Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't wait to take a dip in the wonderful new pool this year and hold a middle finger up to all the haters.

"Haters"? Really? Great that you like a new pool -- who doesn't? -- but it's uncivil and disrespectful not to acknowledge that there are people who have different views. Some of them are immediate park neighbors who will be most impacted, and not entirely positively. Others are those who feel that Hearst was the wrong site, or that the final location is the wrong one at Hearst. Then there are others who are upset that there was no real site selection process undertaken (DPR reps will tell you frankly that the location was dictated by Councilmember Cheh), and note that this is not the only instance under Bowser and Cheh that major facilities decisions have been made without transparent analysis and public process.

And when did "haters" become synonymous with anyone who holds a contrary opinion or has a concern?

People who have different views fought tooth and nail against a pool for overt NIMBY reasons cloaked in a variety of almost benign sounding reasons.

Hearst was never the wrong site, other than to the 20 people who live immediately around the pool. DC does not control Ft Reno, that was a red-herring to try to deflect construction there. And ironically, people in the Ft Reno neighborhood fought a public pool proposal a generation ago over racism.

There was a site selection process. Hearst won. Palisades was too far out of the way, Guy Mason was too close to Jelleff, Lafayette is in Ward 4, and the baseball people fought Turtle Park, so by default, it is Hearst. I, for one, am excited about a pool at Hearst, one that my kids can walk or bike to and where I can commune with my fellow pool-loving neighbors.

A pox on people who rue the sound of kids playing in a pool on a hot summer day.

You’re grasping at a red herring. I doubt that you’ve ever spent much time at Hearst park. If you did, you would know that kids are not the issue. The Hearst field already is used very heavily during many weekends out of the year, for Stoddard soccer games that go from morning until evening on weekends. These games attract players and their parents from all over, even beyond DC, and not just the immediate neighborhood.

Moreover, if there was a robust site selection process, please show us. Link to the DPR analysis or paper on their website. We’d love to see it. You probably won’t find anything because the site selection process was all in Mary Cheh’s head. There was no formal process, no thorough consideration of alternative sites and instead she directed DPR to put the pool at Hearst.

You can prattle on with your false argument about kids all you want, but Hearst’s heavy use by kids belies your argument. But I must admit to feeling a little sad that a number of trees have already fallen (well beyond the promises of DPR officials) and the character of this leafy green space forever changed, for a concrete canyon — on a sub optimal site chosen without any comparative analysis of other options — that will sit empty 9 1/2 months out of the year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure who's more obnoxious in this debate, the supporters of the pool or the opponents. Both seem like truly awful people.

Right back at you. I hope you stay out of Cleveland Park

This is a pool for all of the peoples of the District of Columbia, not just the chosen few in Ward 3. It is wonderful that it will be located just three blocks from the new homeless shelter at Cathedral Commons.

The tennis courts were awful. I’m glad they’re building a pool.

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure who's more obnoxious in this debate, the supporters of the pool or the opponents. Both seem like truly awful people.

Right back at you. I hope you stay out of Cleveland Park

I'm not sure who's more obnoxious in this debate, the supporters of the pool or the opponents. Both seem like truly awful people.

Wow, you guys are getting a new pool, awesome!

Does anyone know if you can form a "friends of a pool" association to benefit a DPR pool? I've though this would be a good idea at our local pool, to just do things like get more sunshades/umbrellas and some slight improvements to the locker rooms.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I walked by Hearst park today. It’s a friggin crime that they’ve taken down so many trees. Somebody should have to pay for this.

I’m legitimately shocked by how awful it looks.

Congrats pool boosters.

I’ll never understand why it had to be shoehorned into that space by a school in a residential neighborhood. I know you won’t miss my family, but I live a block away and won’t ever set foot in the pool. I did, however play tennis on the regular in the nice shade that used to be there.

It will be so pretty with all of the concrete, block pool house and chain link fencing -- minus the screening and shade provided by the trees. Thanks, DC, for striving to make making green space feel more "urban."

LOL - the tennis courts the pool is replacing were real green space.

And I love the racist urban dog whistle.

I'm sure you can play tennis at your country club if the park going "urban" scares you off.

?
Maybe you hear what u want to hear?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I walked by Hearst park today. It’s a friggin crime that they’ve taken down so many trees. Somebody should have to pay for this.

I’m legitimately shocked by how awful it looks.

Congrats pool boosters.

I’ll never understand why it had to be shoehorned into that space by a school in a residential neighborhood. I know you won’t miss my family, but I live a block away and won’t ever set foot in the pool. I did, however play tennis on the regular in the nice shade that used to be there.

It will be so pretty with all of the concrete, block pool house and chain link fencing -- minus the screening and shade provided by the trees. Thanks, DC, for striving to make making green space feel more "urban."

LOL - the tennis courts the pool is replacing were real green space.

And I love the racist urban dog whistle.

I'm sure you can play tennis at your country club if the park going "urban" scares you off.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't wait to take a dip in the wonderful new pool this year and hold a middle finger up to all the haters.

"Haters"? Really? Great that you like a new pool -- who doesn't? -- but it's uncivil and disrespectful not to acknowledge that there are people who have different views. Some of them are immediate park neighbors who will be most impacted, and not entirely positively. Others are those who feel that Hearst was the wrong site, or that the final location is the wrong one at Hearst. Then there are others who are upset that there was no real site selection process undertaken (DPR reps will tell you frankly that the location was dictated by Councilmember Cheh), and note that this is not the only instance under Bowser and Cheh that major facilities decisions have been made without transparent analysis and public process.

