Agree with PP, it was clear that the neighbors opposed to the pool were explicit in their communications to game the system. It really makes the results even more one-sided.

Probably more like 85% in favor of a pool.

Those are Cheh voters. Why would she, or the Mayor ignore such a one-sided result?

Anonymous wrote:There was a suggestion on DCUM that pool partisans fill out the survey multiple times with different devices.

Nope wrong - I assume this is a deliberate example of cloudy memory but here from DCUM on 12/4 is verbatim the only post in this thread that suggests anyone is stacking the vote:

Here is the email, it was sent on November 28th at 11:45:

Dear Neighbors: If you haven’t already, please fill out the survey. I must confess, I was put off (and very angry) by the fact that it requires you to pick a pool and pool option even if you chose the no pool option – in fact, I haven’t filled out my own survey yet. But see the note we received back after our complaints about the survey, and make sure you and yours fill it out despite the problems. (Each device is allowed one response.) Please, read further down the fantastic letter put out by the Cleveland Park Historical Society. Also, Harry Martin raised our concerns at the Community Meeting with Mayor Bowser two weeks ago, and she promised to meet with us (stayed tuned for scheduling details.) And Hans Miller scheduled a meeting for us with newly-elected ANC 3C Commissioner Emma Hersh on Sunday, Dec. 11 at 2 PM at Hearst Park. (Please meet near the Idaho Avenue entrance to Hearst.) Finally, while I haven’t seen it, the NW Current ran an article Nov. 23 entitled “Park Service nixes alternative site,” which is about our proposed alternative site at Glover Archbold. Recall that we proposed multiple alternative sites and are in the process of reaching out to the National Park Service to follow up. So we keep on keeping on and can’t imagine a better group of people to be associated with - and for that I am very thankful.

So please don't cast dispersion on your neighbors who were playing by the rules when the opponents are the ones who were stacking the votes. Yes, the anti's ARE the Trumpkins here. Own it.

There was a suggestion on DCUM that pool partisans fill out the survey multiple times with different devices.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty one-sided survey results.

These on-line surveys are of questionable accuracy and are easily gamed. The pro-Hearst pool side was actively encouraging people to take the survey multiple times using different electronic devices that would register as separate responders. Also, on line surveys don't tell much about how residents in a certain area feel. Whether one supports a new highway or, for that matter, a large homeless shelter, might depend on how much one might be directly impacted.

Really?

I'm on the email list for both of the pro pool groups and just went back and checked and nothing of the sort was suggested.

The survey is still referenced on the Friends of Hearst Park Website and it says nothing about voting using multiple devices:

http://friendsofhearstpool.org/news/

And here is the text for one of the three emails I received about the survey:

City's Hearst Park Survey Closes This Wednesday (the 30th)

Nov 28, 2016 —
This is the one that matters, so filling it out is crucial. Thanks for taking the time!
Link can be found here...
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/QHZJJ7K
...or by visiting to the Friends of Hearst Pool website.
And don't forget to spread the word.
Cheers!
FOHP

And I checked the email I got from the other pro pool group and it also made no suggestion that folks try to vote more than once.

Anonymous wrote:Pretty one-sided survey results.

These on-line surveys are of questionable accuracy and are easily gamed. The pro-Hearst pool side was actively encouraging people to take the survey multiple times using different electronic devices that would register as separate responders. Also, on line surveys don't tell much about how residents in a certain area feel. Whether one supports a new highway or, for that matter, a large homeless shelter, might depend on how much one might be directly impacted.

Pretty one-sided survey results.

Anonymous wrote:What do people of putting a pool at Hardy Park? Lots of land there, frontage on major roads, on a bus line. The DPR facilities plan calls for a new pool in southern Ward 3. Thoughts?

It isn't centrally located and people in that area can easily go to the three gtown pools.

Anonymous wrote:What do people of putting a pool at Hardy Park? Lots of land there, frontage on major roads, on a bus line. The DPR facilities plan calls for a new pool in southern Ward 3. Thoughts?

That makes a lot of sense. Hardy also has a tennis courts, like Hearst where they could put the pool. Does Stoddert still use that field for soccer?

Hardy is used for soccer, but the field area isn't as big because the amount of flat ground is smaller. Typically about a 75 yard field.

I would also want to hear from Cheh why should decided not to focus on that field as she consider all the options available in Ward 3

What do people of putting a pool at Hardy Park? Lots of land there, frontage on major roads, on a bus line. The DPR facilities plan calls for a new pool in southern Ward 3. Thoughts?

That makes a lot of sense. Hardy also has a tennis courts, like Hearst where they could put the pool. Does Stoddert still use that field for soccer?

Anonymous wrote:Foxhall Road and MacArthur Boulevard are minor local streets?

According to the DC Real Property Assessment database, Hearst is Square 1905, lot 8: 191,688
Hardy is Square 1363 lot 981: 204,110 square feet

So the Hardy site is bigger than the Hearst site. Grade changes at Hardy are much less than at Hearst. Many fewer trees at Hardy too.

I thínk the poster before you must be confused and is talking about Hearst, not Hardy, since what they describe sounds exactly like Hearst.

Foxhall Road and MacArthur Boulevard are minor local streets?

According to the DC Real Property Assessment database, Hearst is Square 1905, lot 8: 191,688
Hardy is Square 1363 lot 981: 204,110 square feet

So the Hardy site is bigger than the Hearst site. Grade changes at Hardy are much less than at Hearst. Many fewer trees at Hardy too.

Anonymous wrote:What do people of putting a pool at Hardy Park? Lots of land there, frontage on major roads, on a bus line. The DPR facilities plan calls for a new pool in southern Ward 3. Thoughts?

Site is small, and fronts on minor local streets not major roads. Park has just four usable acres. The rest is slope. Pool, deck, pool house would take almost 50 percent of usable parkland, impacting soccer field, tennis courts and large tree canopy. Hearst selection was a major league screw up by Cheh, which DC agencies are scrambling away from.

What do people of putting a pool at Hardy Park? Lots of land there, frontage on major roads, on a bus line. The DPR facilities plan calls for a new pool in southern Ward 3. Thoughts?

Everything that may happen at Fannie Mae will be matter of right. They will need to go through a large tract review, but there is no threashold there as it relates to a PUD or other zoning relief.

There is simply nothing that can be proposed there within reason, that the community can opposed. The developer in question is reasonable.