Anonymous wrote:"We go to Jeleff often, as it's the only option, but that's an old facility with no real pool changing rooms (in the basement of the adjacent building). 75% of the chairs are broken rendering them useless so you need to schlep all of your own chairs with you. It's often overcrowded with nowhere to even set up a chair. Have the people recommending it as the end game solution even been there? It's not a quick easy shot for many people in Ward 3."

This is a huge concern for me about a new pool operated by DPR. It doesn't even take care of the existing facilities. My kid plays soccer at Jelleff and that pool is a quarter filled with green slime for more than half the year. If there was a body at the bottom of it, nobody would know until pool is drained in May.

This is what blows me away about the whole situation: if you were a private sector manager, and your company owned a facility, and your boss told you that the company was going to do a $12 million expansion, but the neighbors didn't like the way you'd been operating the existing facility, wouldn't step one be addressing the existing operating concerns? If only for six months or so? Isn't that Public Relations 101? Oh, and if the last time you expanded you'd made some promises to the neighbors, and hadn't exactly kept them, wouldn't it be a good idea to start honoring them until your project gets approved?

I've been to public meetings at both Hearst and Palisades in the past few weeks, and DC officials will make all sorts of promises about future operations, but when people ask them about current operations they act like they'be being asked to do the impossible. And then they wonder why people don't believe them.

"We go to Jeleff often, as it's the only option, but that's an old facility with no real pool changing rooms (in the basement of the adjacent building). 75% of the chairs are broken rendering them useless so you need to schlep all of your own chairs with you. It's often overcrowded with nowhere to even set up a chair. Have the people recommending it as the end game solution even been there? It's not a quick easy shot for many people in Ward 3."

This is a huge concern for me about a new pool operated by DPR. It doesn't even take care of the existing facilities. My kid plays soccer at Jelleff and that pool is a quarter filled with green slime for more than half the year. If there was a body at the bottom of it, nobody would know until pool is drained in May.

I agree, I am not sure what it means, but I am glad you cited the DPR report which indentifies the need for two outdoor pools west of Rock Creek Park. To my limited knowledge, Hearst is west of Rock Creek Park. I will be curious to know where a second pool west of Rock Creek Park would be located.

Lafayette or the Chevy Chase Community Center would be great locations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if the majority of Ward 3 opposes it (which I seriously doubt), this isn't a public referendum on park usage and programming. Look at a map of outdoor pools in the city. Everywhere else has dots all over the place. Ward 3 has nothing. Everywhere else has our tax dollars making an outdoor pool within walking distance pretty feasible. Ward 3 has our tax dollars on this amenity as totally barren.

Unlike a private school or some other private development where there is a special exception or some other non-matter of right process, this is a public park with public programming. The immediate neighbors do not get to dictate how the park is programmed and who gets to use it. The city offering and services that everyone pays for through taxes needs to be accessible to all residents.

Having a pool at Hearst helps begin to fill a void that residents everywhere else but Ward 3 enjoy. Sure, if you live in the Burleith part of Ward 3 you can get to Jelleff easily, but other than that, the Ward is basically shut out of easy access to this DPR programming.

You overlooked Wilson, which is a pretty great amenity --and available year-round with all sorts of 'DPR programming' like lessons.

Wilson is an indoor pool, unless something changed with it in the last 24 hours. This is about an outdoor pool. The other wards all have indoor pools and outdoor pools. Ward 3 does not have an outdoor public pool, and it should.

The "Ward 3 needs an outdoor pool" line is utterly unconvincing. A Ward boundary is an imaginary line that people are free to cross. Lafayette Rec Center is in Ward 4, but if there were a pool there much of the rationale for Hearst would vanish. Indoor pools do provide much of the same utility as outdoor pools. You're phrasing the argument not so that it conforms with logic or geography, but with your predetermined conclusion.

Let me help you: Proximity is an important consideration in siting recreational facilities. Proximity is not just a matter of straight-line distance, but also convenience. In DC, Rock Creek Park creates a geographic barrier; particularly when traffic is busy it is difficult to cross the park. West of Rock Creek, there are currently three public pools. Outdoor pools are Volta and Jelleff, both down at the southern end. Wilson is an indoor pool at Tenleytown.

DPR has a master facilities plan, it's on their website at http://dpr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dpr/publication/attachments/DCPRMP_VisionDocument_web_0.pdf . It calls for every DC resident to live within 1.5 miles of an outdoor pool. On page 35 is the plan for aquatic facilities. In order to meet that goal, two pools need to be added west of Rock Creek Park.

Interestingly, the plan doesn't call for a pool at Hearst. However, the locations pinpointed appear not to be DPR facilities at all, so it's not clear what it means.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Cheh has been doing a good job in general, so I don't know why the one poster is beating up on her. It would be nice to have a public outdoor pool in Ward 3. I would trade the tennis courts at Hearst for a pool, since there are a lot of courts in Ward 3. If it turns out that the majority in Ward 3 oppose this, so be it.

