Now we are in a fact free fear mongering zone which is no surprise but there has never been a proposal to build the pool in the middle of the field or to eliminate the soccer field at all - option two slightly shrinks the currently non-regulation soccer field while the other two options came at the expense of a single tennis court while leaving 2 lightly in demand courts.

So no elimination or drastic reduction in field space for soccer.

This is also a good time to remind the fact free neighbors that Stoddert is not opposed to a pool at Hearst but that Stoddert simply expressed a desire to maintain a soccer field at the park which DPR does in every proposal.

So no adding a pool will not take the park away from future generations.

Next?

You can tuck the pool in any corner of the field and it will still be a permanent eyesore that is only used three months a year. The pool is only a single element of the plan. They will also bid decking and a pool house. So building a pool house in an open field is not destroying it?

Yes, the plan would be to tear out the tennis courts and practice area and use the southern third of the park as the pool complex. Two of the tennis courts could be rebuilt elsewhere, perhaps in the Idaho right of way, in a tighter configuration.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Any of the neighbors on the pool want to take a stab at explaining how adding a pool will take away the park from future generations? I for one would love to know."

If you build a pool in the middle of the field.

* Where there is now an open green space 12 months a year, you erect a high-fenced cement pool and patio and pool house that will only be used three months a year.

* You eliminate a much needed, and in demand field as a regulation soccer field.

* You dramatically reduce the amount of space for young soccer players who can play multiple games simultaneously.

Now we are in a fact free fear mongering zone which is no surprise but there has never been a proposal to build the pool in the middle of the field or to eliminate the soccer field at all - option two slightly shrinks the currently non-regulation soccer field while the other two options came at the expense of a single tennis court while leaving 2 lightly in demand courts.

So no elimination or drastic reduction in field space for soccer.

This is also a good time to remind the fact free neighbors that Stoddert is not opposed to a pool at Hearst but that Stoddert simply expressed a desire to maintain a soccer field at the park which DPR does in every proposal.

So no adding a pool will not take the park away from future generations.

Next?

Without scale drawings, i.e., without rough dimensions, how can you say that the option 2 "slightly shrinks" the soccer field? And for other "options," how is it possible to build a swimming pool, pool house and surrounding pool deck within the footprint of "a single tennis court," unless the proposal really is to build a kiddie wading pool?!

Facts matter.

Ummm because they have repeatedly stated that they are proposing the same size pool as they have at Volta which you can clearly see in the satellite photo is about the same size as a tennis court.

Also they never stated that the soccer field was not drawn to scale - it is easy to see from their own drawing that it is to scale.

And re-read what I wrote or look at the drawings rather than making things up - no one said nor did any proposal show fitting a pool entirely within the space of single tennis court - the various proposal reduce the number of tennis courts by one but the pool is clearly larger than a single tennis court.

Rather than regurgitate anti pool talking points without having reviewed the plans spend some time looking at them so you can comment in an informed manner.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Any of the neighbors on the pool want to take a stab at explaining how adding a pool will take away the park from future generations? I for one would love to know."

If you build a pool in the middle of the field.

* Where there is now an open green space 12 months a year, you erect a high-fenced cement pool and patio and pool house that will only be used three months a year.

* You eliminate a much needed, and in demand field as a regulation soccer field.

* You dramatically reduce the amount of space for young soccer players who can play multiple games simultaneously.

Now we are in a fact free fear mongering zone which is no surprise but there has never been a proposal to build the pool in the middle of the field or to eliminate the soccer field at all - option two slightly shrinks the currently non-regulation soccer field while the other two options came at the expense of a single tennis court while leaving 2 lightly in demand courts.

So no elimination or drastic reduction in field space for soccer.

This is also a good time to remind the fact free neighbors that Stoddert is not opposed to a pool at Hearst but that Stoddert simply expressed a desire to maintain a soccer field at the park which DPR does in every proposal.

So no adding a pool will not take the park away from future generations.

Next?

Without scale drawings, i.e., without rough dimensions, how can you say that the option 2 "slightly shrinks" the soccer field? And for other "options," how is it possible to build a swimming pool, pool house and surrounding pool deck within the footprint of "a single tennis court," unless the proposal really is to build a kiddie wading pool?!

Facts matter.

Anonymous wrote:"Any of the neighbors on the pool want to take a stab at explaining how adding a pool will take away the park from future generations? I for one would love to know."

If you build a pool in the middle of the field.

* Where there is now an open green space 12 months a year, you erect a high-fenced cement pool and patio and pool house that will only be used three months a year.

* You eliminate a much needed, and in demand field as a regulation soccer field.

