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]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]

There is nothing nutty about the proposal at all which makes me doubt you are really an impartial commenter - it is a standard size pool that has an elevator to meet ADA requirements.  Not sure what the steep slopes have to do with anything - they aren't even that steep - or why shade in the summer would be a bad thing.  If you've been to the Bethesda Pool (which is where we go to and have to pay) the shady areas around the pool are always the first to fill up.

Maybe you aren't a pool opponent but the pool opponents are now moving the goal posts - after spending years falsely claiming that a pool won't fit or that it can be added without impacting the historic oak trees now we have a design that disproves both arguments.  So they are left with with nonsensical arguments and wildly inaccurate letters to the editor.[/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