Anonymous
Post 09/09/2016 08:49     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:NIMBY person is the one who started with the wacko thing. Glass house?


Fair enough. All sides should focus on the project and not attack the motivations, intelligence, age of any side. We are neighbors and this is a big deal. If this project turns friends into foe, it will be a failure no matter what happens at the park

Anonymous
Post 09/09/2016 08:38     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
NIMBY person is the one who started with the wacko thing. Glass house?
Anonymous
Post 09/09/2016 08:29     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Characterizing pool opponents as wacko old people is a mistake. We are all neighbors. Please focus the discussion on the project.uh
Anonymous
Post 09/09/2016 08:19     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:When will DPR release a decision?


Current plan is for DPR to release the options presented last night (here is the website but the slides are not up yet: http://dgs.dc.gov/page/hearst-park-and-pool-improvement-project) and then to launch its own survey in the next week. The survey would be open for 2 weeks, and they would have additional community meetings after that. All of the options include a pool. None include the upper portion of the park. The survey would reflect that.
Anonymous
Post 09/09/2016 08:06     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
When will DPR release a decision?
Anonymous
Post 09/09/2016 07:49     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
I was also at the meeting (and thankfully did get to speak briefly), but I put it more on DPR that they did not run a very effective meeting. They should have set ground rules that asked everyone to only ask one question or give one comment, and that it be no more than 1 minute. Once everyone had a chance to speak, they could allow folks to talk a second time.

One thing is clear is that this is a divisive issue. While a number of people were disrespectful, I think most people tried at least to be nice. I hope folks on both sides of the divide can still come together afterwards and support the park in whatever form it takes.
Anonymous
Post 09/09/2016 07:32     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I will add:

- people I know who signed the anti-pool petition came away from the evening supportive of the idea, because they can see that DGS came up with several solutions that keep the open spaces while providing the amenities that all currently enjoy.

- now the anti-pool crowd is trying to make the argument that the proposed pool is too small, and there should be a full size pool that can host competitions and what



Actually, I think you missed the point. People were saying either (1) that the pool shown on the plans was unrealistically small...didn't show the full extent of what a pool complex requires, once the concrete deck (which is several times the area of the water ), pool house, chemical facility, first aid etc are included. All of that needs to be in a secured enclosure with high fencing etc. The pool shown on the plans looked more like a 'water feature' as a result. Or (2) those who were pro pool were critical because the pool shown was smaller than DPR had originally said would be built.

At least, that is how I heard it. But man that one guy trying to argue that we needed an outdoor pool so his daughters could have gender equity...what was up with that. Whackor.


It was crystal clear what I heard. I think the PP above at 00:48 summarized it perfectly. The pool opponents (ie a handful of nearby neighbors) are grasping at whatever straws they (you) can to throw whatever you can against the wall hoping one thing sticks. As 00:48 summarized, when the opponent are so scattered in their message, it gets lost. Which is it? Is the pool too big or too small? Will it be overrun by people from all over the city, or will it be a barren pool of tumbleweeds?

You don't know, so you say whatever you want with whatever hyperbole attached to it that you like in the hopes that someone will listen. The other thing, ther were about 20 of us in the back of the room who didn't get to speak because the opponents were incredibly disrespectful of the amount of time they were taking to grandstand points and issues that had nothing to do with the park or a pool.

I have lived in Ward 3 since 1972 and since day one of my living in the Ward, not having an outdoor pool has been one of the issues that existed then that still eists today. It has actually been a conversation of disdain for residents I have lived around for all of that time, so this long time resident is thrilled to see the city and DGS/DPR finally taking action to address this issue.

Wacko is the residents who don't understand that having this $10 Million investment into the park is going greatly enhance their property values. People want to live near a park and having easy access to a neighborhood pool is a major bonus. And if you are going to use names to refer to one of your neighbors who raises an interesting perspective - one that hadn't been raise before, then that is just rude. You don't agree with him, that's fine. I don't have girls, so it isn't an issue that is on my mind. However, every single person who spoke last night complained about how the boys bathroom is inaccessible and the boys had to pee outside. No one talked about their girls. Not one. And most of the pool opponents are long time residents whose mantra was "my kids grew up loving the park as it is" - that is great, but we have an opportunity to have all of the same amenities - a big field, the grand trees, tennis courts and yes a pool too!

So please, give a real reason as to why there shouldn't be a pool at Hearst. The ones presented thus far boil down to "we don't like change" and "we don't want others coming to OUR park"




You were in the back of the room because you were late and that was the only seating left.