* You dramatically reduce the amount of space for young soccer players who can play multiple games simultaneously.

Now we are in a fact free fear mongering zone which is no surprise but there has never been a proposal to build the pool in the middle of the field or to eliminate the soccer field at all - option two slightly shrinks the currently non-regulation soccer field while the other two options came at the expense of a single tennis court while leaving 2 lightly in demand courts.

So no elimination or drastic reduction in field space for soccer.

This is also a good time to remind the fact free neighbors that Stoddert is not opposed to a pool at Hearst but that Stoddert simply expressed a desire to maintain a soccer field at the park which DPR does in every proposal.

So no adding a pool will not take the park away from future generations.

Next?

"Any of the neighbors on the pool want to take a stab at explaining how adding a pool will take away the park from future generations? I for one would love to know."

If you build a pool in the middle of the field.

* Where there is now an open green space 12 months a year, you erect a high-fenced cement pool and patio and pool house that will only be used three months a year.

* You eliminate a much needed, and in demand field as a regulation soccer field.

* You dramatically reduce the amount of space for young soccer players who can play multiple games simultaneously.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not sure why opponents keep saying the drawings are not to scale - what is there now is close to a full size soccer field which would be 120 yards and the field does not even come close to fully occupying the space - you guys can keep saying things don't fit but they do. The confusion of the opponents (deliberate or otherwise) about the scale does not make you right.
...
The pool drawings in fact are to scale.

I saw three proposed layouts, and the folks from DGS were quick to concede that all of them were not to scale when people started pushing on the details. In particular the pool was drawn smaller than any existing DPR outdoor pool. The soccer field was roughly half its current size.

If you have seen more up-to-date drawings please share with us a link where they can be seen. Thanks.

There is no link to scale drawings, because such drawings, if they exist at all, are not public.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not sure why opponents keep saying the drawings are not to scale - what is there now is close to a full size soccer field which would be 120 yards and the field does not even come close to fully occupying the space - you guys can keep saying things don't fit but they do. The confusion of the opponents (deliberate or otherwise) about the scale does not make you right.
...
The pool drawings in fact are to scale.

I saw three proposed layouts, and the folks from DGS were quick to concede that all of them were not to scale when people started pushing on the details. In particular the pool was drawn smaller than any existing DPR outdoor pool. The soccer field was roughly half its current size.

If you have seen more up-to-date drawings please share with us a link where they can be seen. Thanks.

Your recollection of the September 2016 meeting is different than mine - my recall is that the drawings were preliminary and they weren't sure that a pool of the exact dimensions would work where they had plopped them in the 3 different scenarios.

But it is your opinion on the scale of the pool they used and this satellite shot of Volta which has the same size pool and tennis courts suggests you are very wrong:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Volta+Park/@38.9100192,-77.0672651,200m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0xe7f48733fbce32fd!8m2!3d38.9102472!4d-77.0670596

At Volta the pool is almost the exact size of one tennis court and the pool house (which doubles as a rec and thus might be bigger than required) is smaller than a tennis court.

The drawings from the presentation in this PDF show 3 pool options that are almost the exact same size as the tennis courts:

https://dgs.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dgs/publication/attachments/09.13.16%20Hearst%20CM3%20Presentation_CGS.pdf

So perhaps they are not the exact same size but they are pretty close.

And your characterization of the soccer field as being half its current size its provably false - option 1 in the above PDF maintains the current sized soccer field (not a regulation adult field btw but why start being accurate in how the field is characterized now!) at a dimension of 300 feet by 150. Option 2 flips the direction of the field and yields you a field that is 280 x 140 feet (without going into the hillside along 37th which buttresses my argument that you might be able to flip the field and maintain its size) and Option 3 also has a 300 by 150 foot field.

So options 1 and 3 maintain the current field with its 45,000 square feet while option 2 nets you a field with 39,200 square feet which is a reduction of just under 13% so no DPR did not propose reducing the size of the soccer field by 50%.

Space is not the challenge when it comes to putting a pool at Hearst.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Folks, it doesn't work that way. The park is programmed by DPR, who wants a pool at Hearst.

Do you work for DPR? The agency has a pretty striking mindset of not working for the people of the city but just being a power unto itself. This sounds like something a DPR employee would say.

Why do the neighbors continue to insist that there is not broad support for a pool?

Let me point this out again - this is not Gramercy Park - the neighbors do not own Hearst Pool.

What will it take for the neighbors to get this?

Or do you get it and think if you repeat something that is obviously untrue enough people will believe you or grow weary of listening to you and leave you to your fantasies and private park?

Anonymous wrote:
Folks, it doesn't work that way. The park is programmed by DPR, who wants a pool at Hearst.

