Anyone go to the meeting on Wednesday ?

Just got an email that there's a meeting on Wednesday. Anyone know what's up?

There's a pretty persuasive letter in the NW Current this week. Ever if it was a more acceptable 'choice' to sacrifice the Hearst tennis courts for the pool, pool house and infrastructure, construction and regrading would likely result in a number of the park's tall oaks being removed. Even some of the pool supporters have said that might be a deal breaker for them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the 20 people who might play tennis a few times a year and the one guy who is illegally making money by using the courts to give lessons, they can find another place to play.

There are like 20 free courts that are walkable from Hearst, or they can pay to use the St Albans or Sidwell courts.

This is a specious argument. There is a year-round public pool that is within walking distance from the Hearst site. There are three outdoor public pools within an easy bus or car ride. Residents one block away from the site have access to association pools (McLean Gardens and Vaughan Place). Or people "can pay to use" the Cleveland Park Club or Beauvoir pools.

Shoe on the other foot pinch much?

Yes, ouch!

Anonymous wrote:For the 20 people who might play tennis a few times a year and the one guy who is illegally making money by using the courts to give lessons, they can find another place to play.

There are like 20 free courts that are walkable from Hearst, or they can pay to use the St Albans or Sidwell courts.

Sidwell locks their courts and now it appears that the Newark courts will become the police parking lot for at least 18 months while the new homeless shelter is constructed.

I haven't checked the St. Albans' courts recently to see if they are locked as well. Even if they aren't, you can only use them outside of school hours and events and they aren't a public asset.

Anonymous wrote:For the 20 people who might play tennis a few times a year and the one guy who is illegally making money by using the courts to give lessons, they can find another place to play.

There are like 20 free courts that are walkable from Hearst, or they can pay to use the St Albans or Sidwell courts.

This is a specious argument. There is a year-round public pool that is within walking distance from the Hearst site. There are three outdoor public pools within an easy bus or car ride. Residents one block away from the site have access to association pools (McLean Gardens and Vaughan Place). Or people "can pay to use" the Cleveland Park Club or Beauvoir pools.

Shoe on the other foot pinch much?

For the 20 people who might play tennis a few times a year and the one guy who is illegally making money by using the courts to give lessons, they can find another place to play.

There are like 20 free courts that are walkable from Hearst, or they can pay to use the St Albans or Sidwell courts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pool opposition is likely to increase as DGS focuses more on Hearst playground as the site for the pool -- it's level, more stable ground, with easy access to 37th St and to parking. The site would be farthest from nearby houses. Alternatively if the small turf field and basketball court are sacrificed, most of the playground can be saved.

Why would anyone focus the site of the pool to be at the Hearst playground? The most logical place for it is at the tennis courts. If this is the so-called neighbors doing this, then all it is going to do is pit the pro-school/playground neighbors versus the anti-tennis court neighbors. Pro-school will win every time.

So it won't be pool opposition, it will be the handful of neighbors that don't want it at the tennis court site.

Actually, it's likely to energize yet another group in opposition. So then you'll have Hearst school parents, Hearst Park neighbors/frequent users, the conservation community and the Stoddert soccer stakeholders all in opposition. While each may have particular sacred cows, all can see that Hearst Park is a sub-optimal, constrained site. Even a spokesman for the "Friends of Hearst Pool" stated at a recent community association meeting that they would re-consider their support if pool construction would impact the park's tall oaks.

Stoddert isn't opposed, that i FakeNews. They want to maintain the full size field, which can be done if the pools is sited at the tennis courts or upper area. Please don't mischaracterize the letter that was sent out to the neighbors.

In which case the tennis players will be upset, because an Upshur sized pool infrastructure (the size DPR/DGS says they want to build) covers the entire tennis court area and then some. If it's the upper area playground, or even the itty-bitty turf field, the school parents will go nuclear. Others will be energized if the mature trees are impacted (which seems likely with excavation and slope stabilization). As stated in a PP, Hearst is such a constrained site, to wedge a pool in there, something's going to have to give. Or several things.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pool opposition is likely to increase as DGS focuses more on Hearst playground as the site for the pool -- it's level, more stable ground, with easy access to 37th St and to parking. The site would be farthest from nearby houses. Alternatively if the small turf field and basketball court are sacrificed, most of the playground can be saved.

Why would anyone focus the site of the pool to be at the Hearst playground? The most logical place for it is at the tennis courts. If this is the so-called neighbors doing this, then all it is going to do is pit the pro-school/playground neighbors versus the anti-tennis court neighbors. Pro-school will win every time.