And when did "haters" become synonymous with anyone who holds a contrary opinion or has a concern?

People who have different views fought tooth and nail against a pool for overt NIMBY reasons cloaked in a variety of almost benign sounding reasons.

Hearst was never the wrong site, other than to the 20 people who live immediately around the pool. DC does not control Ft Reno, that was a red-herring to try to deflect construction there. And ironically, people in the Ft Reno neighborhood fought a public pool proposal a generation ago over racism.

There was a site selection process. Hearst won. Palisades was too far out of the way, Guy Mason was too close to Jelleff, Lafayette is in Ward 4, and the baseball people fought Turtle Park, so by default, it is Hearst. I, for one, am excited about a pool at Hearst, one that my kids can walk or bike to and where I can commune with my fellow pool-loving neighbors.

A pox on people who rue the sound of kids playing in a pool on a hot summer day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they build it, they should make it as functional and aesthetically pleasing as possible. Personally, I think the location is odd. It seems sort of random to have it in that corner. That's the part that "looks funny" to me. I could see if it were closer to the school/playground and other big works. Wherever they are placing it I hope it has the design, functionality and maintenance plan to make this all have been worth it.

Exactly - they should have placed the pool just west of the Hearst shelter, where it would have been accessible via a gradual ramp from the Hearst school parking lot (largely unused during summer and weekends). That would also have moved the pool and infrastructure to a location distant from most surrounding homes, and would not have required disturbing the tennis courts. It also would have put the fenced pool area closer to the playground, which would be more convenient for families with kids.

Instead they are sandwiching the pool in at the corner of two steep slopes, which requires building (and maintaining) and elevator tower to the street. The site is constrained and is largely in shade -- or at least it was until DC began cutting down a lot of trees. The pool is in the location that is closest to the most number of nearby homes and most distant from any off-street parking.

Maybe if you had pushed for that from the get go, rather than fighting the pool for 5 years, someone would have listened. Instead, you get what you get because you chose to be combative.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I walked by Hearst park today. It’s a friggin crime that they’ve taken down so many trees. Somebody should have to pay for this.

I’m legitimately shocked by how awful it looks.

Congrats pool boosters.

I’ll never understand why it had to be shoehorned into that space by a school in a residential neighborhood. I know you won’t miss my family, but I live a block away and won’t ever set foot in the pool. I did, however play tennis on the regular in the nice shade that used to be there.

The pool has nothing to do with the environmental remediation taking place at Hearst. The hills were going to be cleaned out of all the scrub weeds and trees and re-planted with stormwater management as a priority. This was going to happen with, or without, a pool.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just walked by the other day. A ton of trees came down. Dont minimize at least be honest. I can see why the neighbors are upset - changes the view and will impact parking and noise.

And then what will be the result? The pool will be open from June to mid-August. For over 10 months out of the year, it will be a concrete canyon, boarded up and drained, and brightly illuminated at night like the DC lockup. That will be a pleasant sight for those who live adjacent to the formerly green park, particularly during the months when the leaves come off the fewer remaining trees.

It was overgrown and not this nice, green space you all want everyone to believe it was. I'm stoked we are getting a neighborhood pool. I'm assuming you will never use it, right?

I've put on 10 pounds. I might not fit in the itty-bitty kiddie sized pool that Mary Cheh decreed to her subjects.

I guess all of the outdoor pools run by DPR are the same size as what they are building at Hearst. Thank you Mary Cheh for supporting this project.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't wait to take a dip in the wonderful new pool this year and hold a middle finger up to all the haters.

"Haters"? Really? Great that you like a new pool -- who doesn't? -- but it's uncivil and disrespectful not to acknowledge that there are people who have different views. Some of them are immediate park neighbors who will be most impacted, and not entirely positively. Others are those who feel that Hearst was the wrong site, or that the final location is the wrong one at Hearst. Then there are others who are upset that there was no real site selection process undertaken (DPR reps will tell you frankly that the location was dictated by Councilmember Cheh), and note that this is not the only instance under Bowser and Cheh that major facilities decisions have been made without transparent analysis and public process.

And when did "haters" become synonymous with anyone who holds a contrary opinion or has a concern?

I don't know where you live, but there was about a year worth of debate over this in Cleveland Park. It's endless!!! I don't know how much "civil debate" you need for a simple pool. Yes, we all know you hate any kind of change in Cleveland Park. You'd think they're building a concentration camp. I have not seen this much outrage for truly worthy causes.

Anonymous wrote:Can't wait to take a dip in the wonderful new pool this year and hold a middle finger up to all the haters.

"Haters"? Really? Great that you like a new pool -- who doesn't? -- but it's uncivil and disrespectful not to acknowledge that there are people who have different views. Some of them are immediate park neighbors who will be most impacted, and not entirely positively. Others are those who feel that Hearst was the wrong site, or that the final location is the wrong one at Hearst. Then there are others who are upset that there was no real site selection process undertaken (DPR reps will tell you frankly that the location was dictated by Councilmember Cheh), and note that this is not the only instance under Bowser and Cheh that major facilities decisions have been made without transparent analysis and public process.

And when did "haters" become synonymous with anyone who holds a contrary opinion or has a concern?

Can't wait to take a dip in the wonderful new pool this year and hold a middle finger up to all the haters.