Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The pool should go in the corner over by the tennis courts. They need to renovate/expand/modernize the Hearst Rec facility! That cottage is historic but it is too small and hazardous, cramped bathrooms & too small inside in winter for the 60 kids that use it for aftercare during the school year. They need to put the safety of the kids FIRST. The Rec kids go to Hearst but were not allowed to use the gym to exercise in winter because DCPS/Rec can't manage to cooperate in a timely manner.

Instead of tennis courts?

DPR has been clear that the cottage is not part of the renovation. Maybe they could take the mone from the pool and instead use it for the cottage. Also, where did the 60 number come from? DPR's official number was half of that.

Actually there are a lot of public tennis courts in Ward 3, but no outdoor pools. So you can go somewhere else nearby to play tennis, but you can't go somewhere else nearby to swim.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

1. You say that the site is "walkable for thousands of families." How does that square with citing "the few who live right there"?

2. DC has a system of neighborhood parks -- e.g., Palisades, Friendship/Chevy Chase, Macomb, "Turtle" Park, etc. While each is open to all and serve a broader community through use of fields by sports teams and so forth, they also serve fundamentally neighborhood-oriented needs as well. Shouldn't the views of those who regularly use the fields or the tennis courts or just enjoy sitting under a large, shady tree be given some distinct weight as well? I don't notice the frequent users of the above parks clamoring to sacrifice recreational features of their neighborhood parks for a large ward pool. It's very easy to be a YIMBY -- "Yes, in your back yard!" -- when someone else is impacted or is forced to sacrifice what is important to them.

Between Cleveland Park and North Cleveland Park, there are thousands of people who would use the pool. There are a handful of people who live on Quebec and Idaho who are "right there" Some of them support a pool, some are willing to fight it vigorously. I hope people who support this will be willing to show up at what I assume will be numerous public meetings to keep DGS and DPR on track to do this. If the city and Councilmember wanted to put more pools in at the other playgrounds listed, I would support it. I don't think Macomb is big enough; at Turtle Park, the baseball lobby trumped the pool supporters and Palisades isn't exactly central to the Ward or anyone other than the people who live there.

Cleveland Park, McLean Gardens and Vaughan Place, all neighborhoods or major housing areas very near the Hearst site, all have their own swimming pools.

And we can't use them.

So why not push for a pool site in your neighborhood then? Why ruin a perfectly good park and a large field and tennis courts that the neighborhood bordering the park want to keep/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Cleveland Park, McLean Gardens and Vaughan Place, all neighborhoods or major housing areas very near the Hearst site, all have their own swimming pools.

The former is a private club and the latter require residency. Not a solution for the rest of us.

The point being that there isn't much pool demand for much of the local area closest to Hearst park (Cleveland Park to south and east) McLean Gardens/Vaughan Place to west and southwest.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The pool should go in the corner over by the tennis courts. They need to renovate/expand/modernize the Hearst Rec facility! That cottage is historic but it is too small and hazardous, cramped bathrooms & too small inside in winter for the 60 kids that use it for aftercare during the school year. They need to put the safety of the kids FIRST. The Rec kids go to Hearst but were not allowed to use the gym to exercise in winter because DCPS/Rec can't manage to cooperate in a timely manner.

Instead of tennis courts?

DPR has been clear that the cottage is not part of the renovation. Maybe they could take the mone from the pool and instead use it for the cottage. Also, where did the 60 number come from? DPR's official number was half of that.

Actually there are a lot of public tennis courts in Ward 3, but no outdoor pools. So you can go somewhere else nearby to play tennis, but you can't go somewhere else nearby to swim.

Hearst is the only nearby park with public tennis courts. There are none at Macomb -- although there has been discussion about tearing out the basketball court to be replaced with a tennis court.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The pool should go in the corner over by the tennis courts. They need to renovate/expand/modernize the Hearst Rec facility! That cottage is historic but it is too small and hazardous, cramped bathrooms & too small inside in winter for the 60 kids that use it for aftercare during the school year. They need to put the safety of the kids FIRST. The Rec kids go to Hearst but were not allowed to use the gym to exercise in winter because DCPS/Rec can't manage to cooperate in a timely manner.

Instead of tennis courts?

DPR has been clear that the cottage is not part of the renovation. Maybe they could take the mone from the pool and instead use it for the cottage. Also, where did the 60 number come from? DPR's official number was half of that.

Actually there are a lot of public tennis courts in Ward 3, but no outdoor pools. So you can go somewhere else nearby to play tennis, but you can't go somewhere else nearby to swim.

My guess is that if you put it to a vote of those who use Hearst most frequently, the decision would be to keep the tennis courts over getting a pool. Better to find a site in a neighborhood willing to embrace a public pool, not fight it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

1. You say that the site is "walkable for thousands of families." How does that square with citing "the few who live right there"?

