Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's also indoor.

But it's also available year-round. It seems boneheaded to lose a playing field that is used 7 0r 8 months out of the year, as well as tennis courts that are used almost as long, for a facility that will be open (assuming adequate operating funding year to year) at most 3 months out of the year.

I don't live near Hearst so I don't really have a dog in the fight, but as a rational person I am annoyed by the argument that there has to be a pool at Hearst because there is no "outdoor pool" in "Ward 3." Indoor pools are adequate substitutes for outdoor pools. Ward boundaries are imaginary lines. It's the kind of argument you come up with if you start with the conclusion and then work backwards developing reasons.

Not to mention that with the relatively large population growth in Ward 2 over the past several years, the next ward realignment could well result in Ward 3's boundary being moved slightly south. So Jelleff might shift from Ward 2 to Ward 3, and Ward 3 will wind up with its own swimming pool after all. And basically cost free!

Wow this is maybe the dumbest argument against a pool yet in this thread - maybe DC will be retroceeded to MD too. The point isn't to have an outdoor pool in each ward - the point is to have a pool that everyone can easily get to. Sure if you live in the southern part of Ward 3 you are sort of close to Volta today but most of Ward 3 is nowhere close to Volta or any other public swimming pools. If you live in Ward 3 you should not have to spend 50 minutes on public transportation or 25 minutes in a car getting to a DC Public swimming pool - you should have one in your neighborhood like most other DC residents have.

It's the pool boosters who have been making the argument that Ward 3 needs an outdoor pool. It's a dumb argument.

A more convincing argument would be to say that DPR wants every DC resident to be within X miles of a pool, and a pool at Hearst would mean that Y thousands of households who currently don't live that close to a public pool would now have one. That's a rational argument -- and it's a lot more thoughtful than "Ward 3 needs an outdoor pool." But it requires thoughtful analysis, which seems to be in short supply at DPR.

In theory a pool at Hearst sounds great. In reality the park is too small for a pool to fit there.

I challenge anyone to try to make that drive in 21 minutes except early on a weekend morning.

And I agree with the PP who said that the point is that each ward have a pool, but rather the DPR facilities are spread out so they are accessible to DC residents.

DPR's master plan indicated the need for 2 outdoor pools west of Rock Creek Park in upper NW. Hearst is a logical spot for one of them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's also indoor.

But it's also available year-round. It seems boneheaded to lose a playing field that is used 7 0r 8 months out of the year, as well as tennis courts that are used almost as long, for a facility that will be open (assuming adequate operating funding year to year) at most 3 months out of the year.

I don't live near Hearst so I don't really have a dog in the fight, but as a rational person I am annoyed by the argument that there has to be a pool at Hearst because there is no "outdoor pool" in "Ward 3." Indoor pools are adequate substitutes for outdoor pools. Ward boundaries are imaginary lines. It's the kind of argument you come up with if you start with the conclusion and then work backwards developing reasons.

Not to mention that with the relatively large population growth in Ward 2 over the past several years, the next ward realignment could well result in Ward 3's boundary being moved slightly south. So Jelleff might shift from Ward 2 to Ward 3, and Ward 3 will wind up with its own swimming pool after all. And basically cost free!

"Wow this is maybe the dumbest argument against a pool yet in this thread - maybe DC will be retroceeded to MD too. The point isn't to have an outdoor pool in each ward - the point is to have a pool that everyone can easily get to. Sure if you live in the southern part of Ward 3 you are sort of close to Volta today but most of Ward 3 is nowhere close to Volta or any other public swimming pools. If you live in Ward 3 you should not have to spend 50 minutes on public transportation or 25 minutes in a car getting to a DC Public swimming pool - you should have one in your neighborhood like most other DC residents have.

"


Hey "wow" you suck at math, map reading and logic. If the point isn't about getting an outdoor pool in each ward...then let's stop the discussion now. Where in Ward 3 do you live that is more than 15 minutes from Wilson and not less than 10 minutes from Volta or Jelleff. I just checked Google maps and you can drive - during rush hour - from the GDS lower school campus at the bottom of Ward 3 to Broad Branch and Western at the top of Ward 3 in 21 minutes. It's impossible to argue that Hearst is more assessable to public transportation than Wilson since it is almost a mile from any Metro stop including Cleveland Park, T-Town and Van Ness. The front door to the Wilson Pool is literally three minutes from the T-Town metro. The 30 and H buses which serve Hearst also serve Wilson.