Do you work for DPR? The agency has a pretty striking mindset of not working for the people of the city but just being a power unto itself. This sounds like something a DPR employee would say.

Anonymous wrote:
Not sure why opponents keep saying the drawings are not to scale - what is there now is close to a full size soccer field which would be 120 yards and the field does not even come close to fully occupying the space - you guys can keep saying things don't fit but they do. The confusion of the opponents (deliberate or otherwise) about the scale does not make you right.
...
The pool drawings in fact are to scale.

I saw three proposed layouts, and the folks from DGS were quick to concede that all of them were not to scale when people started pushing on the details. In particular the pool was drawn smaller than any existing DPR outdoor pool. The soccer field was roughly half its current size.

If you have seen more up-to-date drawings please share with us a link where they can be seen. Thanks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I said the argument, not the arguer, was stupid.

Which it is.

So if you want to continuing arguing to the broader community that badly wants a swimming pool in their own part of town that a reason they shouldn't get one is because the immediate neighbors are worried about looking at a shuttered facility part of the year go right ahead and continue looking vain and stupid and I'll add selfish."

I favor preserving the park for future generations, how is that selfish?

And by the way, your post contradicts itself, which is stupid.

Love love love the faux environmental arguments from the immediate neighbors.

DPR=Department of Parks and Recreation

There should be some recreation at our public parks.

How again does adding a pool take aware the park from future generations?

Currently no one in a future generation uses the park in summer because of the under used tennis courts that are there for the current aging generation.

Your arguments are vain, selfish and stupid. If you want to make the inference that you are vain selfish and stupid that is on you.

Any of the neighbors on the pool want to take a stab at explaining how adding a pool will take away the park from future generations? I for one would love to know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I said the argument, not the arguer, was stupid.

Which it is.

So if you want to continuing arguing to the broader community that badly wants a swimming pool in their own part of town that a reason they shouldn't get one is because the immediate neighbors are worried about looking at a shuttered facility part of the year go right ahead and continue looking vain and stupid and I'll add selfish."

I favor preserving the park for future generations, how is that selfish?

And by the way, your post contradicts itself, which is stupid.

Love love love the faux environmental arguments from the immediate neighbors.

DPR=Department of Parks and Recreation

There should be some recreation at our public parks.

How again does adding a pool take aware the park from future generations?

Currently no one in a future generation uses the park in summer because of the under used tennis courts that are there for the current aging generation.

Your arguments are vain, selfish and stupid. If you want to make the inference that you are vain selfish and stupid that is on you.

I guess your rude and course message is a sign of today's mean times. You sound like the person who actually has been sending pointed emails to various longtime residents of the neighborhood, telling them to move on and make way for younger people. Incredible but true.

Nope I haven't been emailing people such a message though given the incredibly inaccurate characterizations of facts coming from the immediate neighbors I'm willing to be bet this characterization is inaccurate too.

But is the underlying message untrue? Is it not the case that a lightly used rec amenity popular with older residents (the tennis courts) are staying instead of a much more popular rec amenity (a pool) for younger residents.

At this point it really feels like the message from the immediate neighbors is that this is their park and how dare anyone come along and question how it is used or their wacky and speculative arguments against changing the park.

Face it, the entitled Hearst pool opponents feel that their tax dollars are worth more than everyone else's and as such, they get to dictate how a public park is programmed.

Folks, it doesn't work that way. The park is programmed by DPR, who wants a pool at Hearst. The Councilmember listened to her constituents, who overwhelmingly support a pool at Hearst.

If you don't want to live near a park with a pool, then move. There is high demand for the houses, you will get top dollar.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I said the argument, not the arguer, was stupid.

Which it is.

So if you want to continuing arguing to the broader community that badly wants a swimming pool in their own part of town that a reason they shouldn't get one is because the immediate neighbors are worried about looking at a shuttered facility part of the year go right ahead and continue looking vain and stupid and I'll add selfish."

I favor preserving the park for future generations, how is that selfish?

And by the way, your post contradicts itself, which is stupid.

Love love love the faux environmental arguments from the immediate neighbors.

DPR=Department of Parks and Recreation

There should be some recreation at our public parks.

How again does adding a pool take aware the park from future generations?

Currently no one in a future generation uses the park in summer because of the under used tennis courts that are there for the current aging generation.

Your arguments are vain, selfish and stupid. If you want to make the inference that you are vain selfish and stupid that is on you.

I guess your rude and course message is a sign of today's mean times. You sound like the person who actually has been sending pointed emails to various longtime residents of the neighborhood, telling them to move on and make way for younger people. Incredible but true.