Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the pool can be put into the area of a single tennis court and there are so many tennis courts available, why is the search focused solely on Hearst??? Let's look at all the tennis courts in Ward 3 before settle on Hearst.

It's people like you who are killing Cleveland Park. Is there any neighborhood in America that support a Starbucks? Enjoy your lamp and vacuum store while the rest of us are at the pool.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

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.

Very true. DC has lost a lot of green space and tree canopy in recent years. It's important that green public assets be maintained as much as possible, not paved over. Mature trees are the city's green lungs. They filter automotive pollutants and cool the air to some extent, which is all the more important as density and temperatures rise.

Not true! DC's tree canopy is on an upward trajectory. You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts:

i -Tree Studies

In 2004 and 2009, Casey Trees statistically sampled a portion of the District’s trees to perform a citywide assessment of the District’s tree canopy25. By examining approximately 200 plots on private and federal lands, Casey Trees estimated the number, species composition, size constitution, and economic and environmental value of the District’s trees. Highlights of this study’s findings
include the following:

• The number of trees in the city has increased from 1.9 to 2.6 million;
• Small trees (under 6 inches in diameter) have increased from 56.3 to 62.6%;

http://doee.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddoe/page_content/attachments/Draft_Urban_Tree_Canopy_Plan_Final.pdf

Did you learn this heckneyed phrase in law school debate club.

Of course, DC has made some progress in increasing the tree canopy in the last 10 years. But these restorative efforts are a drop in the bucket compared to the tree canopy that was lost in the prior 30 years. Older canopy trees provide the most value in shade, energy reduction and Co2 mitigation. They are vulnerable enough to storms and impact from nearby construction without sacrificing more of them for a discretionary project.

700,000 new trees in just a five year period is just "some progress" to you? Really?

You should really review Casey Trees' annual report card on DC's tree canopy. The 2016 report is particularly pertinent to Hearst, advocating that DC should place priority on preserving and enhancing the tree canopy in city-owned parks and other green spaces; putting conservation easements on DC parks to preserve mature tree canopy; and strengthening protections against removal of "special" (i.e., large diameter, mature canopy) trees. While the report lauds efforts to plant new, smaller trees, it notes that that many are poorly maintained, will take years to create a meaningful canopy and are no substitute for the preservation of existing mature tree canopy.

"Simply said, trees make parks more enjoyable, increase their use, reduce upkeep needs, and help the city achieve its 40 percent tree canopy goal. Parks are a viable and practical solution for re-treeing D.C."

http://caseytrees.org/resources/publications/treereportcard/

By any metric DC is one of the most heavily forested cities in the country. And the number of trees is going up every year. If you think your sacred oaks are going to stop the pool you are delusional. Residents who make ridiculous claims to stop development ultimately will lose their seat at the table. And then they will get a homeless shelter built next to them.

Anonymous wrote:
too bad Palisades was quick to object to a pool by getting an historic designation. You see so many tennis courts then move the pool there. remember, a pool is not just a physical pool. There's changing locations, there's mandatory fencing, there's equipment. A "pool" takes up more surface area than a lot of people choose to remember during debates. There's just not that space at Hearst. Take away the fields at Turtle Park if you're so desperate for a pool. Or, gasp! drive to Jelleff.

Anonymous wrote:If you look at an aerial map of Ward 3, in addition to the public courts (there are also a bunch of courts at UDC), there are also a ton of private courts at the various schools (which have private clubs etc).

Most of the courts sit unused for all but a few hours or days each year. Talk about wasted space.

Anonymous wrote:If the pool can be put into the area of a single tennis court and there are so many tennis courts available, why is the search focused solely on Hearst??? Let's look at all the tennis courts in Ward 3 before settle on Hearst.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

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.

Very true. DC has lost a lot of green space and tree canopy in recent years. It's important that green public assets be maintained as much as possible, not paved over. Mature trees are the city's green lungs. They filter automotive pollutants and cool the air to some extent, which is all the more important as density and temperatures rise.

Not true! DC's tree canopy is on an upward trajectory. You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts:

i -Tree Studies

In 2004 and 2009, Casey Trees statistically sampled a portion of the District’s trees to perform a citywide assessment of the District’s tree canopy25. By examining approximately 200 plots on private and federal lands, Casey Trees estimated the number, species composition, size constitution, and economic and environmental value of the District’s trees. Highlights of this study’s findings
include the following:

• The number of trees in the city has increased from 1.9 to 2.6 million;
• Small trees (under 6 inches in diameter) have increased from 56.3 to 62.6%;

http://doee.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddoe/page_content/attachments/Draft_Urban_Tree_Canopy_Plan_Final.pdf

Did you learn this heckneyed phrase in law school debate club.

Of course, DC has made some progress in increasing the tree canopy in the last 10 years. But these restorative efforts are a drop in the bucket compared to the tree canopy that was lost in the prior 30 years. Older canopy trees provide the most value in shade, energy reduction and Co2 mitigation. They are vulnerable enough to storms and impact from nearby construction without sacrificing more of them for a discretionary project.

700,000 new trees in just a five year period is just "some progress" to you? Really?

You should really review Casey Trees' annual report card on DC's tree canopy. The 2016 report is particularly pertinent to Hearst, advocating that DC should place priority on preserving and enhancing the tree canopy in city-owned parks and other green spaces; putting conservation easements on DC parks to preserve mature tree canopy; and strengthening protections against removal of "special" (i.e., large diameter, mature canopy) trees. While the report lauds efforts to plant new, smaller trees, it notes that that many are poorly maintained, will take years to create a meaningful canopy and are no substitute for the preservation of existing mature tree canopy.

"Simply said, trees make parks more enjoyable, increase their use, reduce upkeep needs, and help the city achieve its 40 percent tree canopy goal. Parks are a viable and practical solution for re-treeing D.C."

http://caseytrees.org/resources/publications/treereportcard/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

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.

Very true. DC has lost a lot of green space and tree canopy in recent years. It's important that green public assets be maintained as much as possible, not paved over. Mature trees are the city's green lungs. They filter automotive pollutants and cool the air to some extent, which is all the more important as density and temperatures rise.

Not true! DC's tree canopy is on an upward trajectory. You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts:

i -Tree Studies

In 2004 and 2009, Casey Trees statistically sampled a portion of the District’s trees to perform a citywide assessment of the District’s tree canopy25. By examining approximately 200 plots on private and federal lands, Casey Trees estimated the number, species composition, size constitution, and economic and environmental value of the District’s trees. Highlights of this study’s findings
include the following:

• The number of trees in the city has increased from 1.9 to 2.6 million;
• Small trees (under 6 inches in diameter) have increased from 56.3 to 62.6%;

http://doee.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddoe/page_content/attachments/Draft_Urban_Tree_Canopy_Plan_Final.pdf

Did you learn this heckneyed phrase in law school debate club.

Of course, DC has made some progress in increasing the tree canopy in the last 10 years. But these restorative efforts are a drop in the bucket compared to the tree canopy that was lost in the prior 30 years. Older canopy trees provide the most value in shade, energy reduction and Co2 mitigation. They are vulnerable enough to storms and impact from nearby construction without sacrificing more of them for a discretionary project.

700,000 new trees in just a five year period is just "some progress" to you? Really?