It's not one poster. There are at least two since I posted once about not being thrilled with her bullseye on Cleveland Park and did not post any of the other things about her.

Cheh pretty much lost Cleveland Park and McLean Gardens when she threw Eaton overboard from the Deal cluster into the Hardy clusterf---. Her handpicked representative on the boundary committee described Eaton as "collateral damage." Cheh has done very little for Eaton.

I would actually argue that she's done nothing for Eaton and has actively harmed and continues to actively harm Eaton. See, e.g., letting Eaton be moved from the Deal feed; no renovation for Eaton; the potential renovation keeps slipping further into the future; disingenuous suggestion that Eaton's renovation could moved up to accommodate children from the new shelter; etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Cheh has been doing a good job in general, so I don't know why the one poster is beating up on her. It would be nice to have a public outdoor pool in Ward 3. I would trade the tennis courts at Hearst for a pool, since there are a lot of courts in Ward 3. If it turns out that the majority in Ward 3 oppose this, so be it.

It's not one poster. There are at least two since I posted once about not being thrilled with her bullseye on Cleveland Park and did not post any of the other things about her.

Mary Cheh's role model for seeking public consensus seems to be the infamous Margot Honecker.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/07/world/europe/margot-honecker-widow-of-east-german-ruler-dies-at-89.html?_r=0

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Cheh has been doing a good job in general, so I don't know why the one poster is beating up on her. It would be nice to have a public outdoor pool in Ward 3. I would trade the tennis courts at Hearst for a pool, since there are a lot of courts in Ward 3. If it turns out that the majority in Ward 3 oppose this, so be it.

It's not one poster. There are at least two since I posted once about not being thrilled with her bullseye on Cleveland Park and did not post any of the other things about her.

Cheh pretty much lost Cleveland Park and McLean Gardens when she threw Eaton overboard from the Deal cluster into the Hardy clusterf---. Her handpicked representative on the boundary committee described Eaton as "collateral damage." Cheh has done very little for Eaton.

Anonymous wrote:Even if the majority of Ward 3 opposes it (which I seriously doubt), this isn't a public referendum on park usage and programming. Look at a map of outdoor pools in the city. Everywhere else has dots all over the place. Ward 3 has nothing. Everywhere else has our tax dollars making an outdoor pool within walking distance pretty feasible. Ward 3 has our tax dollars on this amenity as totally barren.

Unlike a private school or some other private development where there is a special exception or some other non-matter of right process, this is a public park with public programming. The immediate neighbors do not get to dictate how the park is programmed and who gets to use it. The city offering and services that everyone pays for through taxes needs to be accessible to all residents.

Having a pool at Hearst helps begin to fill a void that residents everywhere else but Ward 3 enjoy. Sure, if you live in the Burleith part of Ward 3 you can get to Jelleff easily, but other than that, the Ward is basically shut out of easy access to this DPR programming.

Clearly those who don't live near Hearst Park are the ones who want to pave it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if the majority of Ward 3 opposes it (which I seriously doubt), this isn't a public referendum on park usage and programming. Look at a map of outdoor pools in the city. Everywhere else has dots all over the place. Ward 3 has nothing. Everywhere else has our tax dollars making an outdoor pool within walking distance pretty feasible. Ward 3 has our tax dollars on this amenity as totally barren.

Unlike a private school or some other private development where there is a special exception or some other non-matter of right process, this is a public park with public programming. The immediate neighbors do not get to dictate how the park is programmed and who gets to use it. The city offering and services that everyone pays for through taxes needs to be accessible to all residents.

Having a pool at Hearst helps begin to fill a void that residents everywhere else but Ward 3 enjoy. Sure, if you live in the Burleith part of Ward 3 you can get to Jelleff easily, but other than that, the Ward is basically shut out of easy access to this DPR programming.

You overlooked Wilson, which is a pretty great amenity --and available year-round with all sorts of 'DPR programming' like lessons.

Wilson is an indoor pool, unless something changed with it in the last 24 hours. This is about an outdoor pool. The other wards all have indoor pools and outdoor pools. Ward 3 does not have an outdoor public pool, and it should.

Anonymous wrote:I think Cheh has been doing a good job in general, so I don't know why the one poster is beating up on her. It would be nice to have a public outdoor pool in Ward 3. I would trade the tennis courts at Hearst for a pool, since there are a lot of courts in Ward 3. If it turns out that the majority in Ward 3 oppose this, so be it.

It's not one poster. There are at least two since I posted once about not being thrilled with her bullseye on Cleveland Park and did not post any of the other things about her.

Anonymous wrote:Even if the majority of Ward 3 opposes it (which I seriously doubt), this isn't a public referendum on park usage and programming. Look at a map of outdoor pools in the city. Everywhere else has dots all over the place. Ward 3 has nothing. Everywhere else has our tax dollars making an outdoor pool within walking distance pretty feasible. Ward 3 has our tax dollars on this amenity as totally barren.

