Anonymous
Post 09/22/2016 15:32     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Except that leagues also use Maret, Jellef, NCS, Sidwell, St Albans and the Ellington field.



So you're saying that since DPR doesn't currently provide enough public space to meet the demand for soccer, and private fields are used to close the gap somewhat, it's OK to further reduce the amount of space used for soccer? Isnt that exactly the argument that anti-pool folks make, that private pools already meet the demand for pools? (Except you're actually arguing to reduce the space for soccer, not block the construction of new facilities.)


Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds (and entitled Ward 3 pool moms).
Anonymous
Post 09/22/2016 15:30     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:There are a lot of soccer fields.

There is a lot of green space - Hazen Park and Rock Creek are right there, Glover Park is a block away (the part by the temple and behind Channel 9)

There are more tennis courts than are ever used on the nicest days of the year.

There is no outdoor pool.

So yes, if we need to lose the courts, or even a court, or a little so-called green space, then the answer is sure, for an amenity that doesn't exist for the public in the area, sure.



There are public pools within a 15 minute drive or bus ride, even in traffic. There are also various private pool options in the immediate Hearst area -- some are free to those who rent in certain complexes, others are relatively affordable (such as the Cleveland Park Club) or a bit more expensive for those who want a full sized pool (Beauvoir). There's a large indoor pool at Wilson a mile to the north. So, no another public pool in one of the most affluent areas of DC is not the highest public policy priority, especially when other recreational needs will have to be sacrificed for it.


No one ever said this was the highest public policy priority except for the immediate neighbors who likely only pay attention to public policy when it suddenly impacts them - even in DC the executive branch can deal with more than 1 thing at a time but please enlighten us on which of your public policy priorities is being sacrificed for the pool.

This debate is about trade-offs and picking the best use of scarce DPR land. Personally I'd sacrifice the tennis courts to add the pool and preserve the soccer field - the neighborhood has plenty of tennis courts, they are lightly used and on a per square foot basis don't provide rec use for very many people. The wealthy neighbors of Hearst certainly have cars and based on the amount they are posting on this thread they also have the time to drive (or bike or walk) to the courts at Fort Reno or Turtle Park which have low utilization rates.


The same could be said about potential ward 3 users of the two public pools in Burleith and Georgetown.
Anonymous
Post 09/22/2016 15:28     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:Its C-R-A-Z-Y to build on the field when there is a tennis court to build on. If DPR and Cheh would commit to building on the tennis courts, the number of opponents would drop dramatically.
1. It solves concern about preserving the park
2. It preserves the size of the field
3. No additional eyesore


Actually, it doesn't solve the problem.

1. The tennis players wouldn't like it.
2. More broadly. the footprint of the tennis courts sit below the drip line of the mature oaks canopy. The courts likely have been there for a while and court footers, if any are not deep, so it hasn't visibly impacted the trees. But to build a pool in that same location, as well as a pool house, would require extensive excavation which would irreparably damage tree roots and mean the removal of a number of trees. This is a siting problem for the pool because the tennis courts are wedged between the trees, the slope from 37th St. and the slope from Quebec.
Anonymous
Post 09/22/2016 14:32     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
So you're saying that since DPR doesn't currently provide enough public space to meet the demand for soccer, and private fields are used to close the gap somewhat, it's OK to further reduce the amount of space used for soccer? Isnt that exactly the argument that anti-pool folks make, that private pools already meet the demand for pools? (Except you're actually arguing to reduce the space for soccer, not block the construction of new facilities.)


The fields in question to not increase a per user fee or cost. If you are on a high school team or a Stoddert team, you are not paying MORE to use a private field. If you are in a building on Wisconsin Avenue and want to use a public outdoor pool, you are not paying more for that public outdoor pool. However, to join a private club in Montgomery County or small exclusive club in Cleveland Park, is more money to the resident.


That's complete nonsense.

All of those private fields charge substantial sums of money. The member of Stoddert pay about $350,000 a year for private field rentals. The only source of that money is member fees.


The fees are paid to be a member of a soccer club. The fees are used to rent fields, whether public or private. The individual player does not pay more or less based on what field they are assigned. This isn't a hard concept to comprehend.


The rental fee for Hearst is $5/hour. The rental for Sidwell is $150/hour, Wilson is $175/hour, Deal is in the same ballpark.