2. DC has a system of neighborhood parks -- e.g., Palisades, Friendship/Chevy Chase, Macomb, "Turtle" Park, etc. While each is open to all and serve a broader community through use of fields by sports teams and so forth, they also serve fundamentally neighborhood-oriented needs as well. Shouldn't the views of those who regularly use the fields or the tennis courts or just enjoy sitting under a large, shady tree be given some distinct weight as well? I don't notice the frequent users of the above parks clamoring to sacrifice recreational features of their neighborhood parks for a large ward pool. It's very easy to be a YIMBY -- "Yes, in your back yard!" -- when someone else is impacted or is forced to sacrifice what is important to them.

Between Cleveland Park and North Cleveland Park, there are thousands of people who would use the pool. There are a handful of people who live on Quebec and Idaho who are "right there" Some of them support a pool, some are willing to fight it vigorously. I hope people who support this will be willing to show up at what I assume will be numerous public meetings to keep DGS and DPR on track to do this. If the city and Councilmember wanted to put more pools in at the other playgrounds listed, I would support it. I don't think Macomb is big enough; at Turtle Park, the baseball lobby trumped the pool supporters and Palisades isn't exactly central to the Ward or anyone other than the people who live there.

Cleveland Park, McLean Gardens and Vaughan Place, all neighborhoods or major housing areas very near the Hearst site, all have their own swimming pools.

And we can't use them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

1. You say that the site is "walkable for thousands of families." How does that square with citing "the few who live right there"?

2. DC has a system of neighborhood parks -- e.g., Palisades, Friendship/Chevy Chase, Macomb, "Turtle" Park, etc. While each is open to all and serve a broader community through use of fields by sports teams and so forth, they also serve fundamentally neighborhood-oriented needs as well. Shouldn't the views of those who regularly use the fields or the tennis courts or just enjoy sitting under a large, shady tree be given some distinct weight as well? I don't notice the frequent users of the above parks clamoring to sacrifice recreational features of their neighborhood parks for a large ward pool. It's very easy to be a YIMBY -- "Yes, in your back yard!" -- when someone else is impacted or is forced to sacrifice what is important to them.

Between Cleveland Park and North Cleveland Park, there are thousands of people who would use the pool. There are a handful of people who live on Quebec and Idaho who are "right there" Some of them support a pool, some are willing to fight it vigorously. I hope people who support this will be willing to show up at what I assume will be numerous public meetings to keep DGS and DPR on track to do this. If the city and Councilmember wanted to put more pools in at the other playgrounds listed, I would support it. I don't think Macomb is big enough; at Turtle Park, the baseball lobby trumped the pool supporters and Palisades isn't exactly central to the Ward or anyone other than the people who live there.

Cleveland Park, McLean Gardens and Vaughan Place, all neighborhoods or major housing areas very near the Hearst site, all have their own swimming pools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The pool should go in the corner over by the tennis courts. They need to renovate/expand/modernize the Hearst Rec facility! That cottage is historic but it is too small and hazardous, cramped bathrooms & too small inside in winter for the 60 kids that use it for aftercare during the school year. They need to put the safety of the kids FIRST. The Rec kids go to Hearst but were not allowed to use the gym to exercise in winter because DCPS/Rec can't manage to cooperate in a timely manner.

Instead of tennis courts?

DPR has been clear that the cottage is not part of the renovation. Maybe they could take the mone from the pool and instead use it for the cottage. Also, where did the 60 number come from? DPR's official number was half of that.

Actually there are a lot of public tennis courts in Ward 3, but no outdoor pools. So you can go somewhere else nearby to play tennis, but you can't go somewhere else nearby to swim.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The pool should go in the corner over by the tennis courts. They need to renovate/expand/modernize the Hearst Rec facility! That cottage is historic but it is too small and hazardous, cramped bathrooms & too small inside in winter for the 60 kids that use it for aftercare during the school year. They need to put the safety of the kids FIRST. The Rec kids go to Hearst but were not allowed to use the gym to exercise in winter because DCPS/Rec can't manage to cooperate in a timely manner.

Instead of tennis courts?

DPR has been clear that the cottage is not part of the renovation. Maybe they could take the mone from the pool and instead use it for the cottage. Also, where did the 60 number come from? DPR's official number was half of that.

Actually there are a lot of public tennis courts in Ward 3, but no outdoor pools. So you can go somewhere else nearby to play tennis, but you can't go somewhere else nearby to swim.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The pool should go in the corner over by the tennis courts. They need to renovate/expand/modernize the Hearst Rec facility! That cottage is historic but it is too small and hazardous, cramped bathrooms & too small inside in winter for the 60 kids that use it for aftercare during the school year. They need to put the safety of the kids FIRST. The Rec kids go to Hearst but were not allowed to use the gym to exercise in winter because DCPS/Rec can't manage to cooperate in a timely manner.

Instead of tennis courts?

DPR has been clear that the cottage is not part of the renovation. Maybe they could take the mone from the pool and instead use it for the cottage. Also, where did the 60 number come from? DPR's official number was half of that.

Anonymous wrote:You mean no ma'am.

And yes, they can be drawn that quickly. I would assume it based on the earmarks the Council approved for this already.