We live in AU Park. Jelleff is like 12 minutes away by car, except at the absolute peak of rush hour. It's not a big deal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's also indoor.

But it's also available year-round. It seems boneheaded to lose a playing field that is used 7 0r 8 months out of the year, as well as tennis courts that are used almost as long, for a facility that will be open (assuming adequate operating funding year to year) at most 3 months out of the year.

I don't live near Hearst so I don't really have a dog in the fight, but as a rational person I am annoyed by the argument that there has to be a pool at Hearst because there is no "outdoor pool" in "Ward 3." Indoor pools are adequate substitutes for outdoor pools. Ward boundaries are imaginary lines. It's the kind of argument you come up with if you start with the conclusion and then work backwards developing reasons.

Not to mention that with the relatively large population growth in Ward 2 over the past several years, the next ward realignment could well result in Ward 3's boundary being moved slightly south. So Jelleff might shift from Ward 2 to Ward 3, and Ward 3 will wind up with its own swimming pool after all. And basically cost free!

Wow this is maybe the dumbest argument against a pool yet in this thread - maybe DC will be retroceeded to MD too. The point isn't to have an outdoor pool in each ward - the point is to have a pool that everyone can easily get to. Sure if you live in the southern part of Ward 3 you are sort of close to Volta today but most of Ward 3 is nowhere close to Volta or any other public swimming pools. If you live in Ward 3 you should not have to spend 50 minutes on public transportation or 25 minutes in a car getting to a DC Public swimming pool - you should have one in your neighborhood like most other DC residents have.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's also indoor.

But it's also available year-round. It seems boneheaded to lose a playing field that is used 7 0r 8 months out of the year, as well as tennis courts that are used almost as long, for a facility that will be open (assuming adequate operating funding year to year) at most 3 months out of the year.

I don't live near Hearst so I don't really have a dog in the fight, but as a rational person I am annoyed by the argument that there has to be a pool at Hearst because there is no "outdoor pool" in "Ward 3." Indoor pools are adequate substitutes for outdoor pools. Ward boundaries are imaginary lines. It's the kind of argument you come up with if you start with the conclusion and then work backwards developing reasons.

Not to mention that with the relatively large population growth in Ward 2 over the past several years, the next ward realignment could well result in Ward 3's boundary being moved slightly south. So Jelleff might shift from Ward 2 to Ward 3, and Ward 3 will wind up with its own swimming pool after all. And basically cost free!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's also indoor.

But it's also available year-round. It seems boneheaded to lose a playing field that is used 7 0r 8 months out of the year, as well as tennis courts that are used almost as long, for a facility that will be open (assuming adequate operating funding year to year) at most 3 months out of the year.

I don't live near Hearst so I don't really have a dog in the fight, but as a rational person I am annoyed by the argument that there has to be a pool at Hearst because there is no "outdoor pool" in "Ward 3." Indoor pools are adequate substitutes for outdoor pools. Ward boundaries are imaginary lines. It's the kind of argument you come up with if you start with the conclusion and then work backwards developing reasons.

Anonymous wrote:The other issue is Stoddert soccer's plan to have DC pay millions of dollars to cover a natural field with plastic. That's a non-starter too.

That issue exists only in your imagination.

Anonymous wrote:no one uses the tennis courts - it would be of little value to lose them, despite the claims of the one or two people fighting for them in this forum.

Whenever I walk by on the weekends they are almost always both in use and in the evenings at least one is in use from after work until dusk.

Anonymous wrote:no one uses the tennis courts - it would be of little value to lose them, despite the claims of the one or two people fighting for them in this forum.

Yesterday, all of the courts were in use at the same time. Guess those two people were hustling all over the tennis area.

Don't Pave Hearst Park.

no one uses the tennis courts - it would be of little value to lose them, despite the claims of the one or two people fighting for them in this forum.

Anonymous wrote:Is Hearst on federal land or DC land? If it's on federal land, then it's non-starter to put in a pool or plastic carpet for Upper Caucasian elites. It should be a non-starter for DC as well but who knows what kind of horse trading Cheh is doing behind closed doors.

Federal land that DC is allowed to maintain as a steward for recreational purposes.

Is Hearst on federal land or DC land? If it's on federal land, then it's non-starter to put in a pool or plastic carpet for Upper Caucasian elites. It should be a non-starter for DC as well but who knows what kind of horse trading Cheh is doing behind closed doors.

Anonymous wrote:Why not put the tennis courts up by the Hearst school where the trailer used to be? Safer than a pool adjacent to the school.

DCPS wouldn't like it.