Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would the soccer crowd be in favor of lighted fields? That could allow an even greater number of users AND accommodate a pool. Pool opponents better stop overplaying their hand or else additional solutions can easily be explored.

As in, we can fu@# Hearst Park up, or we can fu@ Hearst Park up the a$* if you keep opposing us. Nice.

No. More as in we are calling your bluff to expose your true agenda.

Anonymous wrote:Would the soccer crowd be in favor of lighted fields? That could allow an even greater number of users AND accommodate a pool. Pool opponents better stop overplaying their hand or else additional solutions can easily be explored.

As in, we can fu@# Hearst Park up, or we can fu@ Hearst Park up the a$* if you keep opposing us. Nice.

Would the soccer crowd be in favor of lighted fields? That could allow an even greater number of users AND accommodate a pool. Pool opponents better stop overplaying their hand or else additional solutions can easily be explored.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stoddert uses the entire field with multiple games...The entire field.

OK but that is not what the opposing neighbors have been claiming - they have been claiming that the field has been used for a single game at a time and that this particular field is unique in that manner.

The truth is that like most Stoddert fields it is being used by younger players for multiple games at a time which suggests that in all likliehood there would be no change in the utility of the park to Stoddert if the layout of the field needed to be tweaked.

Which is, as has been repeatedly pointed out, a moot point if the pool is simply located where the current tennis courts are. Which is a point the neighbors won't concede because their only chance to broaden this fight beyond the immediate neighbors is to make this into a soccer vs pool fight which is intellectually dishonest but at least in that manner the neighbors are consistent.

They're not talking about "tweaking" the field, they're talking about shrinking it.

Keeping it the same size and changing the configuration would probably be fine. (Although that's a hypothetical, I can't imagine how you'd do that.) Shrinking it means less utility and fewer kids served.

Hearst is also now one of only two DPR fields west of Rock Creek that is big enough for high school age games to be played (and soccer is allowed). The other is Fort Reno. Last spring, Wilson baseball put a fence up at Fort Reno making it unusable for soccer. DPR announced this fall that it wants to make Fort Reno primarily a baseball field -- despite the fact that there is already a strong over-abundance of baseball fields relative to the number of players. So it is important to soccer players to keep the field dimensions at Hearst.

What hasn't been mentioned is that the field isn't used just for games but also for practices. It has four movable goals, teams will just improvise a practice space. There are over 3,000 kids in Ward 3 who play soccer, and Hearst is one of only a handful of places where they can practice on weekday afternoons, most DPR fields prohibit anything other than diamond sports. Shrinking the field would cut into the number of kids who can practice there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stoddert uses the entire field with multiple games...The entire field.

OK but that is not what the opposing neighbors have been claiming - they have been claiming that the field has been used for a single game at a time and that this particular field is unique in that manner.

The truth is that like most Stoddert fields it is being used by younger players for multiple games at a time which suggests that in all likliehood there would be no change in the utility of the park to Stoddert if the layout of the field needed to be tweaked.

Which is, as has been repeatedly pointed out, a moot point if the pool is simply located where the current tennis courts are. Which is a point the neighbors won't concede because their only chance to broaden this fight beyond the immediate neighbors is to make this into a soccer vs pool fight which is intellectually dishonest but at least in that manner the neighbors are consistent.

You can pretend it’s just the Hearst Park neighbors but there was also a very strong argument against the pool, in the NW Current recently, written by one of the “founding families” of Washington DC youth soccer.

And her facts were wrong and her premise was wrong, and it has already been discussed in this forum.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stoddert uses the entire field with multiple games...The entire field.

OK but that is not what the opposing neighbors have been claiming - they have been claiming that the field has been used for a single game at a time and that this particular field is unique in that manner.

The truth is that like most Stoddert fields it is being used by younger players for multiple games at a time which suggests that in all likliehood there would be no change in the utility of the park to Stoddert if the layout of the field needed to be tweaked.

Which is, as has been repeatedly pointed out, a moot point if the pool is simply located where the current tennis courts are. Which is a point the neighbors won't concede because their only chance to broaden this fight beyond the immediate neighbors is to make this into a soccer vs pool fight which is intellectually dishonest but at least in that manner the neighbors are consistent.

You can pretend it’s just the Hearst Park neighbors but there was also a very strong argument against the pool, in the NW Current recently, written by one of the “founding families” of Washington DC youth soccer.

