Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can give up one tennis court and nothing else. All of the angsting that this or that is going to be lost is hyperbole. Everyone who watches it understands that and it makes the opponents look foolish and obstructionist.

And anyone with any sense knows that a public pool, its decks, and equipment simply will not fit in the footprint of one tennis court. Unless you are planning a pool that's roughly 10x8. In which case, enjoy the bathtub with it's capacity of 15 people at a time.

Not to mention that the tennis courts sit under the drip line of some of the big oaks. Even if you could confine the pool, pool house and other infrastructure to a tennis court footprint (or the footprint of all of the courts), which is doubtful, the construction would require serious excavating. This would certainly damage the tree roots, resulting in the likely removal of a number of trees. The tennis courts are thin asphalt which sit on a base of fill and gravel originally done years ago. Excavation for a pool would be extensive and quite damaging to the tree canopy.

Enough. About. The. Trees. Please.

Really. Do you think anyone wants a shady pool in shadow much of the day? In a choice between a Hearst pool and Hearst trees, bring on the chain saws.

These aren't regular tress. They are magical trees.

Are there any big trees that can prevent the awful site selection for a ward 3 homeless shelter? Why don't they put it in the building they are giving away to LAB?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:blah blah balh

Is that you, Kommissar Cheh?

Da. We bulldoze all trees and dissidents that get in way of pool at Hearst. I decree it!

Tee her.

The beautiful trees aren't going anywhere. Neither is the sledding hill or the playground. There are solutions that also maintain the full size field. It is workable and yet the selfish nearby neighbors continue to spout these half truths straight from the NIMBY playbook because it is the only desperate move they have left. Meanwhile the rest of us taxpayers have spoken, Cheh and the Mayor have listened and are moving forward with a plan that makes sense.

If the nearby neighbors don't want to live near a public pool, there are plenty of people who will be happy to spend 7 figures buying their house.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can give up one tennis court and nothing else. All of the angsting that this or that is going to be lost is hyperbole. Everyone who watches it understands that and it makes the opponents look foolish and obstructionist.

And anyone with any sense knows that a public pool, its decks, and equipment simply will not fit in the footprint of one tennis court. Unless you are planning a pool that's roughly 10x8. In which case, enjoy the bathtub with it's capacity of 15 people at a time.

Not to mention that the tennis courts sit under the drip line of some of the big oaks. Even if you could confine the pool, pool house and other infrastructure to a tennis court footprint (or the footprint of all of the courts), which is doubtful, the construction would require serious excavating. This would certainly damage the tree roots, resulting in the likely removal of a number of trees. The tennis courts are thin asphalt which sit on a base of fill and gravel originally done years ago. Excavation for a pool would be extensive and quite damaging to the tree canopy.

Enough. About. The. Trees. Please.

Really. Do you think anyone wants a shady pool in shadow much of the day? In a choice between a Hearst pool and Hearst trees, bring on the chain saws.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can give up one tennis court and nothing else. All of the angsting that this or that is going to be lost is hyperbole. Everyone who watches it understands that and it makes the opponents look foolish and obstructionist.

And anyone with any sense knows that a public pool, its decks, and equipment simply will not fit in the footprint of one tennis court. Unless you are planning a pool that's roughly 10x8. In which case, enjoy the bathtub with it's capacity of 15 people at a time.

Not to mention that the tennis courts sit under the drip line of some of the big oaks. Even if you could confine the pool, pool house and other infrastructure to a tennis court footprint (or the footprint of all of the courts), which is doubtful, the construction would require serious excavating. This would certainly damage the tree roots, resulting in the likely removal of a number of trees. The tennis courts are thin asphalt which sit on a base of fill and gravel originally done years ago. Excavation for a pool would be extensive and quite damaging to the tree canopy.

Enough. About. The. Trees. Please.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:blah blah balh

Is that you, Kommissar Cheh?

Da. We bulldoze all trees and dissidents that get in way of pool at Hearst. I decree it!

Anonymous wrote:blah blah balh

Is that you, Kommissar Cheh?

blah blah balh

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can give up one tennis court and nothing else. All of the angsting that this or that is going to be lost is hyperbole. Everyone who watches it understands that and it makes the opponents look foolish and obstructionist.

And anyone with any sense knows that a public pool, its decks, and equipment simply will not fit in the footprint of one tennis court. Unless you are planning a pool that's roughly 10x8. In which case, enjoy the bathtub with it's capacity of 15 people at a time.

Not to mention that the tennis courts sit under the drip line of some of the big oaks. Even if you could confine the pool, pool house and other infrastructure to a tennis court footprint (or the footprint of all of the courts), which is doubtful, the construction would require serious excavating. This would certainly damage the tree roots, resulting in the likely removal of a number of trees. The tennis courts are thin asphalt which sit on a base of fill and gravel originally done years ago. Excavation for a pool would be extensive and quite damaging to the tree canopy.

Anonymous wrote:You can give up one tennis court and nothing else. All of the angsting that this or that is going to be lost is hyperbole. Everyone who watches it understands that and it makes the opponents look foolish and obstructionist.

And anyone with any sense knows that a public pool, its decks, and equipment simply will not fit in the footprint of one tennis court. Unless you are planning a pool that's roughly 10x8. In which case, enjoy the bathtub with it's capacity of 15 people at a time.

You can give up one tennis court and nothing else. All of the angsting that this or that is going to be lost is hyperbole. Everyone who watches it understands that and it makes the opponents look foolish and obstructionist.

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.

So what will you give up for the pool? The tennis courts? The big field? The old tree canopy? Personally, if I had to sacrifice something, it would be the little turf field and basketball court by the school. The former is of substandard size and if there's one thing that DC doesn't lack, it's hoops.

But in any event, if there's a Hearst pool, something's gotta' give. Cheh just won't tell you what it is yet.

Not Councilmember Cheh, but one of your neighbors.

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.

Thank you Councilmember Cheh. I realize you find it irritating when your constituents don't fall in line lockstep with your ideas. Unfortunately, that's democracy.