Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your opinion, totally disagree.

But keep making your selfish proclamations.

How is it selfish to want to protect a playing field, tennis courts, a playground, mature trees and green space? It seems that the selfish ones are those who want to pave over it, even at the price of sacrificing these aspects of the park.

As a previous poster suggested, if a pool is desired find a brown (i.e., already paved or developed site) versus a green one. The western side of the UDC campus would be perfect, once the Murch trailer park is demolished.

Classic NIMBY tripe. It is selfish because you are suggesting an alternative that isn't feasible. And then you extol the virtues of a park where the field is unplayable much of the time and is riddled with dog shit, shit that you probably leave there yourself and, tennis courts that are hardly ever used except the 1 or 2 absolute nicest days of the year. So you want to maintain a status quo of sever underutilization of a recreational facility which should be serving hundreds of residents a day, which instead is your own personal oasis and dog liter.

Yes, you are selfish of the status quo is what you desire.

No one is suggesting paving green space or cutting the beautiful mature trees, except for you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your opinion, totally disagree.

But keep making your selfish proclamations.

How is it selfish to want to protect a playing field, tennis courts, a playground, mature trees and green space? It seems that the selfish ones are those who want to pave over it, even at the price of sacrificing these aspects of the park.

As a previous poster suggested, if a pool is desired find a brown (i.e., already paved or developed site) versus a green one. The western side of the UDC campus would be perfect, once the Murch trailer park is demolished.

+1. I love how it's the pro pool people who keep calling the rest of us "selfish" and keep telling us to just give up. Just because Mary Cheh is playing dictator and clearly ignoring the process, doesn't mean the rest of us need to just roll over and give in. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. If you recall, opinions are like assholes.

Anonymous wrote:Your opinion, totally disagree.

But keep making your selfish proclamations.

How is it selfish to want to protect a playing field, tennis courts, a playground, mature trees and green space? It seems that the selfish ones are those who want to pave over it, even at the price of sacrificing these aspects of the park.

As a previous poster suggested, if a pool is desired find a brown (i.e., already paved or developed site) versus a green one. The western side of the UDC campus would be perfect, once the Murch trailer park is demolished.

Your opinion, totally disagree.

But keep making your selfish proclamations.

Anonymous wrote:The pool can not be built at the Hearst location. It seriously the most idiotic thing to do in the 21st century. Find a brown space and build there, my an open space. Seriously question how anyone can claim they have green values would dig up a green urban field and cover it with concrete and Astro turf. It's insane

+1. It is very pre-Earth Day (1970) era to be taking park green space and covering it with concrete for a pool.

The pool can not be built at the Hearst location. It seriously the most idiotic thing to do in the 21st century. Find a brown space and build there, my an open space. Seriously question how anyone can claim they have green values would dig up a green urban field and cover it with concrete and Astro turf. It's insane

Anonymous wrote:I would rather see a separated dog facility from the soccer field. It is just gross that everyone lets their dogs shit on the filed, and often times don't clean it up.

+1. Should be criminally prosecuted for exposing kids to a biohazard.

Anonymous wrote:I would rather see a separated dog facility from the soccer field. It is just gross that everyone lets their dogs shit on the filed, and often times don't clean it up.

Agree totally that people shouldn't let their dogs run around in the park, especially when it is posted against it.

However, there are two dog parks several blocks away. There's a DC dog park in McLean Gardens and there's a more upscale park in Cleveland Park (which may be require a membership fee though);

Anonymous wrote:I would rather see a separated dog facility from the soccer field. It is just gross that everyone lets their dogs shit on the filed, and often times don't clean it up.

I support big fines for scofflaws who disobey the leash laws, especially in parks and playgrounds where kids play.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then we need a process - where is the ANC on this? Isn't that supposed to be where these things are evaluated with public hearings? How are things getting authorized directly by Mayor/council/councilmembers?

I'd like to know what the process was for each of the instances I elaborated above. Guessing some went through lengthier vetting (like the apartment building with no parking/such a mistake in my books) while some didn't-like the homeless shelter.

Public property and public usage do not garner the same neighborhood entitlement as private development and private space usage. The immediate neighbors do not get to mandate how public space is programed. The city has an obligation to provide services to residents throughout the city. They have identified a need for outdoor public pools west of Rock Creek Park and north of Georgetown. Hearst happens to have a location that meets that criteria.

Please explain how. DPR personnel have said that they did not select the location. There has been no feasibility study. There was no formal analysis of various possible sites. If there is a preliminary site plan, no one wants to release it, probably because it means the elimination of the soccer field, the tennis courts, the upper playground or the tree canopy -- and likely some combination of the them.

Someone posted a few pages back a strategic plan for DPR that indicated the need for at least two outdoor pools needed west of Rock Creek Park. I was responding as such. I have no idea what, if any, analysis went in to selecting Hearst as one of those sites. Even if there were zero analysis, DPR has previously indicated the need and Hearst fits the bill.

Exactly how? The park size is constrained and siting a pool will involve the removal of existing park facilities and features.

Who cares? The place is a dump. Let's fix it up and put the pool in.

Pave it to save it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then we need a process - where is the ANC on this? Isn't that supposed to be where these things are evaluated with public hearings? How are things getting authorized directly by Mayor/council/councilmembers?

I'd like to know what the process was for each of the instances I elaborated above. Guessing some went through lengthier vetting (like the apartment building with no parking/such a mistake in my books) while some didn't-like the homeless shelter.

Public property and public usage do not garner the same neighborhood entitlement as private development and private space usage. The immediate neighbors do not get to mandate how public space is programed. The city has an obligation to provide services to residents throughout the city. They have identified a need for outdoor public pools west of Rock Creek Park and north of Georgetown. Hearst happens to have a location that meets that criteria.

Please explain how. DPR personnel have said that they did not select the location. There has been no feasibility study. There was no formal analysis of various possible sites. If there is a preliminary site plan, no one wants to release it, probably because it means the elimination of the soccer field, the tennis courts, the upper playground or the tree canopy -- and likely some combination of the them.

Someone posted a few pages back a strategic plan for DPR that indicated the need for at least two outdoor pools needed west of Rock Creek Park. I was responding as such. I have no idea what, if any, analysis went in to selecting Hearst as one of those sites. Even if there were zero analysis, DPR has previously indicated the need and Hearst fits the bill.

Exactly how? The park size is constrained and siting a pool will involve the removal of existing park facilities and features.

Who cares? The place is a dump. Let's fix it up and put the pool in.

I would rather see a separated dog facility from the soccer field. It is just gross that everyone lets their dogs shit on the filed, and often times don't clean it up.

Anonymous wrote:Awesome news! We participated in some of the community surveys, and would LOVE an outdoor park in that space. And I think the "community" in this case is the community of residents of Washington DC, all of whom are entitled to use the city's pools. Easy bus access via H buses and the 96/X3/30 buses on Wisconsin.

I'd also like to see a dog park -- there are a ton of people who run their dogs off-leash in the park, and it's a nuisance, especially when they do it just at the same time kids are on their way to school. So it would be great to see a fenced-in safe area for dog-owners.

There's a nearby dog park in McLean Gardens, affectionately known as Dog Piss Hill, because the dog area sits higher than the adjacent playground. Because you know what flows down hill.

Anonymous wrote:Compare it to the other DPR owned property in the Ward. It is west of the park and north of Georgetown. It has space (despite your claims that it is constrained)

If it has space, as you say, where exactly would the pool go? It seems that DPR is afraid to say. So please enlighten us.

Compare it to the other DPR owned property in the Ward. It is west of the park and north of Georgetown. It has space (despite your claims that it is constrained)