Anonymous wrote:How to piss off the council?

Take time during an oversight hearing to lobby the agency in question to review sites on property the Agency doesn't control.

Seriously, people want the pool. Cheh got the money in the budget. Why not accept the inevitable and work with DPR to make it the best pool it will be.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don't understand the difference between the RFK site and Franklin square and any space in Ward 3 that might be dedicated to a pool such as Rock Creek or Glover Park, I don't know what to tell you.

Tell us, then. Not to mention, there are NPS sites that are not in Rock Creek Park, not core green space and devoid of existing assets like fields, tennis courts, etc. Several are on the periphery of Ft Reno, a central location which has the advantage of being near the existing indoor pool facility and has Metro access. Another is at the end of Glover Archibold Park, off Van Ness and Upton, a spot sometimes used as overflow parking for Verizon and as an (illegal) dog run. The point is, if DC thinks that NPS would transfer green park space for development, which is irrevocable, then surely it wouldn't close the door to transfer or a mere lease agreement for recreational purposes (as NP has done in the past).

If there had been a good-faith effort to investigate possible locations for a pool those discussions may have happened. But there was no such effort.

Exactly. A FOIA request to the DC government asked for all documents, analyses, etc. relating to Hearst site selection and consideration of alternative Ward 3 pool sites. The response was that no such documents existed.

Cheh is lying.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don't understand the difference between the RFK site and Franklin square and any space in Ward 3 that might be dedicated to a pool such as Rock Creek or Glover Park, I don't know what to tell you.

Tell us, then. Not to mention, there are NPS sites that are not in Rock Creek Park, not core green space and devoid of existing assets like fields, tennis courts, etc. Several are on the periphery of Ft Reno, a central location which has the advantage of being near the existing indoor pool facility and has Metro access. Another is at the end of Glover Archibold Park, off Van Ness and Upton, a spot sometimes used as overflow parking for Verizon and as an (illegal) dog run. The point is, if DC thinks that NPS would transfer green park space for development, which is irrevocable, then surely it wouldn't close the door to transfer or a mere lease agreement for recreational purposes (as NP has done in the past).

If there had been a good-faith effort to investigate possible locations for a pool those discussions may have happened. But there was no such effort.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don't understand the difference between the RFK site and Franklin square and any space in Ward 3 that might be dedicated to a pool such as Rock Creek or Glover Park, I don't know what to tell you.

Tell us, then. Not to mention, there are NPS sites that are not in Rock Creek Park, not core green space and devoid of existing assets like fields, tennis courts, etc. Several are on the periphery of Ft Reno, a central location which has the advantage of being near the existing indoor pool facility and has Metro access. Another is at the end of Glover Archibold Park, off Van Ness and Upton, a spot sometimes used as overflow parking for Verizon and as an (illegal) dog run. The point is, if DC thinks that NPS would transfer green park space for development, which is irrevocable, then surely it wouldn't close the door to transfer or a mere lease agreement for recreational purposes (as NP has done in the past).

Anonymous wrote:The site off Van Ness has already been ruled out and the Ft Reno site is not viable for a host of reasons, that I don't agree with. I actually think the area closest to Fessenden/Nebraska/Reno Rd would be great for this use, but alas, it isn't going to happen.

Anonymous wrote:If you don't understand the difference between the RFK site and Franklin square and any space in Ward 3 that might be dedicated to a pool such as Rock Creek or Glover Park, I don't know what to tell you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^^

If that is the case, then it would be regardless if there were a pool or not. If some of the trees are past peak maturity and pose a danger, then so be it, but don't blame it on a pool.

An interesting standard.

Cheh should be held to it as well!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^^

If that is the case, then it would be regardless if there were a pool or not. If some of the trees are past peak maturity and pose a danger, then so be it, but don't blame it on a pool.

An interesting standard.

Anonymous wrote:Cheh has a credibility problem with Hearst Park. Last week's NW Current quotes Cheh and her staff stating that no National Park Sevice-owned land can be considered as possible alternative sites for a pool because NPS said no to any use or transfer for a pool. (Various DC-operated recreational facilities, including in Ward 3, are located on NPS land.) Yet Tom Sherwood reports in the same issue of the Current that Mayor Bowser is asking NPS to tranfer extensive park holdings to DC. These include 190 acres adjacent to the RFK site, not just for recreational purposes, but for a new stadium, housing, retail and other economic development purposes. She also asked for the transfer to DC of other properties, including Franklin Sq. and three golf courses owned by NPS (on one of which DC wants to have developers put housing and "amenities"). If the mayor thinks that NPS would transfer park land and open space for development, you'd think it would be somewhat more plausible that NPS would consider use by DC for recreational purposes like a pool (as it has in the past).

Cheh is either disengaged or disingenuous. You decide.

Anonymous wrote:^^^^

If that is the case, then it would be regardless if there were a pool or not. If some of the trees are past peak maturity and pose a danger, then so be it, but don't blame it on a pool.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And no one, particularly the city, is suggesting the removal or alteration of the mature oaks. They are heritage trees and are not going anywhere, so please stop misusing the cannard.

DC has said that some trees may need to come down for safety reasons.