Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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 ...

There is no such thing as a "regulation-size" soccer field. FIFA publishes minimum and maximum dimensions and length-to-width ratios, and US Soccer and state associations create standards for youth play. The current field is within FIFA and VYSA standards for size (DC is part of Virginia for the sake of soccer). None of the proposed fields meet FIFA minimums or VYSA standards -- they are too long for their width.

No one wants to wind up with an itty-bitty soccer field at Hearst like you see at Hardy middle school. Pathetically small.

Fortunately that has never been proposed.

One of the pool options shows a much reduced-size soccer field. Given that the pool drawings, by DC's own admission, are not to scale, the resulting field is likely to be even smaller. But it will be ok for the three year-old players.

Again untrue - I referenced this a couple of days ago but the one (out of three) options with a reduced soccer field reduces the size of the field by 13% and it is still a much larger field than what 3 year olds play on (and you are belying your lack of knowledge about soccer because there are no organized teams for 3 year olds). The other two options leave the field as is.

You are either misinformed or deliberately spreading misinformation but it is a smart ploy to spread disinformation. What is lost in all 3 proposals is one of the three lightly used tennis courts - there just won't be much outrage about the loss of a lightly used tennis courts.

Soccer parents on the other hand know how in demand field time is and more likely to ponder the trade-off but since it doesn't exist it is a red herring.

BTW Stoddert only uses the field for it's high school club players which is its smallest program and most of those players primarily play their soccer on their High School teams fields.

But again in 2 of the 3 scenarios there is no change to the soccer field.

Why the trafficking in fake news? It totally undermines the credibility of the 'pool of our own' position. My kids, who are 11 and 13, played soccer games regularly at Hearst these past two seasons.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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 ...

There is no such thing as a "regulation-size" soccer field. FIFA publishes minimum and maximum dimensions and length-to-width ratios, and US Soccer and state associations create standards for youth play. The current field is within FIFA and VYSA standards for size (DC is part of Virginia for the sake of soccer). None of the proposed fields meet FIFA minimums or VYSA standards -- they are too long for their width.

No one wants to wind up with an itty-bitty soccer field at Hearst like you see at Hardy middle school. Pathetically small.

Fortunately that has never been proposed.

One of the pool options shows a much reduced-size soccer field. Given that the pool drawings, by DC's own admission, are not to scale, the resulting field is likely to be even smaller. But it will be ok for the three year-old players.

Again untrue - I referenced this a couple of days ago but the one (out of three) options with a reduced soccer field reduces the size of the field by 13% and it is still a much larger field than what 3 year olds play on (and you are belying your lack of knowledge about soccer because there are no organized teams for 3 year olds). The other two options leave the field as is.

You are either misinformed or deliberately spreading misinformation but it is a smart ploy to spread disinformation. What is lost in all 3 proposals is one of the three lightly used tennis courts - there just won't be much outrage about the loss of a lightly used tennis courts.

Soccer parents on the other hand know how in demand field time is and more likely to ponder the trade-off but since it doesn't exist it is a red herring.

BTW Stoddert only uses the field for it's high school club players which is its smallest program and most of those players primarily play their soccer on their High School teams fields.

But again in 2 of the 3 scenarios there is no change to the soccer field.

You keep saying this. But kindly explain how a pool, the changing & rest rooms, equipment shed, and pool deck fit into the footprint of a single tennis court. It would have to be a very, very, very small pool indeed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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 ...

There is no such thing as a "regulation-size" soccer field. FIFA publishes minimum and maximum dimensions and length-to-width ratios, and US Soccer and state associations create standards for youth play. The current field is within FIFA and VYSA standards for size (DC is part of Virginia for the sake of soccer). None of the proposed fields meet FIFA minimums or VYSA standards -- they are too long for their width.

No one wants to wind up with an itty-bitty soccer field at Hearst like you see at Hardy middle school. Pathetically small.

Fortunately that has never been proposed.

One of the pool options shows a much reduced-size soccer field. Given that the pool drawings, by DC's own admission, are not to scale, the resulting field is likely to be even smaller. But it will be ok for the three year-old players.

Again untrue - I referenced this a couple of days ago but the one (out of three) options with a reduced soccer field reduces the size of the field by 13% and it is still a much larger field than what 3 year olds play on (and you are belying your lack of knowledge about soccer because there are no organized teams for 3 year olds). The other two options leave the field as is.

You are either misinformed or deliberately spreading misinformation but it is a smart ploy to spread disinformation. What is lost in all 3 proposals is one of the three lightly used tennis courts - there just won't be much outrage about the loss of a lightly used tennis courts.

Soccer parents on the other hand know how in demand field time is and more likely to ponder the trade-off but since it doesn't exist it is a red herring.

BTW Stoddert only uses the field for it's high school club players which is its smallest program and most of those players primarily play their soccer on their High School teams fields.

But again in 2 of the 3 scenarios there is no change to the soccer field.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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 ...

There is no such thing as a "regulation-size" soccer field. FIFA publishes minimum and maximum dimensions and length-to-width ratios, and US Soccer and state associations create standards for youth play. The current field is within FIFA and VYSA standards for size (DC is part of Virginia for the sake of soccer). None of the proposed fields meet FIFA minimums or VYSA standards -- they are too long for their width.

