Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The spot next to the Wilson Aquatic Center is the head of Soapstone Creek. If you think the manufactured hydrology issues at Hearst are real then there is no way you would honestly suggest placing anything on that location where there is a real hydrology issue.

And Ft. Reno has already been rejected by NPS.

Not so. DC apparently never really asked. There was zero correspondence with NPS produced in response to a FOIA request.

One wonders if DC is completely incompetent or just doing this whole pool project on the fly, or both.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The spot next to the Wilson Aquatic Center is the head of Soapstone Creek. If you think the manufactured hydrology issues at Hearst are real then there is no way you would honestly suggest placing anything on that location where there is a real hydrology issue.

And Ft. Reno has already been rejected by NPS.

Not so. DC apparently never really asked. There was zero correspondence with NPS produced in response to a FOIA request.

Anonymous wrote:The spot next to the Wilson Aquatic Center is the head of Soapstone Creek. If you think the manufactured hydrology issues at Hearst are real then there is no way you would honestly suggest placing anything on that location where there is a real hydrology issue.

And Ft. Reno has already been rejected by NPS.

Anonymous wrote:The spot next to the Wilson Aquatic Center is the head of Soapstone Creek. If you think the manufactured hydrology issues at Hearst are real then there is no way you would honestly suggest placing anything on that location where there is a real hydrology issue.

And Ft. Reno has already been rejected by NPS.

Anonymous wrote:The Fort Reno area would be a perfect, centrally-located, transit accessible spot for a pool. If dealing with the National Park Service is too much of a hassle, there is a great spot for an outdoor pool, just immediately southwest of the entrance to the Wilson aquatic center along Fort Drive. It's on DC-owned land, contiguous to a facility already managed by DPR. The outdoor pool could share changing rooms and some mechanical infrastructure with the indoor pool and there could certainly be some staff efficiencies, particularly the summer. The result could be a true all-season ward 3 swimming facility.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:False equivalence, but nice try.

How exactly us a developer involved in this pool? Maybe a construction company, but a developer?

False equivalence, but not try.

Not all opponents are neighbors. Many are environmentalists.

Sure they are - since you either count yourself as one of them or are presuming they exist somewhere why don't you go through an amateur environmental cost benefit analysis for us?

Heck, a Boy Scout could conduct an amateur environmental cost benefit analysis, and it would be more robust and complete than the analysis of the site and alternatives that the DC government did when it announced that it planned to construct a pool complex at Hearst. How do we know? FOIA requests have asked for copies of studies, analyses, memos, etc. related to site selection and DC's official response was that there were none!

Anonymous wrote:Why do you keep suggesting it is only Cleveland Park residents who oppose a pool at this location? I live on Van Ness and think that wedging in a pool at Hearst would negatively impact this beautiful park as we know it.

Duh, if you live on eastern Vaness, then you live in Cleveland Park, doofus.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:False equivalence, but nice try.

How exactly us a developer involved in this pool? Maybe a construction company, but a developer?

False equivalence, but not try.

Not all opponents are neighbors. Many are environmentalists.

Sure they are - since you either count yourself as one of them or are presuming they exist somewhere why don't you go through an amateur environmental cost benefit analysis for us?

Anonymous wrote:False equivalence, but nice try.

How exactly us a developer involved in this pool? Maybe a construction company, but a developer?

False equivalence, but not try.

Not all opponents are neighbors. Many are environmentalists.

Anonymous wrote:

Classic DEVELOPER - I don't own the land, the public does. but because I want to exploit a public space, I shall dictate to others with the exact same standing, what should or should not, happen there.

Selfish

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:

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.

It's like a Trump Plan -- "trust me, it'll be fantastic, wonderful, the best, you won't believe it." (The last phrase, of course, is true.)