Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You're replying to me so I'll let you know that first, your disdain for older people is sad. But second, I'm a parent who got off of work at 6pm, ran home, kissed the kids who were already home with my spouse, and came to the meeting. I'm sad I missed their bedtime, but protecting their year-round playing space is critical.

And since you attended the meeting and learned that their year-round playing space is not being lost I assume you are now a supporter of building a pool that will benefit a much broader cross-section of our city?

Nope. Because the record stands that DPR cannot maintain it's facilities. And until we see designs that show actual dimensions, nothing is to be believed. They couldn't even agree if the pool was 25 meters or 25 yards. When we are talking about limited space at a park, that's a difference I would like to see. And if they are going to do a survey, why not put on there as an option "I don't want a pool?" What are they afraid of? They've already split a community. And didn't the guy say last night that that majority of pool users only travel 2 miles for a pool? that's not much of a broader cross section.

I welcome a survey. It will show how deep in the minority the pool opponents are. Don't you think everyone from Cathedral Heights to Friendship Heights and Palisades to Chevy Chase, DC want a nearby outdoor pool? The last survey had something like 70% support for a pool. I wouldn't be surprised if the next survey showed 90+ %.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DPR has a wack-a-mole maintenance strategy. That doesn't work for Hearst already and now they want to spend $12 million to cover 40 percent of a 2-acre grass field with concrete. Thanks but i don't need an extra helping of urban blight in my neighborhood.

It took a while but finally one of the immediate neighbors has revealed what this is really about - fear of something urban coming into their neighborhood. And by urban I doubt very much what they are concerned about when it comes to "urban blight" is physical in nature and has more to do with the fear about others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DPR has a wack-a-mole maintenance strategy. That doesn't work for Hearst already and now they want to spend $12 million to cover 40 percent of a 2-acre grass field with concrete. Thanks but i don't need an extra helping of urban blight in my neighborhood.

And this is why you won't win. You keep trying different tactics and arguments and you and your neighbors are revealing yourselves as selfish and somewhat racist. Thanks!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You're replying to me so I'll let you know that first, your disdain for older people is sad. But second, I'm a parent who got off of work at 6pm, ran home, kissed the kids who were already home with my spouse, and came to the meeting. I'm sad I missed their bedtime, but protecting their year-round playing space is critical.

And since you attended the meeting and learned that their year-round playing space is not being lost I assume you are now a supporter of building a pool that will benefit a much broader cross-section of our city?

Anonymous wrote:DPR has a wack-a-mole maintenance strategy. That doesn't work for Hearst already and now they want to spend $12 million to cover 40 percent of a 2-acre grass field with concrete. Thanks but i don't need an extra helping of urban blight in my neighborhood.

Anonymous wrote:DPR has a wack-a-mole maintenance strategy. That doesn't work for Hearst already and now they want to spend $12 million to cover 40 percent of a 2-acre grass field with concrete. Thanks but i don't need an extra helping of urban blight in my neighborhood.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You're replying to me so I'll let you know that first, your disdain for older people is sad. But second, I'm a parent who got off of work at 6pm, ran home, kissed the kids who were already home with my spouse, and came to the meeting. I'm sad I missed their bedtime, but protecting their year-round playing space is critical.

And since you attended the meeting and learned that their year-round playing space is not being lost I assume you are now a supporter of building a pool that will benefit a much broader cross-section of our city?

Nope. Because the record stands that DPR cannot maintain it's facilities. And until we see designs that show actual dimensions, nothing is to be believed. They couldn't even agree if the pool was 25 meters or 25 yards. When we are talking about limited space at a park, that's a difference I would like to see. And if they are going to do a survey, why not put on there as an option "I don't want a pool?" What are they afraid of? They've already split a community. And didn't the guy say last night that that majority of pool users only travel 2 miles for a pool? that's not much of a broader cross section.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You're replying to me so I'll let you know that first, your disdain for older people is sad. But second, I'm a parent who got off of work at 6pm, ran home, kissed the kids who were already home with my spouse, and came to the meeting. I'm sad I missed their bedtime, but protecting their year-round playing space is critical.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I couldn't make the meeting but I assume that "tennis courts available" means "available" somewhere else and that they will be torn out at Hearst. If I had to choose, if we get the pool, move the tennis courts to the site of the upper playground and the basketball court. Hearst school can find playing space for the kids on the school yard proper. At least then everyone's interests could be met.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You're replying to me so I'll let you know that first, your disdain for older people is sad. But second, I'm a parent who got off of work at 6pm, ran home, kissed the kids who were already home with my spouse, and came to the meeting. I'm sad I missed their bedtime, but protecting their year-round playing space is critical.

And since you attended the meeting and learned that their year-round playing space is not being lost I assume you are now a supporter of building a pool that will benefit a much broader cross-section of our city?

Nope. Because the record stands that DPR cannot maintain it's facilities. And until we see designs that show actual dimensions, nothing is to be believed. They couldn't even agree if the pool was 25 meters or 25 yards. When we are talking about limited space at a park, that's a difference I would like to see. And if they are going to do a survey, why not put on there as an option "I don't want a pool?" What are they afraid of? They've already split a community. And didn't the guy say last night that that majority of pool users only travel 2 miles for a pool? that's not much of a broader cross section.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You're replying to me so I'll let you know that first, your disdain for older people is sad. But second, I'm a parent who got off of work at 6pm, ran home, kissed the kids who were already home with my spouse, and came to the meeting. I'm sad I missed their bedtime, but protecting their year-round playing space is critical.

And since you attended the meeting and learned that their year-round playing space is not being lost I assume you are now a supporter of building a pool that will benefit a much broader cross-section of our city?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You're replying to me so I'll let you know that first, your disdain for older people is sad. But second, I'm a parent who got off of work at 6pm, ran home, kissed the kids who were already home with my spouse, and came to the meeting. I'm sad I missed their bedtime, but protecting their year-round playing space is critical.

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?