 18 courts essentially in Ward 3 and several others nearby.

BTW I've got 2 active over programmed kids and am at all of these parks except Forest Hills at least twice a month in the spring and fall and the tennis courts are never fully utilized.

DPR has an interactive map - if you don't know how to use google it is here:

http://app.dpr.dc.gov/dprmap/index.asp?group=8&query=AND{%278%27.EX.%27Tennis%20Court%27}

Oh wait - and folks who need to use a pool should pay to join one but if that is a great idea then why shouldn't the wealthy folks in Cleveland Park not be required to pay to use the courts at Sidwell or NCS which are within walking distance of the people fighting adding a pool at Hearst?

And on the subject of hypocrisy all the newly minted environmentalists & hydrologists of CP will no doubt be applying their considerable time and energies to getting rid of all of the tennis courts in DC, starting with Hearst, because clearly paved surfaces are bad for the environment?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander right?

[/quote]

What happened to the 13 tennis courts within a half-mile?   :lol: [/quote]

Hah - I didn't post that but since I doubt the crowd fighting the pool are walking half a mile to play tennis no reason to not inventory the courts they can quickly drive to.[/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