Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Metropolitan DC Local Politics
Reply to "Hearst Playground story in Current"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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/[/quote] 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.[/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