No one wants to wind up with an itty-bitty soccer field at Hearst like you see at Hardy middle school. Pathetically small.

Fortunately that has never been proposed.

One of the pool options shows a much reduced-size soccer field. Given that the pool drawings, by DC's own admission, are not to scale, the resulting field is likely to be even smaller. But it will be ok for the three year-old players.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't blame the neighbors- who wants a pool filled with urine 3 months out of the year sitting in the middle of a nice green space. Lots of people coming in from other neighborhoods. Sounds like they made right decision to nix the pool.

Who? Apparently the vast majaority of Ward 3 residents, DCPR, and our councilmember. That's who.

What is "DCPR"? Please write in English.

Anonymous wrote:I don't blame the neighbors- who wants a pool filled with urine 3 months out of the year sitting in the middle of a nice green space. Lots of people coming in from other neighborhoods. Sounds like they made right decision to nix the pool.

Methinks a troll.

Hearst Park's neighbors are the ones who have pointed out just how utilized the park is currently by youth soccer teams and adults from all over the area. It's the proponents of a park at Hearst who whine loudly that Ward 3 deserves its 'own' pool.

Anonymous wrote:I don't blame the neighbors- who wants a pool filled with urine 3 months out of the year sitting in the middle of a nice green space. Lots of people coming in from other neighborhoods. Sounds like they made right decision to nix the pool.

Who? Apparently the vast majaority of Ward 3 residents, DCPR, and our councilmember. That's who.

I don't blame the neighbors- who wants a pool filled with urine 3 months out of the year sitting in the middle of a nice green space. Lots of people coming in from other neighborhoods. Sounds like they made right decision to nix the pool.

Judging by the crowds at Volta and Beauvoir pools this summer, I think more people would use a pool at Hearst in just two summer weekends, than use the tennis courts all year. I don't think it would even be close.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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 ...

There is no such thing as a "regulation-size" soccer field. FIFA publishes minimum and maximum dimensions and length-to-width ratios, and US Soccer and state associations create standards for youth play. The current field is within FIFA and VYSA standards for size (DC is part of Virginia for the sake of soccer). None of the proposed fields meet FIFA minimums or VYSA standards -- they are too long for their width.

No one wants to wind up with an itty-bitty soccer field at Hearst like you see at Hardy middle school. Pathetically small.

Fortunately that has never been proposed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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 ...

There is no such thing as a "regulation-size" soccer field. FIFA publishes minimum and maximum dimensions and length-to-width ratios, and US Soccer and state associations create standards for youth play. The current field is within FIFA and VYSA standards for size (DC is part of Virginia for the sake of soccer). None of the proposed fields meet FIFA minimums or VYSA standards -- they are too long for their width.

No one wants to wind up with an itty-bitty soccer field at Hearst like you see at Hardy middle school. Pathetically small.

Anonymous wrote: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 ...

There is no such thing as a "regulation-size" soccer field. FIFA publishes minimum and maximum dimensions and length-to-width ratios, and US Soccer and state associations create standards for youth play. The current field is within FIFA and VYSA standards for size (DC is part of Virginia for the sake of soccer). None of the proposed fields meet FIFA minimums or VYSA standards -- they are too long for their width.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

Again it matters that you deal in actual facts. All of the proposals have included the decking and the pool house and none of the proposals have put the pool, the deck or the pool house in an open field. And to repeat again none of the proposals have eliminated the soccer field. Please educate yourself on what is being proposed - the proposals are all on-line.

I'm always glad when the pool is being proposed to have one of the neighbors complain about the terrible burden that would be placed upon them of having to look at a shuttered pool some of the year - poor babies - how will they survive?

Your ad hominem argument aside, no doubt the aesthetics of a fenced concrete complex next to the historic district (and impact on the mature tree canopy) persuaded the board of the Cleveland Park Historical Society to go on record against shoe-horning in a pool at Hearst Park.

Boy are you guys good at tossing lies into the conversation.

In the case 1)The pool is not being shoe horned in 2)The pool house is not impacting the tree canopy and 3)the park is both outside of the CPHS district and not even the type of thing that is within the groups mission.

But desperate times call for desperate and vain arguments about the horrors of a facility that is shuttered part of the year and heavily used the rest of it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

Again it matters that you deal in actual facts. All of the proposals have included the decking and the pool house and none of the proposals have put the pool, the deck or the pool house in an open field. And to repeat again none of the proposals have eliminated the soccer field. Please educate yourself on what is being proposed - the proposals are all on-line.

I'm always glad when the pool is being proposed to have one of the neighbors complain about the terrible burden that would be placed upon them of having to look at a shuttered pool some of the year - poor babies - how will they survive?

Your ad hominem argument aside, no doubt the aesthetics of a fenced concrete complex next to the historic district (and impact on the mature tree canopy) persuaded the board of the Cleveland Park Historical Society to go on record against shoe-horning in a pool at Hearst Park.

Anonymous wrote: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?

Again it matters that you deal in actual facts. All of the proposals have included the decking and the pool house and none of the proposals have put the pool, the deck or the pool house in an open field. And to repeat again none of the proposals have eliminated the soccer field. Please educate yourself on what is being proposed - the proposals are all on-line.

I'm always glad when the pool is being proposed to have one of the neighbors complain about the terrible burden that would be placed upon them of having to look at a shuttered pool some of the year - poor babies - how will they survive?