Anonymous wrote:Stoddert uses the entire field with multiple games...The entire field.

OK but that is not what the opposing neighbors have been claiming - they have been claiming that the field has been used for a single game at a time and that this particular field is unique in that manner.

The truth is that like most Stoddert fields it is being used by younger players for multiple games at a time which suggests that in all likliehood there would be no change in the utility of the park to Stoddert if the layout of the field needed to be tweaked.

Which is, as has been repeatedly pointed out, a moot point if the pool is simply located where the current tennis courts are. Which is a point the neighbors won't concede because their only chance to broaden this fight beyond the immediate neighbors is to make this into a soccer vs pool fight which is intellectually dishonest but at least in that manner the neighbors are consistent.

Anonymous wrote:Stoddert uses the entire field with multiple games...The entire field.

Whining NIMBYS

Stoddert uses the entire field with multiple games...The entire field.

Someone did a calculation earlier in the thread, but if you had 3 doubles matches running from sun up to sen set every day of the year, you still wouldn't have the same number of park users as you would for 3 months of a pool.

Given the courts sit empty most of the year, it becomes a no-brainer in terms of DPR filling its mission to have a pool to attract and retain park users.

There are public courts that are mostly unused at Chesapeake, Lafayette, Chevy Chase, Turtle Park, UDC and Rose/Montrose. There are a ton of private courts including Sidwell, St Albans/NCS etc in the immediate vicinity.

The handful of avid tennis players have plenty of walkable options.

The hundreds of potential outdoor pool users don't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The entire Hearst Field is used for under-12 soccer every Saturday, Spring and Fall.

I'm glad the park gets some use on Saturday's in the spring and fall.

The rest of the year it is almost always some solitary folks with their dogs running illegally off leash.

But the soccer use is no argument against a pool - really it has nothing to do with it as every single proposal for Hearst maintains a large soccer field.

Actually, they show shrinkage of the field, but DPR deliberately chose not to provide any actual dimensions to disguise the extent of the impact.

God we keep going in circles where opponents continue to make things up.

One proposal doesn't even touch the field.

And most of what the opponents are mumbling about are their own perceptions of changes to the fields dimensions.

But what is odd is that most of the opponents are way past the age of having any skin in the game when it comes to youth soccer.

And as someone pointed out in a post in the last couple of days most of the games being played at Hearst are not even using the full dimensions of the field and instead are splitting the space up to play two games.

But keeping making things up - I guess that is what I'd do if neither the facts nor public opinion were on my side.

It's awfully unfair for you to be accusing others of making things up when you don't have your facts straight.

It is a little complicated to talk about the current use of the field because there isn't really any such thing as "the field." DPR doesn't maintain lines or goals, it's just a large grassy (or "grassy") patch that people can divide up as they see fit. The flat area is about 65 by 105 yards. If you look on Google Maps right now the aerial photo shows it divided into three third grade fields, each 35x50 yards. This season it's being used for high school and second grade, high school is a single field 60x105, second grade is four fields each 30x40.

Where the proposals have shown dimensions the field is never larger than 100x50 yards, and often about three quarters that size. None of the configurations above would fit on a 100x50 field. This is what the folks at DPR don't seem to get, that the dimensions matter, even though their business is nominally recreation. To them, a soccer field is a soccer field.

Yet as you just pointed out the field isn't even being used in the manner it is laid out for yet opponents of change are fighting any change in how the field is laid out.

So what matters - being able to get the games in at a particular site or having a field of some particular dimension?

Also interesting to learn that the majority of the field use at Stoddert is in smaller configurations for which there would still be plenty of options even under a shrunken field and also for which Stoddert has many other options. Apparently the incredible demand for a full time field that the neighbors keep going on and on about is not really such an incredible demand.

In any case if the neighbors are so concerned about Stoddert and advocating for its interests (and in a sense they should be because it is the only time anyone actually uses the park) then the simply position they should take is to be adamant that the pool simply go where the tennis courts are and leave the soccer field alone.

Barely anyone will notice as the tennis courts are lightly used.

Uh, don’t ya’ think that tennis players might notice?

Well there aren't many tennis players to notice so who cares? After all they can just join a private club or go to another ward to play tennis right?