The individual members pay more if the supply of public fields dries up and more games have to be played on private fields. Not a hard concept to understand.
Anonymous
Post 09/22/2016 14:28     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
So you're saying that since DPR doesn't currently provide enough public space to meet the demand for soccer, and private fields are used to close the gap somewhat, it's OK to further reduce the amount of space used for soccer? Isnt that exactly the argument that anti-pool folks make, that private pools already meet the demand for pools? (Except you're actually arguing to reduce the space for soccer, not block the construction of new facilities.)


The fields in question to not increase a per user fee or cost. If you are on a high school team or a Stoddert team, you are not paying MORE to use a private field. If you are in a building on Wisconsin Avenue and want to use a public outdoor pool, you are not paying more for that public outdoor pool. However, to join a private club in Montgomery County or small exclusive club in Cleveland Park, is more money to the resident.


My two sons play soccer for a Ward 3 high school that doesn't own a field. The school pays huge money to rent fields for games and practices. The field rental for one game is more than we used to pay for an annual family membership at a private pool.


What field does your school rent?


Where ever it can. It rents from other schools and colleges and universities. A lot of the time it means driving to Maryland or Virginia.
Anonymous
Post 09/22/2016 14:25     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
So you're saying that since DPR doesn't currently provide enough public space to meet the demand for soccer, and private fields are used to close the gap somewhat, it's OK to further reduce the amount of space used for soccer? Isnt that exactly the argument that anti-pool folks make, that private pools already meet the demand for pools? (Except you're actually arguing to reduce the space for soccer, not block the construction of new facilities.)


The fields in question to not increase a per user fee or cost. If you are on a high school team or a Stoddert team, you are not paying MORE to use a private field. If you are in a building on Wisconsin Avenue and want to use a public outdoor pool, you are not paying more for that public outdoor pool. However, to join a private club in Montgomery County or small exclusive club in Cleveland Park, is more money to the resident.


Maret paid $2.5 million to build their field, Sidwell was over $2 million for the new field over the parking garage. I don't know the total tally for St. Albans but it was tens of millions. That money comes from somewhere.
Anonymous
Post 09/22/2016 14:25     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
So you're saying that since DPR doesn't currently provide enough public space to meet the demand for soccer, and private fields are used to close the gap somewhat, it's OK to further reduce the amount of space used for soccer? Isnt that exactly the argument that anti-pool folks make, that private pools already meet the demand for pools? (Except you're actually arguing to reduce the space for soccer, not block the construction of new facilities.)


The fields in question to not increase a per user fee or cost. If you are on a high school team or a Stoddert team, you are not paying MORE to use a private field. If you are in a building on Wisconsin Avenue and want to use a public outdoor pool, you are not paying more for that public outdoor pool. However, to join a private club in Montgomery County or small exclusive club in Cleveland Park, is more money to the resident.


My two sons play soccer for a Ward 3 high school that doesn't own a field. The school pays huge money to rent fields for games and practices. The field rental for one game is more than we used to pay for an annual family membership at a private pool.


What field does your school rent?
Anonymous
Post 09/22/2016 14:25     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:Its C-R-A-Z-Y to build on the field when there is a tennis court to build on. If DPR and Cheh would commit to building on the tennis courts, the number of opponents would drop dramatically.
1. It solves concern about preserving the park
2. It preserves the size of the field
3. No additional eyesore


+1

For the handful of people who use the courts, there are at least 13 public courts and another 14 private courts within about a 1/2 mile of Hearst. They benefit so few people per hour that it is barely a blip on the radar.
Anonymous
Post 09/22/2016 14:23     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
So you're saying that since DPR doesn't currently provide enough public space to meet the demand for soccer, and private fields are used to close the gap somewhat, it's OK to further reduce the amount of space used for soccer? Isnt that exactly the argument that anti-pool folks make, that private pools already meet the demand for pools? (Except you're actually arguing to reduce the space for soccer, not block the construction of new facilities.)


The fields in question to not increase a per user fee or cost. If you are on a high school team or a Stoddert team, you are not paying MORE to use a private field. If you are in a building on Wisconsin Avenue and want to use a public outdoor pool, you are not paying more for that public outdoor pool. However, to join a private club in Montgomery County or small exclusive club in Cleveland Park, is more money to the resident.


