Which belongs to UDC, not DPR.

Next?

Anonymous wrote:What brownfield site do you suggest west of Rock Creek?

Police station on Idaho Ave. Perfect spot. parking etc.

UDC Campus.

What brownfield site do you suggest west of Rock Creek?

Police station on Idaho Ave. Perfect spot. parking etc.

Anonymous wrote:It would be nuts to sacrifice one of the few full sized, grass playing fields around, tennis courts and the old oaks. Not sure that another outdoor pool is needed at all, but if so, put it on a "brownfield" site that could be a park, not on a green field that should not be paved over.

What brownfield site do you suggest west of Rock Creek?

It would be nuts to sacrifice one of the few full sized, grass playing fields around, tennis courts and the old oaks. Not sure that another outdoor pool is needed at all, but if so, put it on a "brownfield" site that could be a park, not on a green field that should not be paved over.

Anonymous wrote:I can picture myself at that pool, going OMG this is so nice, no hairless Speedo wearing hipsters like at Banneker and no adult fights with people pulling each other's hair like at Upshur. However I am not willing to sacrifice the old oaks or the beautiful and thank god not artificial lower field to get it.

I can picture myself at that pool, going OMG this is so nice, no hairless Speedo wearing hipsters like at Banneker and no adult fights with people pulling each other's hair like at Upshur. However I am not willing to sacrifice the old oaks or the beautiful and thank god not artificial lower field to get it.

"DPR has determined that it needs two outoor pools west of Rock Creek Park. There is budget for one as it considers renovating Hearst, so logic would dictate that Hearst is a likely location for one of them."

Who says? asks Hearst parent who is concerned about the outdated Rec center and not so much the pool.

No, actually they are not facilities taxpayers want. This is a horrible move. DC should not invest in facilities it can not afford to keep up. Even the tennis courts are a mess, I can't imagine what they would do with a fetid pool.

Local sentiment for Turtle Park was overwhelmingly pro-pool. DPR determined that the needs of the community for the baseball fields outweighed the desire for a pool.

DPR has determined that it needs two outoor pools west of Rock Creek Park. There is budget for one as it considers renovating Hearst, so logic would dictate that Hearst is a likely location for one of them.

DPR determined that Palisades and Turtle Park will not get pools, so in addition to Hearst, it will be interesting to see where they place the second one.

And frequent users of the Park, like me, want a pool - I would be an even more frequent user. This will be very divisive for the community. I get that, but ultimately, these are facilities that taxpayer want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The survey wasn't a survey, it was a push poll. I live very close to Hearst and never heard of the survey until it was being touted as evidence of support. Given my location, it is weird that it somehow skipped my household and the ten other households around me. Not even close to scientific. And that's the problem with the pool supporters. They are like Mitt Romney in 2012 who was positive he was going to win because of the faulty data he was receiving. If Cheh, Siegel and others move forward with this, it's an issue that will be pinned to their chest. There is growing outrage about this issue that is opening up a lot of resentment as people look around at a series of other decisions that seem to ignore local sentiment.

Local sentiment is irrelevant when it comes to programming public space. If you don't like the prospects of a pool then move. There will be plenty of people lined up to buy your million dollar house.

Local sentiment is not at all irrelevant, particularly among those who are the frequent users of the park. It's interesting that the views of those close to Turtle Park as well as baseball team participants were considered as legitimate when they opposed a pool at that larger location, but somehow local users, including tennis players and youth soccer parents, are "irrelevant" when it comes to Hearst's fate. Moreover, the pool partisans try to cite some push poll to make the case for local support when it suits them, yet categorically dismiss local concerns and growing opposition when it doesn't.

Most noteworthy, it is telling that pool advocates won't say where the proposed pool location would be at Hearst, presumably because they realize that opposition will grow significantly once people realize what will be sacrificed to build a pool.

Anonymous wrote:The survey wasn't a survey, it was a push poll. I live very close to Hearst and never heard of the survey until it was being touted as evidence of support. Given my location, it is weird that it somehow skipped my household and the ten other households around me. Not even close to scientific. And that's the problem with the pool supporters. They are like Mitt Romney in 2012 who was positive he was going to win because of the faulty data he was receiving. If Cheh, Siegel and others move forward with this, it's an issue that will be pinned to their chest. There is growing outrage about this issue that is opening up a lot of resentment as people look around at a series of other decisions that seem to ignore local sentiment.

Local sentiment is irrelevant when it comes to programming public space. If you don't like the prospects of a pool then move. There will be plenty of people lined up to buy your million dollar house.

Then you must not be very connected to the community. The poll link was mailed out via the ANC and on the Springland Farm, Van Ness and Cleveland Park yahoo groups.

The survey wasn't a survey, it was a push poll. I live very close to Hearst and never heard of the survey until it was being touted as evidence of support. Given my location, it is weird that it somehow skipped my household and the ten other households around me. Not even close to scientific. And that's the problem with the pool supporters. They are like Mitt Romney in 2012 who was positive he was going to win because of the faulty data he was receiving. If Cheh, Siegel and others move forward with this, it's an issue that will be pinned to their chest. There is growing outrage about this issue that is opening up a lot of resentment as people look around at a series of other decisions that seem to ignore local sentiment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.


You keep underestimating the size of the opposition. Just keep doing that.

I live a few blocks away from Hearst. Of our neighbors: A few (mildly) favor a pool, but want it up by the school so that minimal green space is lost. Others think Hearst is too small of a location and don't want to lose the field and the tennis courts. Another question is why not locate a pool, if one is built, closer to the Metro> The general theme is that a building an outdoor pool is not a high priority right now.

What are the chances that none of your neighbors are not part of the 71% of the neighbors who said "YES" they would like a pool at the park. When you think about it, it's almost statistically impossible. Unless you are making it all up.

How do you know that 10 houses didn't do the survey multiple times?

Clearly, there's one poster on this thread who did the survey something like 100 times!

Just like my husband does with voting for MLB All Star Game.