Unlike a private school or some other private development where there is a special exception or some other non-matter of right process, this is a public park with public programming. The immediate neighbors do not get to dictate how the park is programmed and who gets to use it. The city offering and services that everyone pays for through taxes needs to be accessible to all residents.

Having a pool at Hearst helps begin to fill a void that residents everywhere else but Ward 3 enjoy. Sure, if you live in the Burleith part of Ward 3 you can get to Jelleff easily, but other than that, the Ward is basically shut out of easy access to this DPR programming.

You overlooked Wilson, which is a pretty great amenity --and available year-round with all sorts of 'DPR programming' like lessons.

Even if the majority of Ward 3 opposes it (which I seriously doubt), this isn't a public referendum on park usage and programming. Look at a map of outdoor pools in the city. Everywhere else has dots all over the place. Ward 3 has nothing. Everywhere else has our tax dollars making an outdoor pool within walking distance pretty feasible. Ward 3 has our tax dollars on this amenity as totally barren.

Unlike a private school or some other private development where there is a special exception or some other non-matter of right process, this is a public park with public programming. The immediate neighbors do not get to dictate how the park is programmed and who gets to use it. The city offering and services that everyone pays for through taxes needs to be accessible to all residents.

Having a pool at Hearst helps begin to fill a void that residents everywhere else but Ward 3 enjoy. Sure, if you live in the Burleith part of Ward 3 you can get to Jelleff easily, but other than that, the Ward is basically shut out of easy access to this DPR programming.

I think Cheh has been doing a good job in general, so I don't know why the one poster is beating up on her. It would be nice to have a public outdoor pool in Ward 3. I would trade the tennis courts at Hearst for a pool, since there are a lot of courts in Ward 3. If it turns out that the majority in Ward 3 oppose this, so be it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Thank your zoning board for that.

For about a decade the policy of the DC Zoning Board has been to require that when private schools seek a zoning variance to build athletic facilities, one of the stipulations of the variance is that they can only be used by students and employees of the school. So we have massive duplication of facilities, and facilities that sit vacant just about all of the time.

The irony is that the schools are much better equipped to handle public use of their facilities than DPR is. The zoning board insists that schools have adequate parking, and traffic management plans -- neither of which are required of DPR. So not only do we have athletic facilities that are sitting unused, we also have huge parking lots and garages that are often unused as well.

Not true. Sidwell Friends, St Albans and other schools all run or host summer camps and weekend sports programs that make extensive use of tennis courts and other athletic facilities. It's also worth pointing out that several area private schools, Beauvoir, St. Albans, have pools as do neighborhood associations like the Cleveland Park Club. So the available private facilities argument goes two ways.

You can go to http://dcoz.dc.gov and read the zoning decisions yourself, they have them all searchable.

Note that the Office of Zoning considers summer camps run by the school to be school activities and allowed (although still subject to the enrollment cap and limits on parking).

St. Albans is instructive. Their most recent zoning order is from 2005 (http://www.dcoz.dc.gov/Orders/17320_1944-25.pdf), since then the Zoning Board has gotten more restrictive. But they're pretty limited in what they can allow:

Unaffiliated users shall not be permitted to use the athletic fields before or
after the school day, or on weekends, during the school year, except as follows:

Except as provided in Condition No. 12(c), the Applicant may choose to
provide a single field space for a single unaffiliated user on each weekend
day, if there is no scheduled St. Albans or Foundation activity on the fields on
that weekend day.

The Applicant may offer the use of its fields to unaffiliated users during the summer
when school is not in session as follows:

A single field may be used on a weekday when there is no summer camp
activity or St. Albans or Foundation activity on that day. The field may be
used for up to eleven hours, beginning no earlier than 9:00 a.m. and ending no
later than 6:00 p.m.

A single field may be used four weekday evenings per week; provided,
however, that the activity ends no later than 9:00 p.m.

A single field may be used each weekend day by a single user either during
the day or in the evening if there is no St. Albans or Foundation activity on the
weekend day. The field may be used for up to six hours, beginning no earlier
than 9:00 a.m. end ending no later than 9:00 p.m.

So on certain days they can rent one field to one group, provided no STA group used any of their fields any time during that day.

Keep in mind that their zoning order estimates a peak parking demand of 826 vehicles and requires that they provide parking for 835 vehicles.

Anonymous wrote:Some of us have kids and don't want the pool for environmental reasons.

+1. I looked at the website of the "Friends of Hearst Pool" (which seems to be the project of one man who has a letter in this week's NW Current.) The photos show quite clearly that there really is no good site for a pool, and only passable sites if they eliminate (1) all of the tennis courts; (2) most of the playing field; or (3) the turb field and the basketball court and possibly more of the upper playground. None of these is an acceptable tradeoff for most park users. The "Friends" photos also demonstrate one other thing: how beautiful and valuable this green park is today, with its large trees that both shape and frame this urban oasis.