Anonymous wrote:If you are talking about immediate neighbors, that is a pretty good split, given the thousands of others within a few miles who support the pool.
I was at the meeting tonight, and it is obvious that all who opposed it were there - you could tell because their tired arguments are the same ones that have taken up 81 pages on this forum. All 15 people. Are we really going to let 15 people hold up a pool that hundreds of families can enjoy?
One person there calculated the maximum number of tennis court users over the course of the year and showed that it paled in comparison to the number of potential pool users. And obviously the courts are only used a fraction of the time anyhow.
Notes:
-no loss of mature trees
- soccer field intact
-tennis courts available
-open green space intact
Other than people not wanting "others" coming into their neighborhood, it is hard to see what the issue is. DGS has done a great job coming up with different solutions, all of which include a pool.
Bravo to DGS, Bravo to Mayor Bowser and Bravo to Mary Cheh.
That guy was crazy. He also said that it is gender equity issue to put a pool at Hearst bc girls don't use the free field as much and they could get their confidence and self esteem and exercise with a pool. Except look at that field and its usage. Plenty of girls around use it year round.
Who is going to maintain it? Wilson is a dump. The Rec Center is a dump. The current Hearst field is a dump. They don't maintain existing facilities and there is no guarantee that new facilities will be maintained. They couldn't even agree if the pool was 25 yards or 25 meters.