Ward 3 needs an outdoor pool because it doesn't have one is one of the dumbest explanations for destroying a park I have ever heard. I find it particularly pathetic that nearby neighbors are demanding a pool within walking distance because they literally take a five minute drive for their choice of two pools in Georgetown.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading this thread, and watching the similar show going on at Palisades, I've come to the conclusion that Mary Cheh has already decided that this term will be her last on the council. She wants to leave a legacy, and has decided it will be new recreational facilities in her ward, and since she won't face the voters again she doesn't care about the opponents.

Isn't the Homeless Shelter at Cathedral Commons (under the watchful eye of the police station) also her legacy?

Yep. If you'd like to talk about NIMBYs, I think she's the ultimate one and dumps everything on areas where she either doesn't live or don't have political clout with her.

Anonymous wrote:Reading this thread, and watching the similar show going on at Palisades, I've come to the conclusion that Mary Cheh has already decided that this term will be her last on the council. She wants to leave a legacy, and has decided it will be new recreational facilities in her ward, and since she won't face the voters again she doesn't care about the opponents.

Isn't the Homeless Shelter at Cathedral Commons (under the watchful eye of the police station) also her legacy?

Back to Hearst, where's the plan?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading this thread, and watching the similar show going on at Palisades, I've come to the conclusion that Mary Cheh has already decided that this term will be her last on the council. She wants to leave a legacy, and has decided it will be new recreational facilities in her ward, and since she won't face the voters again she doesn't care about the opponents.

What the hell are you talking about? The community broadly supports a new rec center at Palisades. A few obstructionist neighbors and ANC commissioners have effectively thwarted it, despite the general community support. Cheh responded with "surprise" at how organized the opponents were and decided to back down from the project. It's a shame.

NIMBY's United.

Anonymous wrote:Reading this thread, and watching the similar show going on at Palisades, I've come to the conclusion that Mary Cheh has already decided that this term will be her last on the council. She wants to leave a legacy, and has decided it will be new recreational facilities in her ward, and since she won't face the voters again she doesn't care about the opponents.

What the hell are you talking about? The community broadly supports a new rec center at Palisades. A few obstructionist neighbors and ANC commissioners have effectively thwarted it, despite the general community support. Cheh responded with "surprise" at how organized the opponents were and decided to back down from the project. It's a shame.

Who is going to run against Cheh?

Reading this thread, and watching the similar show going on at Palisades, I've come to the conclusion that Mary Cheh has already decided that this term will be her last on the council. She wants to leave a legacy, and has decided it will be new recreational facilities in her ward, and since she won't face the voters again she doesn't care about the opponents.

Don't worry. Mary Cheh has it all figured out for Hearst. Everything will be fine. Who are you to question her superior intelligence and judgment?

Anonymous wrote:Why is everyone talking about the tennis courts as a possible pool site? There is also the strong possibility that it goes on the field.

I live a block from the park and I don't see how you could fit a pool on the tennis court area, unless you are talking something smaller or about the size of a typical backyard pool. In fact, we've been walking through the park every evening (our kid likes to play Pokémon Go and there's a Gym there) for weeks now and every night I've looked at the courts and just can't picture a pool up there. I think it would have to go on the field or at least on part of it to serve any decent size population.

Why is everyone talking about the tennis courts as a possible pool site? There is also the strong possibility that it goes on the field.

Anonymous wrote:You must have over 200 posts in this thread that say the same thing. Are you an imbecile?

How can there be no site plan, not even an initial one? Who's checked that at a high level, everything's going to fit at Hearst? Could it be that DPR really doesn't think that a pool should go there? That's what DPR personnel were hinting at the meeting several weeks ago at the park -- that it wasn't their recommendation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fort Reno. It's time to get the weird cyber op out of there and put in a pool.

Looking at Google maps, the best spot would be the open field directly across from Deal, but outside the marked boundary of Fort Reno Park, below the water tower and defense iinstallation and west of Nebraska Ave. There's plenty of parking at Deal, especially on weekends and in the summer, when school is not in session. It wouldn't require using green parkland, whether owned by DC or NPS. It's walkable to Metro, as well as the indoor pool at Wilson, and there's probably no spot in the ward that is more central.

I'm just guessing fort reno is federal land or something, this sounds too easy?

That lot is outside of fort reno but federal too. My recollection is it was looked at for swing space for Murch but the feds said no way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which belongs to UDC, not DPR.

Next?

It's all part of the Dee Cee government. And for that matter, a large chunk of the Hearst site is controlled by DCPS, if one if going to be bureaucratically technical about it.

UDC is a federal land-grant university.

Which, if true, does not make UDC a part of the Federal government. It is part of and under the control of the DC government.

From the UDC webiste:


Board of Trustees
"In 1974, the U.S. Congress established the Board of Trustees of the University of the District of Columbia to govern the University of the District of Columbia. The Board is a body of the District of Columbia government that has the authority to independently issue regulations governing the University, own and manage the property of the University, and represent the University in court. The Board hires the President of the University System.

The Trustees are charged with establishing and ensuring accreditation of the components of the University System, which at a minimum must include a liberal arts component, a vocational and technical component, and a school of law. They approve all majors and degree programs offered at the University, and set academic policies such as degree requirements and tuition and fees. In addition, the Trustees are responsible for setting UDC's budget in conjunction with the Mayor and City Council.

The University's and Board's authorizing legislation is the Post-Secondary Education Reorganization Act of 1974 (D.C. Official Code §§ 38-1201.01 – 38-1204.07 (2001 ed.))."

additional background

After Congress granted limited home rule to the District of Columbia, the new city council passed D.C. Law 1-36, which authorized the consolidation of the three schools in 1975. A new UDC Board of Trustees took office in May 1976, consisting of 11 members appointed by the Mayor, three appointed by the alumni associations. Thus began the monumental task of creating a new University of the District of Columbia from three very different institutions.

Anonymous wrote:It's rather telling that advocates for a Hearst pool assure us that everything will be great, nothing will be sacrificed, the project needs to move forward, etc., but when folks ask the simple question "Where will the pool go?" -- the response is to dodge the question.

Or maybe advocates aren't the one planning the pool and do not know, just like you don't know. But rather then spread doom and misinformation, we are patiently waiting for the next meeting to find out more information. I have spoken to more neighbors who are in favor of the pool than not, but obviously the devil is in the details.