There is no way to place a pool in the park without taking down at least a third of the trees. The designer told me that the trees will be evaluated to determine if they are healthy. If they are unhealthy, they may argue that they need to come down. He said this during the public meeting at Hearst playground earlier this summer.

Anonymous wrote:That doesn't answer the question. There are gaps city wide in DPR programming and they have a mission to fill.

This is how DPR goes about "filling its mission" (sic). And it doesn't bode well for how it would maintain a new outdoor pool and infrastructure, which is a bit more complex than a playground wooden choo-choo.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/a-broken-piece-of-playground-equipment-turns-into-a-months-long-tangle-with-bureaucracy/2016/08/26/664f8a48-6ba6-11e6-ba32-5a4bf5aad4fa_story.html

That doesn't answer the question. There are gaps city wide in DPR programming and they have a mission to fill.

Anonymous wrote:Where else would you want to see the DPR dollars spent? It isn't like those same dollars could be applied to a homeless shelter or schools. So what are the pressing needs of DPR either in Ward 3 or across the city?

I don't want to see scarce tax dollars spent to pave and destroy a perfectly good green park.

Where else would you want to see the DPR dollars spent? It isn't like those same dollars could be applied to a homeless shelter or schools. So what are the pressing needs of DPR either in Ward 3 or across the city?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Over 18,000 posts about a subject that maybe 5 of you care about? Don't you have an ANC to b*tch to and Mary Cheh to cry your eyes out for?

You are so Jill Easter in your idea of actual problems. (Yeah, look her up - that's you: Botox, time served, lost law license, all of it.)

A pool in Ward 3 is not a problem, but your objection to it really is. Really.

Totally agree. A pool in ward 3 is a solution in search of a problem.

This. DC and even Ward 3 have more pressing challenges than a pool that will be open only three months a year and which likely will be poorly maintained.

Anonymous wrote:Over 18,000 posts about a subject that maybe 5 of you care about? Don't you have an ANC to b*tch to and Mary Cheh to cry your eyes out for?

You are so Jill Easter in your idea of actual problems. (Yeah, look her up - that's you: Botox, time served, lost law license, all of it.)

A pool in Ward 3 is not a problem, but your objection to it really is. Really.

Totally agree. A pool in ward 3 is a solution in search of a problem.

Over 18,000 posts about a subject that maybe 5 of you care about? Don't you have an ANC to b*tch to and Mary Cheh to cry your eyes out for?

You are so Jill Easter in your idea of actual problems. (Yeah, look her up - that's you: Botox, time served, lost law license, all of it.)

A pool in Ward 3 is not a problem, but your objection to it really is. Really.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were putting up gates around the school parking lot. Presumably DCPS doesn't want users of the park parking on DCPS property.

They don't want anyone parking in the school lot during the school day except staff. That is the reason for the gates.

Why would anyone need to park in the lot? Isn't there plenty of parking on 37th Street?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were putting up gates around the school parking lot. Presumably DCPS doesn't want users of the park parking on DCPS property.

They don't want anyone parking in the school lot during the school day except staff. That is the reason for the gates.

Are the gates automatic, or will a troll operate them?

Anonymous wrote:They were putting up gates around the school parking lot. Presumably DCPS doesn't want users of the park parking on DCPS property.

They don't want anyone parking in the school lot during the school day except staff. That is the reason for the gates.

They were putting up gates around the school parking lot. Presumably DCPS doesn't want users of the park parking on DCPS property.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Survey crews out on Hearst today, making measurements for the new pool.

Where? I walked the property over the weekend, and if a pool goes forward, the upper playground/basketball court is probably the best location. The playground could be relocated to the site of the old portable classroom building, or down the slope from the shelter and on the eastern edge of the park.

Moving the current playground would be absolutely ridiculous. It will never happen. Full stop.

I don't want to see the playground moved, either. But moving it might be the only way to preserve the large field, tennis courts and many of the old trees. The playground's configuration can be more flexible than the big field and the courts. Or it may be that the pool, desk and pool house won't fit in the footprint of the upper playground anyway. And finally, it might become apparent soon that the park is the wrong site for a pool because it won't fit absent tearing up and tearing out much of the existing park.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Survey crews out on Hearst today, making measurements for the new pool.

Where? I walked the property over the weekend, and if a pool goes forward, the upper playground/basketball court is probably the best location. The playground could be relocated to the site of the old portable classroom building, or down the slope from the shelter and on the eastern edge of the park.

Moving the current playground would be absolutely ridiculous. It will never happen. Full stop.

Anonymous wrote:Survey crews out on Hearst today, making measurements for the new pool.

Where? I walked the property over the weekend, and if a pool goes forward, the upper playground/basketball court is probably the best location. The playground could be relocated to the site of the old portable classroom building, or down the slope from the shelter and on the eastern edge of the park.