Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Please go and look at the proposals - the two tennis courts that remain are located elsewhere within the park. And yes the proposals are all for a standard size DC pool with the required apron & pool house. I know it is easy for CP residents to assume they are the only competent people in the room but the planners understand everything that is required for a legal and functioning pool.

And if tennis courts are relocated and rebuilt elsewhere, what's sacrificed for that? A portion of the field? Existing playground space? The large oaks? Adding a pool complex at Hearst Park is like squeezing a balloon. People just have to understand what is gained, what is lost and other impacts.

Yes, what is the plan and site for the relocated tennis courts?

Please go look at the plans - everything is in the plans.

You seem very knowledgable. Please enlighten us!

Do you need someone to teach you how to use google? The plans are very easy to find.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live across the street from Hearst and am delighted that it will not have a pool. A pool would destroy the neighborhood during the summer months with all the cars and the noise. It would also take away some of the lovely tennis courts, which unlike a pool can be used year around and w/o all of the commotion of a pool. And we much prefer looking out on the open green space than a pool facility thank you very much.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for construction of a pool at Hearst Park. The mayor has made it clear that the pool at that site is not a priority for her. Cheh has told people that she was surprised at the extent of opposition to a pool. Even if a pool were to get through the DC process, it would likely be stopped on environmental grounds given the water issues at Hearst and the fact that much of the park is built on loose fill. And, because of that, even if a lawsuit and other challenges on environmental grounds were unsuccessful, the hydrology and soil stabilization challenges would likely cause the pool's cost to increase 2x-3x, dooming it in the end. This is basically what happened with reopening Klingle Road. It wasn't opposition alone that killed it -- it was that, combined with the astronomical cost of addressing water and soil issues in order to construct a new roadbed there.

Cheh got the money in the budget in the first place and though she could show some courage on this issue and stop pretending the opponents have any legitimate concerns and call them the NIMBY's that they are I seriously doubt Cheh was in any way surprised about the opposition - she lives nearby and has dealt with the neighborhood NIMBYs on similar terms before.

Cheh lives in Forest Hills, not exactly 'nearby' to Hearst park. Of course, she hasn't proposed a pool in the Forest Hills park.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Please go and look at the proposals - the two tennis courts that remain are located elsewhere within the park. And yes the proposals are all for a standard size DC pool with the required apron & pool house. I know it is easy for CP residents to assume they are the only competent people in the room but the planners understand everything that is required for a legal and functioning pool.

And if tennis courts are relocated and rebuilt elsewhere, what's sacrificed for that? A portion of the field? Existing playground space? The large oaks? Adding a pool complex at Hearst Park is like squeezing a balloon. People just have to understand what is gained, what is lost and other impacts.

Yes, what is the plan and site for the relocated tennis courts?

Please go look at the plans - everything is in the plans.

You seem very knowledgable. Please enlighten us!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live across the street from Hearst and am delighted that it will not have a pool. A pool would destroy the neighborhood during the summer months with all the cars and the noise. It would also take away some of the lovely tennis courts, which unlike a pool can be used year around and w/o all of the commotion of a pool. And we much prefer looking out on the open green space than a pool facility thank you very much.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for construction of a pool at Hearst Park. The mayor has made it clear that the pool at that site is not a priority for her. Cheh has told people that she was surprised at the extent of opposition to a pool. Even if a pool were to get through the DC process, it would likely be stopped on environmental grounds given the water issues at Hearst and the fact that much of the park is built on loose fill. And, because of that, even if a lawsuit and other challenges on environmental grounds were unsuccessful, the hydrology and soil stabilization challenges would likely cause the pool's cost to increase 2x-3x, dooming it in the end. This is basically what happened with reopening Klingle Road. It wasn't opposition alone that killed it -- it was that, combined with the astronomical cost of addressing water and soil issues in order to construct a new roadbed there.

Cheh got the money in the budget in the first place and though she could show some courage on this issue and stop pretending the opponents have any legitimate concerns and call them the NIMBY's that they are I seriously doubt Cheh was in any way surprised about the opposition - she lives nearby and has dealt with the neighborhood NIMBYs on similar terms before.

Cheh lives in Forest Hills, not exactly 'nearby' to Hearst park. Of course, she hasn't proposed a pool in the Forest Hills park.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Please go and look at the proposals - the two tennis courts that remain are located elsewhere within the park. And yes the proposals are all for a standard size DC pool with the required apron & pool house. I know it is easy for CP residents to assume they are the only competent people in the room but the planners understand everything that is required for a legal and functioning pool.

And if tennis courts are relocated and rebuilt elsewhere, what's sacrificed for that? A portion of the field? Existing playground space? The large oaks? Adding a pool complex at Hearst Park is like squeezing a balloon. People just have to understand what is gained, what is lost and other impacts.

Yes, what is the plan and site for the relocated tennis courts?