So it won't be pool opposition, it will be the handful of neighbors that don't want it at the tennis court site.

Actually, it's likely to energize yet another group in opposition. So then you'll have Hearst school parents, Hearst Park neighbors/frequent users, the conservation community and the Stoddert soccer stakeholders all in opposition. While each may have particular sacred cows, all can see that Hearst Park is a sub-optimal, constrained site. Even a spokesman for the "Friends of Hearst Pool" stated at a recent community association meeting that they would re-consider their support if pool construction would impact the park's tall oaks.

Stoddert isn't opposed, that i FakeNews. They want to maintain the full size field, which can be done if the pools is sited at the tennis courts or upper area. Please don't mischaracterize the letter that was sent out to the neighbors.

119 pages of arguing. How about ward 3 families just keep on using Wilson (walkable for many), Jelleff (easy bus ride from most of ward 3), Volta (easy bus ride from most of ward 3), and/or the many private pools that $$ families have joined over the years? How about we just acknowledge that this is a fairly small city, with limited open space, and that just as many of us have had to compromise on the size of our houses, we may also not get a free community pool exactly where we want it, especially if it ruins other urban amenities already used by thousands of residents, such as the Hearst soccer field and green space?

I'm as mystified as any one else re why Mary Cheh thought Hearst was a good pool location. Time to throw in the towel.

Paging Professor Cheh to step up to the blackboard. It's time to start over and come up with a new plan for a ward 3 pool!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pool opposition is likely to increase as DGS focuses more on Hearst playground as the site for the pool -- it's level, more stable ground, with easy access to 37th St and to parking. The site would be farthest from nearby houses. Alternatively if the small turf field and basketball court are sacrificed, most of the playground can be saved.

Why would anyone focus the site of the pool to be at the Hearst playground? The most logical place for it is at the tennis courts. If this is the so-called neighbors doing this, then all it is going to do is pit the pro-school/playground neighbors versus the anti-tennis court neighbors. Pro-school will win every time.

So it won't be pool opposition, it will be the handful of neighbors that don't want it at the tennis court site.

Actually, it's likely to energize yet another group in opposition. So then you'll have Hearst school parents, Hearst Park neighbors/frequent users, the conservation community and the Stoddert soccer stakeholders all in opposition. While each may have particular sacred cows, all can see that Hearst Park is a sub-optimal, constrained site. Even a spokesman for the "Friends of Hearst Pool" stated at a recent community association meeting that they would re-consider their support if pool construction would impact the park's tall oaks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pool opposition is likely to increase as DGS focuses more on Hearst playground as the site for the pool -- it's level, more stable ground, with easy access to 37th St and to parking. The site would be farthest from nearby houses. Alternatively if the small turf field and basketball court are sacrificed, most of the playground can be saved.

Why would anyone focus the site of the pool to be at the Hearst playground? The most logical place for it is at the tennis courts. If this is the so-called neighbors doing this, then all it is going to do is pit the pro-school/playground neighbors versus the anti-tennis court neighbors. Pro-school will win every time.

So it won't be pool opposition, it will be the handful of neighbors that don't want it at the tennis court site.

The tennis court site would likely result in loss of all of the courts, significantly impact the tree canopy and require major soil stabilization (particularly if, as DPW publicly stated, its pool template is the Upshur pool). It is also the most impactful of the possible locations on surrounding residential areas. The advantage of the upper tier location (more likely the little turf field rather than the playground itself) is its accessibility, yet without the locational disadvantages of the tennis court site. Moreover, any loss of the turf field is mitigated by the presence of the adjacent lower field. It's not perfect, but the issue with Hearst Park is that nothing is. It's like fitting a square peg in a round hole and where something's gotta' give.

Anonymous wrote:Pool opposition is likely to increase as DGS focuses more on Hearst playground as the site for the pool -- it's level, more stable ground, with easy access to 37th St and to parking. The site would be farthest from nearby houses. Alternatively if the small turf field and basketball court are sacrificed, most of the playground can be saved.

Why would anyone focus the site of the pool to be at the Hearst playground? The most logical place for it is at the tennis courts. If this is the so-called neighbors doing this, then all it is going to do is pit the pro-school/playground neighbors versus the anti-tennis court neighbors. Pro-school will win every time.

So it won't be pool opposition, it will be the handful of neighbors that don't want it at the tennis court site.

Pool opposition is likely to increase as DGS focuses more on Hearst playground as the site for the pool -- it's level, more stable ground, with easy access to 37th St and to parking. The site would be farthest from nearby houses. Alternatively if the small turf field and basketball court are sacrificed, most of the playground can be saved.