We were later because we have jobs that fund your social security. We don't hang around all day at the lamp store in Cleveland Park coming up with ridiculous NIMBY arguments.
Anonymous
Post 09/09/2016 07:14     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
You can tell the weakness of an argument by how they mischaracterize the arguments of others. The maintenance issue can not be ignored. DPR cannot take care of the current facility, how is going to take care of a pool. The pool ruins the field which is in high demand for organized sports weekdays and weekends. The pool can only be used three months a year eight hours a day. It would be closed now. Those drawings presented an idealized picture of an infinity pool in the middle of a green field. There will be concrete surrounding that pool not grass. $12 million to build a pool on an unstable field that hundreds of people oppose?
Anonymous
Post 09/09/2016 06:45     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I will add:

- people I know who signed the anti-pool petition came away from the evening supportive of the idea, because they can see that DGS came up with several solutions that keep the open spaces while providing the amenities that all currently enjoy.

- now the anti-pool crowd is trying to make the argument that the proposed pool is too small, and there should be a full size pool that can host competitions and what



Actually, I think you missed the point. People were saying either (1) that the pool shown on the plans was unrealistically small...didn't show the full extent of what a pool complex requires, once the concrete deck (which is several times the area of the water ), pool house, chemical facility, first aid etc are included. All of that needs to be in a secured enclosure with high fencing etc. The pool shown on the plans looked more like a 'water feature' as a result. Or (2) those who were pro pool were critical because the pool shown was smaller than DPR had originally said would be built.

At least, that is how I heard it. But man that one guy trying to argue that we needed an outdoor pool so his daughters could have gender equity...what was up with that. Whackor.


It was crystal clear what I heard. I think the PP above at 00:48 summarized it perfectly. The pool opponents (ie a handful of nearby neighbors) are grasping at whatever straws they (you) can to throw whatever you can against the wall hoping one thing sticks. As 00:48 summarized, when the opponent are so scattered in their message, it gets lost. Which is it? Is the pool too big or too small? Will it be overrun by people from all over the city, or will it be a barren pool of tumbleweeds?

You don't know, so you say whatever you want with whatever hyperbole attached to it that you like in the hopes that someone will listen. The other thing, ther were about 20 of us in the back of the room who didn't get to speak because the opponents were incredibly disrespectful of the amount of time they were taking to grandstand points and issues that had nothing to do with the park or a pool.

I have lived in Ward 3 since 1972 and since day one of my living in the Ward, not having an outdoor pool has been one of the issues that existed then that still eists today. It has actually been a conversation of disdain for residents I have lived around for all of that time, so this long time resident is thrilled to see the city and DGS/DPR finally taking action to address this issue.

Wacko is the residents who don't understand that having this $10 Million investment into the park is going greatly enhance their property values. People want to live near a park and having easy access to a neighborhood pool is a major bonus. And if you are going to use names to refer to one of your neighbors who raises an interesting perspective - one that hadn't been raise before, then that is just rude. You don't agree with him, that's fine. I don't have girls, so it isn't an issue that is on my mind. However, every single person who spoke last night complained about how the boys bathroom is inaccessible and the boys had to pee outside. No one talked about their girls. Not one. And most of the pool opponents are long time residents whose mantra was "my kids grew up loving the park as it is" - that is great, but we have an opportunity to have all of the same amenities - a big field, the grand trees, tennis courts and yes a pool too!

So please, give a real reason as to why there shouldn't be a pool at Hearst. The ones presented thus far boil down to "we don't like change" and "we don't want others coming to OUR park"




You were in the back of the room because you were late and that was the only seating left.
Anonymous
Post 09/09/2016 06:42     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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.


Gee, if you think everything DC touches is a dump, then you should move.


Sounds like the point here is that everything DPR builds is not maintained. Not sure how you extrapolated something larger than that.
Anonymous
Post 09/09/2016 06:41     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I will add:

- people I know who signed the anti-pool petition came away from the evening supportive of the idea, because they can see that DGS came up with several solutions that keep the open spaces while providing the amenities that all currently enjoy.

- now the anti-pool crowd is trying to make the argument that the proposed pool is too small, and there should be a full size pool that can host competitions and what



Actually, I think you missed the point. People were saying either (1) that the pool shown on the plans was unrealistically small...didn't show the full extent of what a pool complex requires, once the concrete deck (which is several times the area of the water ), pool house, chemical facility, first aid etc are included. All of that needs to be in a secured enclosure with high fencing etc. The pool shown on the plans looked more like a 'water feature' as a result. Or (2) those who were pro pool were critical because the pool shown was smaller than DPR had originally said would be built.

