Anonymous wrote:Because the city doesn't control Ft Reno.

It is a strawman option, whereas Hearst is a real option.

I prefer reality than to wait another 20 years for a chance at a community pool.

Cheh's staff confirmed that Fort Reno is definitely under consideration as the Ward 3 Pool site.

Because the city doesn't control Ft Reno.

It is a strawman option, whereas Hearst is a real option.

I prefer reality than to wait another 20 years for a chance at a community pool.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main divergence seems to be between those who want Hearst to remain a nice green park and those who are fine with it becoming a D.C. Recreational Complex.

It is controlled by DC Department of Parks and Rec. It has the right to program it on behalf of the taxpayers. The local residents do not get to trump the city programming.

Period.

You sound actually like a Trump flack. "Period."

Many frequent park users and other members of the community would rather see Hearst stay as a park, a shady, green oasis with much-used outdoor playing facilities. It would be a shame to pave it over with a lot of concrete, high cyclone fences and bright cobra lights and turn it into an urban recreational complex.

That is all fine and good. Go buy your own green space. This is public land that the public agencies program to the benefit of the public, not the local residents.

Of course, the logical reply question is, if you are so insistent on having 'your' neighborhood pool, when there are other locations that would serve the ward and the city much better (e.g., Wilson/Fort Reno area), then go buy your own backyard pool. It won't be much smaller than the one that DC will have to wedge into Hearst because of the site constraints.

I don't think I'm the only one who thinks that entitled Hearst pool mom seems a bit unhinged.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main divergence seems to be between those who want Hearst to remain a nice green park and those who are fine with it becoming a D.C. Recreational Complex.

It is controlled by DC Department of Parks and Rec. It has the right to program it on behalf of the taxpayers. The local residents do not get to trump the city programming.

Period.

You sound actually like a Trump flack. "Period."

Many frequent park users and other members of the community would rather see Hearst stay as a park, a shady, green oasis with much-used outdoor playing facilities. It would be a shame to pave it over with a lot of concrete, high cyclone fences and bright cobra lights and turn it into an urban recreational complex.

That is all fine and good. Go buy your own green space. This is public land that the public agencies program to the benefit of the public, not the local residents.

Pave it. This be DC!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is literally 2 feet of pollen on the tennis courts right now. That is special.

Wait! Won’t the same pollen be all over the Hearst pool site, which is slated for the same location? Unless of course the real plan is to take down all of the trees.

The pool wouldn't be open til well after the pollen is down.

Duh.

I'd have a different perspective. If DPR (or DGS for the bureaucratically astute) can't take a broom to remove pollen from the tennis courts -- which seems to be PP's complaint -- then what makes you think that they'll do a better job cleaning and maintaining a pool, pool house and outdoor elevator tower? That will be a much more difficult, complicated and costly challenge for them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main divergence seems to be between those who want Hearst to remain a nice green park and those who are fine with it becoming a D.C. Recreational Complex.

It is controlled by DC Department of Parks and Rec. It has the right to program it on behalf of the taxpayers. The local residents do not get to trump the city programming.

Period.

You sound actually like a Trump flack. "Period."

Many frequent park users and other members of the community would rather see Hearst stay as a park, a shady, green oasis with much-used outdoor playing facilities. It would be a shame to pave it over with a lot of concrete, high cyclone fences and bright cobra lights and turn it into an urban recreational complex.

That is all fine and good. Go buy your own green space. This is public land that the public agencies program to the benefit of the public, not the local residents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is literally 2 feet of pollen on the tennis courts right now. That is special.

Wait! Won’t the same pollen be all over the Hearst pool site, which is slated for the same location? Unless of course the real plan is to take down all of the trees.

The pool wouldn't be open til well after the pollen is down.

Duh.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main divergence seems to be between those who want Hearst to remain a nice green park and those who are fine with it becoming a D.C. Recreational Complex.

It is controlled by DC Department of Parks and Rec. It has the right to program it on behalf of the taxpayers. The local residents do not get to trump the city programming.

Period.

You sound actually like a Trump flack. "Period."

Many frequent park users and other members of the community would rather see Hearst stay as a park, a shady, green oasis with much-used outdoor playing facilities. It would be a shame to pave it over with a lot of concrete, high cyclone fences and bright cobra lights and turn it into an urban recreational complex.

Anonymous wrote:The main divergence seems to be between those who want Hearst to remain a nice green park and those who are fine with it becoming a D.C. Recreational Complex.

It is controlled by DC Department of Parks and Rec. It has the right to program it on behalf of the taxpayers. The local residents do not get to trump the city programming.

Period.

Anonymous wrote:There is literally 2 feet of pollen on the tennis courts right now. That is special.

Wait! Won’t the same pollen be all over the Hearst pool site, which is slated for the same location? Unless of course the real plan is to take down all of the trees.

Anonymous wrote:At a recent Chat with Cheh event in Ward 3, a Cheh staffer said that Fort Reno is definitely on the table as a W-3 pool site. Also noteworthy is the fact that DPR just refurbished the Hearst practice court and spiffed up the regular courts, which is not exactly consistent with an intention to rework that area for a pool. We're glad to see DC coming to their senses on this!

Yay! People who prefer the Hearst site over Ft. Reno probably think Ft. Reno is too far away to walk (for them) or think that somehow Hearst will be more private and attract fewer swimmers--boo hoo.

The main divergence seems to be between those who want Hearst to remain a nice green park and those who are fine with it becoming a D.C. Recreational Complex.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It blows my mind that some people don't want a pool. It's a walkable amenity that will only improve nearby property values and is a huge plus for nearby families with kids.

I can't get over this 173 page debate.

People want a pool in the ward. They just don't want to wreck a lot of what is special about Hearst to put it there.

There is nothing special about Hearst Park at all. As a park, it kind of sucks. A pool would be way nicer. Tenley Town is already too congested. I would not be happy with a pool near Wilson.

There is literally 2 feet of pollen on the tennis courts right now. That is special.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It blows my mind that some people don't want a pool. It's a walkable amenity that will only improve nearby property values and is a huge plus for nearby families with kids.

I can't get over this 173 page debate.

People want a pool in the ward. They just don't want to wreck a lot of what is special about Hearst to put it there.

OMG what is special about the tennis courts at Hearst? Or any tennis courts for that matter?