She will piss off thousands by not following through on what has been started. Why should 75 people prevent a public amenity for hundreds of neighbors?

Anonymous wrote:New story in today's Current, that the NPS has ruled out a pool at Van Ness in Glover Archbold park.

It seems according to the article that even Mary Cheh is starting to have doubts about the Hearst Park site for a pool. Or at least she's having second thoughts about further antagonizing already concerned and energized voters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's DC government land next to Deal, currently used for overflow parking, that could be a good site for a pool. It's centrally located, on transit and next to secondary schools, which is good for June use.

Where? There is no parking for Deal teachers and no where for parents to park when there is an event. Where is the overflow parking that no on else knows about?

Let the Deal teachers take Metro.

New story in today's Current, that the NPS has ruled out a pool at Van Ness in Glover Archbold park.

Anonymous wrote:There's DC government land next to Deal, currently used for overflow parking, that could be a good site for a pool. It's centrally located, on transit and next to secondary schools, which is good for June use.

Where? There is no parking for Deal teachers and no where for parents to park when there is an event. Where is the overflow parking that no on else knows about?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are thousands of people who live in the immediate area who want a pool there.

Do you have a cite for that?

Everyone but the 75 people on the anti-email list.

So in other words, no.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are thousands of people who live in the immediate area who want a pool there.

Do you have a cite for that?

Everyone but the 75 people on the anti-email list.

Anonymous wrote:There are thousands of people who live in the immediate area who want a pool there.

Do you have a cite for that?

Anonymous wrote:

There are proposals that would make the field smaller and proposals that lose one of the 3 tennis courts.

All of the proposals make the field substantially smaller. That's a big deal for people who play soccer -- about one quarter of the under-18 population of Ward 3.

There are thousands of people who live in the immediate area who want a pool there. The 75 or so families that are fighting this should really just look at making the smartest choices for the park renovation rather than fighting this.

Look what happened at Cathedral Commons - people fought a 1 story store with a parking deck that required zoning relief. 15 years later, they got a 6 story building and the store and the parking deck. The opponents there lost miserably.

There are proposals that would make the field smaller and proposals that lose one of the 3 tennis courts.

It isn't doom and gloom. Most people would love to have a community pool walkable to their house. It is really silly to understand why people are fighting against it. It is an amenity that makes your house more valuable.

If I were a betting person, I'd bet against a pool at Hearst and look elsewhere. There's a large group of highly-energized residents opposed; it's clear that there will be major trade-offs (field, tennis courts, tree canopy?) even for a smallish pool; no analysis done by DC government; probability of lawsuits if it moves forward; and a bureaucracy and a DC mayor who aren't really behind the Hearst site. Aside from that, everything looks rosy.

Anonymous wrote:Other NPS sites like Ft Reno and Glover Archibald Park, where there aren't MOUs already in place.

Reno has a MOU, it's administered by DPR. Glover Archbald is administered by NPS. But I doubt NPS would allow a pool a Reno, the MOU doesn't allow construction. The suggestion was for the Deal parking lot. I have no idea if that is NPS land, I doubt NPS would allow parking if it was. The land ownership around there is so messed up it could be anything. I think the bigger question is where is Deal going to get parking if there's a pool there?

A bigger issue is that Deal is smack dab in the middle of the blue stripe in the DPR map, a pool there doesn't serve the entire underserved area and means you would have to build two more to do that.

Other NPS sites like Ft Reno and Glover Archibald Park, where there aren't MOUs already in place.

Anonymous wrote:National Park Service has already said they don;t want more DC pools on their property.

Next idea?

What are you responding to? Hearst is NPS land, but DPR administers it under a MOU. Are you saying NPS wouldn't allow a pool there? Or are you talking about some of the other NPS sites that have been bandied about in this thread?

National Park Service has already said they don;t want more DC pools on their property.

Next idea?