So tennis players should have to join a private club, but it’s ok to tear up a beautiful park for a swimming pool that will be open at most 90 days per year. This is when there is no shortage of existing public and private swimming options close by. The Wilson pool, open year-round, is a half mile walk from Hearst (the radius that developers advertIse as being nearby to Metro). A public outdoor pool is available next to the Glover Safeway and still another public pool about another 1/4 mile farther at Volta playground. Both McLean Gardens and Vaughan Place complexes have large pools, as do many apartment buildings in the area. It’s not necessary to join a county club to have a private swim option. The Cleveland Park club, with a renovated pool, is a relatively affordable old fashioned neighborhood swim club. Beauvoir offers a large, fairly new pool for summer memberships, and several hotels in the area offer year-round swimming options. The health club two blocks from Hearst offers a year round pool. With all of these public and other options, Ward 3 is not exactly bereft of swimming options.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The entire Hearst Field is used for under-12 soccer every Saturday, Spring and Fall.

I'm glad the park gets some use on Saturday's in the spring and fall.

The rest of the year it is almost always some solitary folks with their dogs running illegally off leash.

But the soccer use is no argument against a pool - really it has nothing to do with it as every single proposal for Hearst maintains a large soccer field.

Actually, they show shrinkage of the field, but DPR deliberately chose not to provide any actual dimensions to disguise the extent of the impact.

God we keep going in circles where opponents continue to make things up.

One proposal doesn't even touch the field.

And most of what the opponents are mumbling about are their own perceptions of changes to the fields dimensions.

But what is odd is that most of the opponents are way past the age of having any skin in the game when it comes to youth soccer.

And as someone pointed out in a post in the last couple of days most of the games being played at Hearst are not even using the full dimensions of the field and instead are splitting the space up to play two games.

But keeping making things up - I guess that is what I'd do if neither the facts nor public opinion were on my side.

Talk about making things up. These 'arguments' aren't worth the warm piss in a little DC kiddie pool.

So are most Stoddert games at Hearst Park using the full dimensions of the field or not? Several posts have indicated that they do not.

You're misreading those posts. When the field is used for younger games with smaller fields, as many of those smaller fields as will fit are put in. The space is too valuable not to use all of it.

BTW, I'm glad you're asking these questions. And I wish someone from DPR or DGS would ask them too, and try to understand how the park is currently used.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The entire Hearst Field is used for under-12 soccer every Saturday, Spring and Fall.

I'm glad the park gets some use on Saturday's in the spring and fall.

The rest of the year it is almost always some solitary folks with their dogs running illegally off leash.

But the soccer use is no argument against a pool - really it has nothing to do with it as every single proposal for Hearst maintains a large soccer field.

Actually, they show shrinkage of the field, but DPR deliberately chose not to provide any actual dimensions to disguise the extent of the impact.

God we keep going in circles where opponents continue to make things up.

One proposal doesn't even touch the field.

And most of what the opponents are mumbling about are their own perceptions of changes to the fields dimensions.

But what is odd is that most of the opponents are way past the age of having any skin in the game when it comes to youth soccer.

And as someone pointed out in a post in the last couple of days most of the games being played at Hearst are not even using the full dimensions of the field and instead are splitting the space up to play two games.

But keeping making things up - I guess that is what I'd do if neither the facts nor public opinion were on my side.

It's awfully unfair for you to be accusing others of making things up when you don't have your facts straight.

It is a little complicated to talk about the current use of the field because there isn't really any such thing as "the field." DPR doesn't maintain lines or goals, it's just a large grassy (or "grassy") patch that people can divide up as they see fit. The flat area is about 65 by 105 yards. If you look on Google Maps right now the aerial photo shows it divided into three third grade fields, each 35x50 yards. This season it's being used for high school and second grade, high school is a single field 60x105, second grade is four fields each 30x40.

Where the proposals have shown dimensions the field is never larger than 100x50 yards, and often about three quarters that size. None of the configurations above would fit on a 100x50 field. This is what the folks at DPR don't seem to get, that the dimensions matter, even though their business is nominally recreation. To them, a soccer field is a soccer field.

Yet as you just pointed out the field isn't even being used in the manner it is laid out for yet opponents of change are fighting any change in how the field is laid out.

So what matters - being able to get the games in at a particular site or having a field of some particular dimension?

Also interesting to learn that the majority of the field use at Stoddert is in smaller configurations for which there would still be plenty of options even under a shrunken field and also for which Stoddert has many other options. Apparently the incredible demand for a full time field that the neighbors keep going on and on about is not really such an incredible demand.

