Anonymous wrote:What is EIS above?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's always easier to stop something that let it go forward. If she comes out for the pool before the election she loses. So many people in her area are against it.

An ANC has 2000 plus or minus a handful. Except for the 20 or so people who live on idaho and Quebec, everyone else is for it. Everyone in my area of Porter, and my neighbors on Ordway all want it. We are in Margie's SMD. Everyone on her street wants it too.

Really, you are living in a bubble if you think "so many people in her area are against it."

So many people in her area fully support it and want it to happen post haste.

Be careful what you wish for. I work with someone who lives on Porter St who was a big cheerleader for the Cathedral Commons project. Now she's angry that the new traffic signal at Idaho routes a lot of the CC traffic right down Porter.

Seems a former YIYBY became a NIMBY.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's always easier to stop something that let it go forward. If she comes out for the pool before the election she loses. So many people in her area are against it.

An ANC has 2000 plus or minus a handful. Except for the 20 or so people who live on idaho and Quebec, everyone else is for it. Everyone in my area of Porter, and my neighbors on Ordway all want it. We are in Margie's SMD. Everyone on her street wants it too.

Really, you are living in a bubble if you think "so many people in her area are against it."

So many people in her area fully support it and want it to happen post haste.

Do you think that "so many people" as you phrase it would be supportive if the cost of the pool were the loss of Hearst's field, tennis courts and leafy tree canopy?? If DPR would only show a preliminary siting plan that doesn't negatively affect these, then the decision is easy to proceed with a pool.

So just show us the site plan.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's always easier to stop something that let it go forward. If she comes out for the pool before the election she loses. So many people in her area are against it.

An ANC has 2000 plus or minus a handful. Except for the 20 or so people who live on idaho and Quebec, everyone else is for it. Everyone in my area of Porter, and my neighbors on Ordway all want it. We are in Margie's SMD. Everyone on her street wants it too.

Really, you are living in a bubble if you think "so many people in her area are against it."

So many people in her area fully support it and want it to happen post haste.

Be careful what you wish for. I work with someone who lives on Porter St who was a big cheerleader for the Cathedral Commons project. Now she's angry that the new traffic signal at Idaho routes a lot of the CC traffic right down Porter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If it were that simple, but it's not.

I don't live that close to the site, and probably wouldn't use a pool much (but my kids do use the field) -- so I don't have the biggest dog in this fight. But DC's planning process, whether at the ANC level, the zoning commission or whatever, accords some greater weight to those who live closest to a proposed project. It doesn't mean that those voices necessarily win, but the rationale is that they are the residents most likely to be affected and to bear the greatest impact. In this case, one can presume that those who live closest to the park are among its most frequent users (and therefore will lose if the field and tennis courts are cut),and those who live in closest proximity are likely to bear the impacts of the pool: loss of shade and green space, construction noise, dust, parking, etc. One thing I've discovered is that it's always easy to be a YIYBY, to say about a project, "Yes, if it's in your back yard!" In other words, the farther away one lives from the impacts, one can enjoy all the benefits without having to worry about the costs.

It actutally is that simply. You are talking about when a private property owner is seeking relief from the zoning commission or BZA and there is ANC great weight. Hearst is a DPR, ie public, property and as such, there isn't the same kind of ANC input required. DPR has to even out its offerings to residents city wide. It's studies have indicated a glaring need for outdoor pool facilities west of Rock Creek Park. Thus, a pool at Hearst helps address its master planning. There is no public input vis a vis traffic and parking when it comes to DCPS and DPR.

Anonymous wrote:

If it were that simple, but it's not.

I don't live that close to the site, and probably wouldn't use a pool much (but my kids do use the field) -- so I don't have the biggest dog in this fight. But DC's planning process, whether at the ANC level, the zoning commission or whatever, accords some greater weight to those who live closest to a proposed project. It doesn't mean that those voices necessarily win, but the rationale is that they are the residents most likely to be affected and to bear the greatest impact. In this case, one can presume that those who live closest to the park are among its most frequent users (and therefore will lose if the field and tennis courts are cut),and those who live in closest proximity are likely to bear the impacts of the pool: loss of shade and green space, construction noise, dust, parking, etc. One thing I've discovered is that it's always easy to be a YIYBY, to say about a project, "Yes, if it's in your back yard!" In other words, the farther away one lives from the impacts, one can enjoy all the benefits without having to worry about the costs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's always easier to stop something that let it go forward. If she comes out for the pool before the election she loses. So many people in her area are against it.

An ANC has 2000 plus or minus a handful. Except for the 20 or so people who live on idaho and Quebec, everyone else is for it. Everyone in my area of Porter, and my neighbors on Ordway all want it. We are in Margie's SMD. Everyone on her street wants it too.

Really, you are living in a bubble if you think "so many people in her area are against it."

So many people in her area fully support it and want it to happen post haste.

Anonymous wrote:Isn't the next ANC election a while off?

Getting back to the question, what is the timeline for the pool, will it be ready for next summer?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's always easier to stop something that let it go forward. If she comes out for the pool before the election she loses. So many people in her area are against it.

An ANC has 2000 plus or minus a handful. Except for the 20 or so people who live on idaho and Quebec, everyone else is for it. Everyone in my area of Porter, and my neighbors on Ordway all want it. We are in Margie's SMD. Everyone on her street wants it too.

Really, you are living in a bubble if you think "so many people in her area are against it."

So many people in her area fully support it and want it to happen post haste.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's always easier to stop something that let it go forward. If she comes out for the pool before the election she loses. So many people in her area are against it.

An ANC has 2000 plus or minus a handful. Except for the 20 or so people who live on idaho and Quebec, everyone else is for it. Everyone in my area of Porter, and my neighbors on Ordway all want it. We are in Margie's SMD. Everyone on her street wants it too.

Really, you are living in a bubble if you think "so many people in her area are against it."

So many people in her area fully support it and want it to happen post haste.

Anonymous wrote:It's always easier to stop something that let it go forward. If she comes out for the pool before the election she loses. So many people in her area are against it.