Please go look at the plans - everything is in the plans.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live across the street from Hearst and am delighted that it will not have a pool. A pool would destroy the neighborhood during the summer months with all the cars and the noise. It would also take away some of the lovely tennis courts, which unlike a pool can be used year around and w/o all of the commotion of a pool. And we much prefer looking out on the open green space than a pool facility thank you very much.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for construction of a pool at Hearst Park. The mayor has made it clear that the pool at that site is not a priority for her. Cheh has told people that she was surprised at the extent of opposition to a pool. Even if a pool were to get through the DC process, it would likely be stopped on environmental grounds given the water issues at Hearst and the fact that much of the park is built on loose fill. And, because of that, even if a lawsuit and other challenges on environmental grounds were unsuccessful, the hydrology and soil stabilization challenges would likely cause the pool's cost to increase 2x-3x, dooming it in the end. This is basically what happened with reopening Klingle Road. It wasn't opposition alone that killed it -- it was that, combined with the astronomical cost of addressing water and soil issues in order to construct a new roadbed there.

Cheh got the money in the budget in the first place and though she could show some courage on this issue and stop pretending the opponents have any legitimate concerns and call them the NIMBY's that they are I seriously doubt Cheh was in any way surprised about the opposition - she lives nearby and has dealt with the neighborhood NIMBYs on similar terms before.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live across the street from Hearst and am delighted that it will not have a pool. A pool would destroy the neighborhood during the summer months with all the cars and the noise. It would also take away some of the lovely tennis courts, which unlike a pool can be used year around and w/o all of the commotion of a pool. And we much prefer looking out on the open green space than a pool facility thank you very much.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for construction of a pool at Hearst Park. The mayor has made it clear that the pool at that site is not a priority for her. Cheh has told people that she was surprised at the extent of opposition to a pool. Even if a pool were to get through the DC process, it would likely be stopped on environmental grounds given the water issues at Hearst and the fact that much of the park is built on loose fill. And, because of that, even if a lawsuit and other challenges on environmental grounds were unsuccessful, the hydrology and soil stabilization challenges would likely cause the pool's cost to increase 2x-3x, dooming it in the end. This is basically what happened with reopening Klingle Road. It wasn't opposition alone that killed it -- it was that, combined with the astronomical cost of addressing water and soil issues in order to construct a new roadbed there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live across the street from Hearst and am delighted that it will not have a pool. A pool would destroy the neighborhood during the summer months with all the cars and the noise. It would also take away some of the lovely tennis courts, which unlike a pool can be used year around and w/o all of the commotion of a pool. And we much prefer looking out on the open green space than a pool facility thank you very much.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for construction of a pool at Hearst Park. The mayor has made it clear that the pool at that site is not a priority for her. Cheh has told people that she was surprised at the extent of opposition to a pool. Even if a pool were to get through the DC process, it would likely be stopped on environmental grounds given the water issues at Hearst and the fact that much of the park is built on loose fill. And, because of that, even if a lawsuit and other challenges on environmental grounds were unsuccessful, the hydrology and soil stabilization challenges would likely cause the pool's cost to increase 2x-3x, dooming it in the end. This is basically what happened with reopening Klingle Road. It wasn't opposition alone that killed it -- it was that, combined with the astronomical cost of addressing water and soil issues in order to construct a new roadbed there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Please go and look at the proposals - the two tennis courts that remain are located elsewhere within the park. And yes the proposals are all for a standard size DC pool with the required apron & pool house. I know it is easy for CP residents to assume they are the only competent people in the room but the planners understand everything that is required for a legal and functioning pool.

And if tennis courts are relocated and rebuilt elsewhere, what's sacrificed for that? A portion of the field? Existing playground space? The large oaks? Adding a pool complex at Hearst Park is like squeezing a balloon. People just have to understand what is gained, what is lost and other impacts.

Yes, what is the plan and site for the relocated tennis courts?

Anonymous wrote:I live across the street from Hearst and am delighted that it will not have a pool. A pool would destroy the neighborhood during the summer months with all the cars and the noise. It would also take away some of the lovely tennis courts, which unlike a pool can be used year around and w/o all of the commotion of a pool. And we much prefer looking out on the open green space than a pool facility thank you very much.

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.

Why would people be coming from other neighborhoods to use this pool? Other neighborhoods have pools. It is the same false argument that people made about the Wisconsin Avenue Giant, that people would be coming from all over the region to use this particular store. In fact, other neighborhoods up and down Wisconsin and Conn Ave have grocery stores. Most of the people who use our Giant are from the neighborhood.

Same thing with the pool. It will be a great community asset.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Please go and look at the proposals - the two tennis courts that remain are located elsewhere within the park. And yes the proposals are all for a standard size DC pool with the required apron & pool house. I know it is easy for CP residents to assume they are the only competent people in the room but the planners understand everything that is required for a legal and functioning pool.

And if tennis courts are relocated and rebuilt elsewhere, what's sacrificed for that? A portion of the field? Existing playground space? The large oaks? Adding a pool complex at Hearst Park is like squeezing a balloon. People just have to understand what is gained, what is lost and other impacts.