In any case if the neighbors are so concerned about Stoddert and advocating for its interests (and in a sense they should be because it is the only time anyone actually uses the park) then the simply position they should take is to be adamant that the pool simply go where the tennis courts are and leave the soccer field alone.

Barely anyone will notice as the tennis courts are lightly used.

Uh, don’t ya’ think that tennis players might notice?

Well there aren't many tennis players to notice so who cares? After all they can just join a private club or go to another ward to play tennis right?

Maybe while they're at it they could join a club with a pool!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The entire Hearst Field is used for under-12 soccer every Saturday, Spring and Fall.

I'm glad the park gets some use on Saturday's in the spring and fall.

The rest of the year it is almost always some solitary folks with their dogs running illegally off leash.

But the soccer use is no argument against a pool - really it has nothing to do with it as every single proposal for Hearst maintains a large soccer field.

Actually, they show shrinkage of the field, but DPR deliberately chose not to provide any actual dimensions to disguise the extent of the impact.

God we keep going in circles where opponents continue to make things up.

One proposal doesn't even touch the field.

And most of what the opponents are mumbling about are their own perceptions of changes to the fields dimensions.

But what is odd is that most of the opponents are way past the age of having any skin in the game when it comes to youth soccer.

And as someone pointed out in a post in the last couple of days most of the games being played at Hearst are not even using the full dimensions of the field and instead are splitting the space up to play two games.

But keeping making things up - I guess that is what I'd do if neither the facts nor public opinion were on my side.

It's awfully unfair for you to be accusing others of making things up when you don't have your facts straight.

It is a little complicated to talk about the current use of the field because there isn't really any such thing as "the field." DPR doesn't maintain lines or goals, it's just a large grassy (or "grassy") patch that people can divide up as they see fit. The flat area is about 65 by 105 yards. If you look on Google Maps right now the aerial photo shows it divided into three third grade fields, each 35x50 yards. This season it's being used for high school and second grade, high school is a single field 60x105, second grade is four fields each 30x40.

Where the proposals have shown dimensions the field is never larger than 100x50 yards, and often about three quarters that size. None of the configurations above would fit on a 100x50 field. This is what the folks at DPR don't seem to get, that the dimensions matter, even though their business is nominally recreation. To them, a soccer field is a soccer field.

Yet as you just pointed out the field isn't even being used in the manner it is laid out for yet opponents of change are fighting any change in how the field is laid out.

So what matters - being able to get the games in at a particular site or having a field of some particular dimension?

Also interesting to learn that the majority of the field use at Stoddert is in smaller configurations for which there would still be plenty of options even under a shrunken field and also for which Stoddert has many other options. Apparently the incredible demand for a full time field that the neighbors keep going on and on about is not really such an incredible demand.

In any case if the neighbors are so concerned about Stoddert and advocating for its interests (and in a sense they should be because it is the only time anyone actually uses the park) then the simply position they should take is to be adamant that the pool simply go where the tennis courts are and leave the soccer field alone.

Barely anyone will notice as the tennis courts are lightly used.

Uh, don’t ya’ think that tennis players might notice?

Well there aren't many tennis players to notice so who cares? After all they can just join a private club or go to another ward to play tennis right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The entire Hearst Field is used for under-12 soccer every Saturday, Spring and Fall.

I'm glad the park gets some use on Saturday's in the spring and fall.

The rest of the year it is almost always some solitary folks with their dogs running illegally off leash.

But the soccer use is no argument against a pool - really it has nothing to do with it as every single proposal for Hearst maintains a large soccer field.

Actually, they show shrinkage of the field, but DPR deliberately chose not to provide any actual dimensions to disguise the extent of the impact.

God we keep going in circles where opponents continue to make things up.

One proposal doesn't even touch the field.

And most of what the opponents are mumbling about are their own perceptions of changes to the fields dimensions.

But what is odd is that most of the opponents are way past the age of having any skin in the game when it comes to youth soccer.

And as someone pointed out in a post in the last couple of days most of the games being played at Hearst are not even using the full dimensions of the field and instead are splitting the space up to play two games.

But keeping making things up - I guess that is what I'd do if neither the facts nor public opinion were on my side.

Talk about making things up. These 'arguments' aren't worth the warm piss in a little DC kiddie pool.

So are most Stoddert games at Hearst Park using the full dimensions of the field or not? Several posts have indicated that they do not.