Anonymous wrote:Does this pool protest have something to do with not wanting the area to attract the dirty (poor, black, etc) types that cannot afford a pool in their large backyards into the area???

The Hearst Playground area is one of the few spaces in this area it could go, and the empty space would be better if put to use.

More than 107 pages of discussion for a community pool, which could actually be effective in bringing the community together is silly.

Perhaps if you think of those elite suburban pool clubs and try to emulate them here, it may make the idea a little more attractive.

Hey, race baiter, wasn't the whole rationale of the pro-Hearst pool folks that it was unfair that upscale Ward 3 didn't have its own pool? How does this square with your incendiary and inaccurate accusation?

Anonymous wrote:Tennis courts are empty space given the number of people who can use them at a time. And they are usually empty at Hearst, or at least 2 or the 3 of them are, if ever.

I feel like whoever keeps saying this spends little time at Hearst. I took my kids to the playground on Sunday afternoon. It was chilly. Two of the 3 courts were in use even then by other families with children. There were also a handful of kids on the playground, others playing pickup basketball and more playing pickup soccer.

If you haven’t already, please fill out the survey (Each device is allowed one response) so if you want the pool, do what those opposed are doing and be sure to us multiple devices to game the results.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/QHZJJ7K

Tennis courts are empty space given the number of people who can use them at a time. And they are usually empty at Hearst, or at least 2 or the 3 of them are, if ever.

Anonymous wrote:
The Hearst Playground area is one of the few spaces in this area it could go, and the empty space would be better if put to use.

What is this "empty space" of which you speak? Most of the opposition seems to be centered around the fact that some existing users would be displaced.

Anonymous wrote: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?

DPR has a survey out to gauge community sentiment on the pool. Until the survey results are out anyone who throws around numbers about community sentiment is talking out of their ass.

Survey is at:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/QHZJJ7K

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.

Well, that's simply not true. I'm not on the email list, live a block from Hearst, and absolutely oppose a pool there. So add another family (with small children at that!) in opposition to the pool.

Does this pool protest have something to do with not wanting the area to attract the dirty (poor, black, etc) types that cannot afford a pool in their large backyards into the area???

The Hearst Playground area is one of the few spaces in this area it could go, and the empty space would be better if put to use.

More than 107 pages of discussion for a community pool, which could actually be effective in bringing the community together is silly.

Perhaps if you think of those elite suburban pool clubs and try to emulate them here, it may make the idea a little more attractive.

Anonymous wrote:CPHS took a position in the Giant in 2000, look it up. CPCA took a position as well. For both organizations, it created a lot of fissure for the community.

CPHS has now taken the bold step to repeat history. After you shared the letter on the listserv, a lot of us have been emailing and there is a pretty clear consensus that many are upset that a neighborhood organization would weigh in on this without asking its membership, particularly since we all want the pool and it has no impact on the historic district at all.

Many of those who have been posting on the Cleveland Park list serv live a mile or more from Hearst Park -- and not in the Cleveland Park neighborhood They have a lot of chutzpah lecturing the historical society on the stances that it takes in the neighborhood.

CPHS took a position in the Giant in 2000, look it up. CPCA took a position as well. For both organizations, it created a lot of fissure for the community.

CPHS has now taken the bold step to repeat history. After you shared the letter on the listserv, a lot of us have been emailing and there is a pretty clear consensus that many are upset that a neighborhood organization would weigh in on this without asking its membership, particularly since we all want the pool and it has no impact on the historic district at all.

Anonymous wrote:They took a stand around 2000 and half the membership quit in protest.

Hearst is outside of the historic district. CPHS has no jurisdiction and is now just another NIMBY group. That wasn't what it needed at this time.

I believe you mean the Cleveland Park Citizens Association, not the historical society.

As a 501c3, the historical society has no "jurisdiction" over anything. It's not a public body. However, it carries influence with HPRB and other city agencies on matters that are within or could impact the historic district. As the boundary of the historic district abuts the park to the south and east, the impact is clear. You can deride it as 'NIMBY' all you want, but it is significant that a major neighborhood stakeholder with hundreds of members has such strong concerns about paving Hearst for a pool.

Even Cheh seems to be having second thoughts about the Hearst site.

They took a stand around 2000 and half the membership quit in protest.

Hearst is outside of the historic district. CPHS has no jurisdiction and is now just another NIMBY group. That wasn't what it needed at this time.

I'm a member of the the CP historical society, and I believe that the board IS reflecting the membership. They're spot on in pointing out that DC did no analysis of the site versus alternatives and are concerned about the loss of greenspace and especially the old tree canopy. And the historic district wraps around the park on two sides

I don't believe that the historical society took a stand on Cathedral Commons, but it's surprising that you mention it as an example, given how crappy the design turned out.

Horrible move by the CPHS. Most of its membership wants the pool, and worse, Hearst is not even located in the historic district, so it is taking a position on something well outside of its chartered purview.

The last time they did this was the Cathedral Commons, which also was/is outside of the boundaries.

That caused a revolt in membership and board defections. I hope for their sake that doesn't happen again.

I certainly won't renew my membership.

Ward 3 opposition to paving Hearst Park for a pool is growing. The Cleveland Park Historical Society board of directors has weighed in strongly against it.

Dear Councilmember Cheh,

I write on behalf of the board of the Cleveland Park Historical Society (CPHS) to express our strong objection to current plans to place a swimming pool at Hearst Park, in the 3900 block of 37th Street NW in Ward 3.

As we understand the history of this project, the city chose Hearst Park without the organized involvement of residents in the surrounding neighborhood. The city ignored known preexisting site deficiencies and did not consider adequately other more suitable sites. The city did not solicit the views of neighbors in a timely manner. The city conducted no studies to evaluate the serious environmental impact a pool would have on Hearst Park and nearby property. In our opinion, the proposed new construction would exacerbate flooding problems at the Park and would potentially damage many of the Park’s heritage willow oaks. These trees are among the Park’s most valued features. Most significantly, a pool would radically impair one of the City’s oldest and much loved open green spaces. CPHS does not object to constructing an outdoor pool in Ward 3. However, we do oppose locating it in Hearst Park given the city’s lack of consideration of neighborhood, site, and environmental factors.

CPHS represents the Cleveland Park neighborhood of 1,100 household and has hundreds of members. It was founded in 1985 and promotes interest in the history of Cleveland Park and encourages the preservation of its architectural heritage and character as a friendly residential neighborhood with a strong sense of community. The Cleveland Park Historic District was established in 1986 after extensive CPHS research and has been included in National Register of Historic Places since April 1987. Hearst Park borders the Cleveland Park historic district, and contributes strongly to its character, which the CPHS was established to preserve.

We urge you to reconsider the Hearst Park venue for the pool.

Sincerely,