Anonymous wrote:And the UDC pool is not a DPR facility that is open for family use the way DPR facilities are used. But nice deflection.

That's the indoor UDC pool. But DPR would have the opportunity to get a parcel transfrred to it (or at least have a longterm operating arrangement, like with the Wilson pool). It's all within the DC government, which is a real bureaucracy to be sure, but the mayor can make inter-agency transfers and co-location agreements happen. UDC is the site for the Murch swing space, and once the school vacates the swing site, it would be a good location for a permanent outdoor pool (which should also be available to UDC as it is for DC residents generally). UDC is also within the same general area as the Hearst park site. Seems like a win-win.

No, it is clear that some will oppose a pool regardless of where it is sited, what it's use might be during non-summer months or whatever. They will continue to fight and make excuses regardless, because they feel the big green space across from their house is theirs and only they can dictate who uses it, how, and when."

That works both ways. A big green space provides amenities to a very broad population, not just the people who live in the immediate neighborhood. I suspect a pool would be most heavily used by the people within walking distance. But that doesn't mean that a pool is a better use than a park. This debate continues to be defined by the allegedly narrow concerns of a few neighbors. But there are broader issues that reflect the environmental and historic values of a broader population. The District is undergoing a massive change with a scaling up buildings which are getting taller. Mary Cheh has a vision of a more dense city Ward 3 and she is getting it. But that increased density is all the more reason to preserve the very few wide open green spaces that exist and not covering them with hard scape.

And the UDC pool is not a DPR facility that is open for family use the way DPR facilities are used. But nice deflection.

Anonymous wrote:No, it is clear that some will oppose a pool regardless of where it is sited, what it's use might be during non-summer months or whatever. They will continue to fight and make excuses regardless, because they feel the big green space across from their house is theirs and only they can dictate who uses it, how, and when.

It would be a shame to lose green space for a concrete pool. Put the pool over on the UDC campus, which is already tainted with lots of Brutalist concrete. At least UDC is central, located right on Metro and a major bus line, and has offstreet parking.

Anonymous wrote:a) It is false to say no one wants a pool. I would be willing to bet that other than the 20 or so immediate residents, just about everyone would want a public pool.

b) No one is suggesting cutting down mature trees.

But please, let's have more hyperbole. It really helps gain sympathy for your perspective.

Tell us why, after so much time has elapsed, no one -- from Cheh's office, DPR or other agencies will release a basic concept sketch of the proposed pool location or alternate locations. They're clearly holding back as long as possible because they know that the pool will result in the loss of existing park features and possibly uses.

No, it is clear that some will oppose a pool regardless of where it is sited, what it's use might be during non-summer months or whatever. They will continue to fight and make excuses regardless, because they feel the big green space across from their house is theirs and only they can dictate who uses it, how, and when.

I think everyone would like a pool but not one that destroys the park and will sit like an eyesore for the 9 months a year it can't be used.

Maybe the Upshur pool can send some of their more restive patrons over to enjoy it with you, like the two adult ladies who were whipping each other with belts and pulling each other's hair and closed the pool early this past Sunday?