At least, that is how I heard it. But man that one guy trying to argue that we needed an outdoor pool so his daughters could have gender equity...what was up with that. Whackor.


It was crystal clear what I heard. I think the PP above at 00:48 summarized it perfectly. The pool opponents (ie a handful of nearby neighbors) are grasping at whatever straws they (you) can to throw whatever you can against the wall hoping one thing sticks. As 00:48 summarized, when the opponent are so scattered in their message, it gets lost. Which is it? Is the pool too big or too small? Will it be overrun by people from all over the city, or will it be a barren pool of tumbleweeds?

You don't know, so you say whatever you want with whatever hyperbole attached to it that you like in the hopes that someone will listen. The other thing, ther were about 20 of us in the back of the room who didn't get to speak because the opponents were incredibly disrespectful of the amount of time they were taking to grandstand points and issues that had nothing to do with the park or a pool.

I have lived in Ward 3 since 1972 and since day one of my living in the Ward, not having an outdoor pool has been one of the issues that existed then that still eists today. It has actually been a conversation of disdain for residents I have lived around for all of that time, so this long time resident is thrilled to see the city and DGS/DPR finally taking action to address this issue.

Wacko is the residents who don't understand that having this $10 Million investment into the park is going greatly enhance their property values. People want to live near a park and having easy access to a neighborhood pool is a major bonus. And if you are going to use names to refer to one of your neighbors who raises an interesting perspective - one that hadn't been raise before, then that is just rude. You don't agree with him, that's fine. I don't have girls, so it isn't an issue that is on my mind. However, every single person who spoke last night complained about how the boys bathroom is inaccessible and the boys had to pee outside. No one talked about their girls. Not one. And most of the pool opponents are long time residents whose mantra was "my kids grew up loving the park as it is" - that is great, but we have an opportunity to have all of the same amenities - a big field, the grand trees, tennis courts and yes a pool too!

So please, give a real reason as to why there shouldn't be a pool at Hearst. The ones presented thus far boil down to "we don't like change" and "we don't want others coming to OUR park"


Anonymous
Post 09/09/2016 06:20     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
What are the next steps? Can anyone link to the plans?
Anonymous
Post 09/09/2016 02:44     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:I will add:

- people I know who signed the anti-pool petition came away from the evening supportive of the idea, because they can see that DGS came up with several solutions that keep the open spaces while providing the amenities that all currently enjoy.

- now the anti-pool crowd is trying to make the argument that the proposed pool is too small, and there should be a full size pool that can host competitions and what



Actually, I think you missed the point. People were saying either (1) that the pool shown on the plans was unrealistically small...didn't show the full extent of what a pool complex requires, once the concrete deck (which is several times the area of the water ), pool house, chemical facility, first aid etc are included. All of that needs to be in a secured enclosure with high fencing etc. The pool shown on the plans looked more like a 'water feature' as a result. Or (2) those who were pro pool were critical because the pool shown was smaller than DPR had originally said would be built.

At least, that is how I heard it. But man that one guy trying to argue that we needed an outdoor pool so his daughters could have gender equity...what was up with that. Whackor.
Anonymous
Post 09/09/2016 00:48     Subject: Re:Hearst Playground story in Current
I attended the meeting tonight and didn't get to speak because the looney (and predominately older) neighbors dominated the meeting and they ran out of time but they are just typical entitled NIMBY's making spurious and silly arguments:

-We shouldn't have a pool because DC can't maintain anything
-We should fix other things first
-We never heard anyone clamoring for an outdoor pool in Ward 3
-Ward 3 has never had a pool so what is the rush - let's take our time and get this right
-The City should first rule out/exhaustively study all other possible locations for a pool in Ward 3 before considering this site
-We know where the better locations are for a pool
-The city needs to study how exactly everyone will get to the pool
-The pool is too big
-The pool is too small
-The pool should be as close to Hearst ES as possible
-The pool should be as far from Hearst ES as possible
-No one will go to the pool
-Too many people will go to the pool
-It's unfair to take away any of the tennis courts
-There are other more pressing needs for outdoor recreational uses that should be addressed first
-I've lived near this park since 1948 and it is a great urban park and nothing about it should ever change
-The immediate neighbors are not opposed to a pool at this location but are just concerned that there is a transparent process that is environmentally friendly

And my favorite from the NIMBY playbook:

-There used to be an underground stream on this site and anything that disturbs the status quo will unleash water run-off issues AND destabilize anything built on the site.

I'm sure I missed some things that came up at the end as I was starting to absorb too much of the geritol that was permeating the room.
Anonymous
Post 09/08/2016 22:33     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:
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.


Gee, if you think everything DC touches is a dump, then you should move.