Anonymous wrote:Does anyone want to point out the "irony" of opponents of the pool calling a man who took the time to put together a petition that received more than 800 signatures from supporters, that showed up to attend a meeting he knew would be filled with the typical negativity, and is fighting for women's rights a "wacko" on a discussion forum titled DCUrbanMOMs no less?

It's that kind of name calling, along with the usual litany of red herring arguments that would seem to undermine the credibility of many of the opponents and their arguments.

Hearst is big enough for everyone. Hearst is big enough for three tennis courts, the soccer field to remain the size it is today, to retain most if not all of the great beautiful oaks that line the walkways, AND a BIGGER pool and deck. it is the most ideal location in this area.

And even if ONE tennis court needed to go (while the soccer field remained the SAME SIZE IT IS TODAY), there are loads of nearby public tennis courts within walking distance. Where's the nearest public outdoor pool? Who's walking there?

It's sad that so many of the opponents seem to want to sling mud (speaking of mud, where was this Friends' group when the park could have use some relatively simple upkeep? What, the friends didn't want to organize clean up days, didn't want to get out with some pruning sheers, didn't want to form a group of volunteers to pick up trash on a regular basis? Is that beneath them? But this same "Friends" group wants to suggest they are doing something for our future kids, even as most of us with kids are supportive of an outdoor pool on this site... for our kids (not to mention ourselves, and anyone who wants to exercise in a low impact way—last I heard, that's good for everyone... even the older folks nearby).

And many of the opponents seem not to understand (or simply want to poo poo it in order to "advance" their own interests) that in this day and age issues of social justice and yes "gender equity" are real and many people are focused on them (thankfully). I would like to thank "wacko". We need more wackos to fight for the rights of those that aren't themselves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was a little annoyed that the ANC guy who represents Hearst said he was late to the meeting because he was taking care of his kids. I have kids too. But this is probably the biggest issue he will face during his tenure or least until the proposals come in to redevelop the Fannie Mae site.

Yup he should abandon his kids to attend a meeting where the usual litany of silly, and previously stated, NIMBY objections to this project are repeated. I can count on one hand the number of constructive comments that were made by the close-in neighbors.

Anonymous wrote:I was a little annoyed that the ANC guy who represents Hearst said he was late to the meeting because he was taking care of his kids. I have kids too. But this is probably the biggest issue he will face during his tenure or least until the proposals come in to redevelop the Fannie Mae site.

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

Anonymous wrote:

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 wrote: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 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"

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.

Anonymous wrote: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?