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][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] No particular dog in the pool here. But the Hearst plan sounds a little nutty: a small pool with a narrow deck, pushed up against two steep slopes often in shadow and an elevator tower from the street to the bottom of the slope. That doesn't seem especially rational or reasonable.[/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