Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, how many years will it take for the fees to go away?

My bet is they'll never be implemented in the first place.

Please give me some hope. Why do you think this?

The more details emerge about a possible Hearst pool, the more it seems that what might have seemed good conceptually just is not very feasible practically. And the costs/benefits trade-off is less and less compelling.

Fees mean gate keepers. Gate keepers means gate houses. Gate houses means destruction of a park

Anonymous wrote:PP, how many years will it take for the fees to go away?

My bet is they'll never be implemented in the first place.

PP, how many years will it take for the fees to go away?

I know they're going ahead with the fees for groups, but I wonder if they're really going to go ahead with individual fees for pools.

I followed the revision of the regulations pretty closely. The fees for fitness centers are not new, but last year they said they would eliminate them this year (although they're still in the new fee schedule). The fee is $125 per year, one of the things that came out was that the city was collecting less than $10,000 per year -- which means that fewer than 80 people were paying the fee.

Story here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-will-eliminate-fees-at-citys-fitness-centers-in-2016/2015/12/30/26eba262-af25-11e5-b820-eea4d64be2a1_story.html

I think pools are going to be the same way, they won't be able to charge a fee because no one will pay it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except you have to live in a certain area to belong to those other nearby pools, either in McLean Gardens or in certain special parts of Cleveland Park. No thanks.

Destroy portions of Hearst Park field, tennis courts, playground and mature tree canopy for another pool that charges membership fees?

No thanks!

I did not realize there would be a fee. How disenegenous. But after the homelessshelter fiasco, why am I surprised. Dito: no thanks. Now, how to fight it? And how to fight the awful rammed through shelter plan? Let's bundle them.

Anonymous wrote:Except you have to live in a certain area to belong to those other nearby pools, either in McLean Gardens or in certain special parts of Cleveland Park. No thanks.

Destroy portions of Hearst Park field, tennis courts, playground and mature tree canopy for another pool that charges membership fees?

No thanks!

Anonymous wrote:Except you have to live in a certain area to belong to those other nearby pools, either in McLean Gardens or in certain special parts of Cleveland Park. No thanks.

"Special" parts of Cleveland Park? All of Cleveland Park is within the CP Club boundaries, as are McLean Gardens and parts of Woodley and the area that realtors call "North Cleveland Park."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given the new fees for using the pools, is everyone still eager for this to be built now that you will have to pay for it, particularly given that DC doesn't have such a great track record of maintaining its facilities?

No. It's not worth losing some of the park's existing facilities for a pool that will cost several hundred dollars annually. There are already fee-based pools in the area which are well maintained.

But how much are those fees and how long are the waitlists?

Neither Beauvoir nor Cleveland Park had a wait list this year. Fees are 2 to 3 times the DC fee, but the facilities are well maintained. MCLean Gardens and Vaughan Place also have pools for resident families. There's a DC pool at Jeleff a mile or so south and another in Georgetown those who want the less expensive DC option. As PP pointed out, it hardly seems worth the price to destroy a perfectly good park to build another pool that charges membership fees, when various options at different price points exist.

Except you have to live in a certain area to belong to those other nearby pools, either in McLean Gardens or in certain special parts of Cleveland Park. No thanks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given the new fees for using the pools, is everyone still eager for this to be built now that you will have to pay for it, particularly given that DC doesn't have such a great track record of maintaining its facilities?

No. It's not worth losing some of the park's existing facilities for a pool that will cost several hundred dollars annually. There are already fee-based pools in the area which are well maintained.

But how much are those fees and how long are the waitlists?

Anonymous wrote:Given the new fees for using the pools, is everyone still eager for this to be built now that you will have to pay for it, particularly given that DC doesn't have such a great track record of maintaining its facilities?

No. It's not worth losing some of the park's existing facilities for a pool that will cost several hundred dollars annually. There are already fee-based pools in the area which are well maintained.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given the new fees for using the pools, is everyone still eager for this to be built now that you will have to pay for it, particularly given that DC doesn't have such a great track record of maintaining its facilities?

$600 for a family of four.

http://dpr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dpr/publication/attachments/June%202016%20-%20DPR%20Fee%20Schedule.pdf

Any way we can fight this??????

It's $300 for a family of four as Hearst would be an outdoor pool.

That's $300 more than I can afford.

If you pay for outdoor, can you use any outdoor pool? or, if you pay for indoor for $600, can you still use outdoor or is that an additional $300?

But at that price point, it hardly seems the best use of resources to rip out tennis courts, a field and/or a playground which are free of charge!

Anonymous wrote:The proposal was put in the Register and voted on and approved by the full Council.

About 10 years ago when pools were made free admissions it was thanks to a grant from Kaiser Permanente. I imagine that it was not renewed.

Apparently the free admission wasn't intended to be permanente.