My two sons play soccer for a Ward 3 high school that doesn't own a field. The school pays huge money to rent fields for games and practices. The field rental for one game is more than we used to pay for an annual family membership at a private pool.
Anonymous
Post 09/22/2016 14:21     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
So you're saying that since DPR doesn't currently provide enough public space to meet the demand for soccer, and private fields are used to close the gap somewhat, it's OK to further reduce the amount of space used for soccer? Isnt that exactly the argument that anti-pool folks make, that private pools already meet the demand for pools? (Except you're actually arguing to reduce the space for soccer, not block the construction of new facilities.)


The fields in question to not increase a per user fee or cost. If you are on a high school team or a Stoddert team, you are not paying MORE to use a private field. If you are in a building on Wisconsin Avenue and want to use a public outdoor pool, you are not paying more for that public outdoor pool. However, to join a private club in Montgomery County or small exclusive club in Cleveland Park, is more money to the resident.


That's complete nonsense.

All of those private fields charge substantial sums of money. The member of Stoddert pay about $350,000 a year for private field rentals. The only source of that money is member fees.


The fees are paid to be a member of a soccer club. The fees are used to rent fields, whether public or private. The individual player does not pay more or less based on what field they are assigned. This isn't a hard concept to comprehend.
Anonymous
Post 09/22/2016 14:16     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:Its C-R-A-Z-Y to build on the field when there is a tennis court to build on. If DPR and Cheh would commit to building on the tennis courts, the number of opponents would drop dramatically.
1. It solves concern about preserving the park
2. It preserves the size of the field
3. No additional eyesore


Yup - it also negates the whole silly water runoff issue/argument the immediate neighbors have suddenly decided is of biblical proportions.
Anonymous
Post 09/22/2016 14:05     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
So you're saying that since DPR doesn't currently provide enough public space to meet the demand for soccer, and private fields are used to close the gap somewhat, it's OK to further reduce the amount of space used for soccer? Isnt that exactly the argument that anti-pool folks make, that private pools already meet the demand for pools? (Except you're actually arguing to reduce the space for soccer, not block the construction of new facilities.)


The fields in question to not increase a per user fee or cost. If you are on a high school team or a Stoddert team, you are not paying MORE to use a private field. If you are in a building on Wisconsin Avenue and want to use a public outdoor pool, you are not paying more for that public outdoor pool. However, to join a private club in Montgomery County or small exclusive club in Cleveland Park, is more money to the resident.


That's complete nonsense.

All of those private fields charge substantial sums of money. The member of Stoddert pay about $350,000 a year for private field rentals. The only source of that money is member fees.
Anonymous
Post 09/22/2016 13:39     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Its C-R-A-Z-Y to build on the field when there is a tennis court to build on. If DPR and Cheh would commit to building on the tennis courts, the number of opponents would drop dramatically.
1. It solves concern about preserving the park
2. It preserves the size of the field
3. No additional eyesore
Anonymous
Post 09/22/2016 13:26     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:
So you're saying that since DPR doesn't currently provide enough public space to meet the demand for soccer, and private fields are used to close the gap somewhat, it's OK to further reduce the amount of space used for soccer? Isnt that exactly the argument that anti-pool folks make, that private pools already meet the demand for pools? (Except you're actually arguing to reduce the space for soccer, not block the construction of new facilities.)


The fields in question to not increase a per user fee or cost. If you are on a high school team or a Stoddert team, you are not paying MORE to use a private field. If you are in a building on Wisconsin Avenue and want to use a public outdoor pool, you are not paying more for that public outdoor pool. However, to join a private club in Montgomery County or small exclusive club in Cleveland Park, is more money to the resident.
Anonymous
Post 09/22/2016 12:54     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:Except that leagues also use Maret, Jellef, NCS, Sidwell, St Albans and the Ellington field.



So you're saying that since DPR doesn't currently provide enough public space to meet the demand for soccer, and private fields are used to close the gap somewhat, it's OK to further reduce the amount of space used for soccer? Isnt that exactly the argument that anti-pool folks make, that private pools already meet the demand for pools? (Except you're actually arguing to reduce the space for soccer, not block the construction of new facilities.)