Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We love the idea of building a 'green' pool deck. DPR should commit to using grass instead of concrete, or at least use the lattice framing with permeable green cover rather than cement. Also, the pool house should be buried into the slope and have a green roof to reduce green space loss.

Yes, grass is green in color, but it is certainly not the most environmentally friendly of surfaces. It is a monoculture—that requires a great deal of care and water to remain lush and green in this area. It certainly does not refer to the varied and life sustaining grasses found in grasslands. While I prefer it to turf (and will advocate for the soccer field to remain grass), if we wanted to be seeking real wildlife benefitting improvements, we would be calling for DPR to work with various other agencies that have very different missions than DPR, to start managing the space to create more native habitat for native populations and species. I don't hear any of the nearby neighbors clamoring for that.

They just want their artificial slice of "nature" to be protected for their pleasure, and they're attempting to build alliances with others by creating an environment of fear by continuing to repeat untruths. And what's their goal? Their goal is to prevent a community serving facility such as a pool. How terrible a pool would be. Especially one with a beautiful view of mature oak trees.

Now, if those same nearby neighbors want to begin a conversation about turning the soccer field, tennis courts, and surrounding area (which is mainly invasive trees) into something more natural that better provides for wildlife (both migratory and resident) then we're getting to a point where the conversation seems to have some merit—it's worth discussing at least (though I would caution, such a project is not in DPR's mission). They won't of course, because they know how marginalized they would become. So, they will continue the drumbeat of untruths in order to try to preserve their alliances, and even so, they're dramatically outnumbered. This community wants an outdoor pool. This is the best site. I'm so sorry if increased property values caused by a very desirable amenity nearby is so scary to those nearby neighbors that oppose it.


This poster argues a concrete pool is more natural than grass and the eighty-year-old trees are not valuable because they are invasive. I have no words. It's something I imagine that Trump would say. "Who needs grass and trees in parks -that's not why people go to parks for - concrete and tall wire fences is better nature stuff."

Anonymous wrote:We love the idea of building a 'green' pool deck. DPR should commit to using grass instead of concrete, or at least use the lattice framing with permeable green cover rather than cement. Also, the pool house should be buried into the slope and have a green roof to reduce green space loss.

Anonymous wrote:Way to cover your own racist tracks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'd love to see a multilane freeway built from Friendship Heights, through Chevy Chase DC and the Palisades to help me get to work. How about extending 270 south to the river? I would get all the benefit and none of the impacts from the freeway. Should we put this to majority vote in DC? Who cares what the NIMBY residents of those neighborhoods think, as they'd probably be deep in the minority. The majority of us want a faster route to get downtown and beyond!

The Congress and USDOT already tried that and DC residents stood up against having a road used by Marylanders going through our neighborhoods. The difference here is that this is DC controlled property and a DC agency providing benefits to DC residents. YOU DO NOT OWN THE PARK.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:None of the mature oaks will be removed. So where does the idea of "no trees" come from?

All of the locations identified for the pool are in areas where there are currently no trees.

Really, this is getting old when you all keep misrepresenting what was presented.

To recap:

-no loss of trees
- no loss of soccer field
-no loss of tennis courts
-addition of a pool


So really, what is the problem other than "urban blight" and maintenance issues which need to be addressed regardless of whether or not there is a pool?

Where are the plans? Are they posted on a website?

Anonymous wrote:None of the mature oaks will be removed. So where does the idea of "no trees" come from?

All of the locations identified for the pool are in areas where there are currently no trees.

Really, this is getting old when you all keep misrepresenting what was presented.

To recap:

-no loss of trees
- no loss of soccer field
-no loss of tennis courts
-addition of a pool


So really, what is the problem other than "urban blight" and maintenance issues which need to be addressed regardless of whether or not there is a pool?

Anonymous wrote:
I'd love to see a multilane freeway built from Friendship Heights, through Chevy Chase DC and the Palisades to help me get to work. How about extending 270 south to the river? I would get all the benefit and none of the impacts from the freeway. Should we put this to majority vote in DC? Who cares what the NIMBY residents of those neighborhoods think, as they'd probably be deep in the minority. The majority of us want a faster route to get downtown and beyond!