Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:None of those is walkable to where I live and I don't have a car, but thanks for playing.

Bikes are cool. So is a bus.

I think what you're looking for is a private community pool, which you'll have to pay for.

Taxpayers in other neighborhoods have amenities that are nearby. This taxpayer would like a similar amenity nearby. One shouldn't have to travel across town for amenities that others have.

Selfish is posting that you don't want people to come to "your" neighborhood to use "your" park for a use other than what "you" want.

Traveling a mile to the north for a large, all-weather, all year-round pool and traveling less than two miles to the south for two outdoor pools is hardly "traveling across town."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:None of those is walkable to where I live and I don't have a car, but thanks for playing.

Bikes are cool. So is a bus.

I think what you're looking for is a private community pool, which you'll have to pay for.

Taxpayers in other neighborhoods have amenities that are nearby. This taxpayer would like a similar amenity nearby. One shouldn't have to travel across town for amenities that others have.

Selfish is posting that you don't want people to come to "your" neighborhood to use "your" park for a use other than what "you" want.

oh no, we are very happy to have people come to the neighborhood to use the beautiful, tree-lined park and fields and tennis courts that already exist. The more the merrier. We just don't want a pool and a pool house and equipment and a high fence. Don't create an issue where there isn't an issue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:None of those is walkable to where I live and I don't have a car, but thanks for playing.

Bikes are cool. So is a bus.

I think what you're looking for is a private community pool, which you'll have to pay for.

Taxpayers in other neighborhoods have amenities that are nearby. This taxpayer would like a similar amenity nearby. One shouldn't have to travel across town for amenities that others have.

Selfish is posting that you don't want people to come to "your" neighborhood to use "your" park for a use other than what "you" want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That directly contradicts the latest information I have, DPR, particularly on weekends like this, understand that residents need a place to cool off. Weather like this is only going to get worse because of climate change.

Exactly. Not a good reason to cut down large mature oaks and cement-over a swath of green space. This isn't the 1950s anymore.

And, once again, no one is suggesting cutting down mature oaks or paving over green space, but you can keep repeating it til you are blue in the face.

Where exactly are they suggesting the placement of the pool and pool house?

The silence is deafening.

But not to worry, no mature trees will be felled and no green space paved at the pool's "undisclosed location."

The Cheh pool at Hearst is more like a Trump pool: Don't worry, nothing to lose, everything's gonna' be great, the best ever, huge win.

But no details or even a basic plan.

The pool site is state secret. If you disclose secret, Commissar Che will liquidate you as NIMBY spy and enemy of the people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That directly contradicts the latest information I have, DPR, particularly on weekends like this, understand that residents need a place to cool off. Weather like this is only going to get worse because of climate change.

Exactly. Not a good reason to cut down large mature oaks and cement-over a swath of green space. This isn't the 1950s anymore.

And, once again, no one is suggesting cutting down mature oaks or paving over green space, but you can keep repeating it til you are blue in the face.

Where exactly are they suggesting the placement of the pool and pool house?

The silence is deafening.

But not to worry, no mature trees will be felled and no green space paved at the pool's "undisclosed location."

The Cheh pool at Hearst is more like a Trump pool: Don't worry, nothing to lose, everything's gonna' be great, the best ever, huge win.

But no details or even a basic plan.

Anonymous wrote:None of those is walkable to where I live and I don't have a car, but thanks for playing.

This is in the running for the most selfish, absurd posting in the 65 pages of stupid posts by pool advocates. No Ward 3 pool would be walkable for every single resident of Ward 3. It sounds like you should maybe build your own pool? Maybe you could give DPR your address so that DC tax dollars could build it for you? Would you like anything else while DC taxpayers are spending money for your very personal benefit? I'm sure DC would be glad to build you a homeless shelter to go with your personal pool.

Anonymous wrote:None of those is walkable to where I live and I don't have a car, but thanks for playing.

Bikes are cool. So is a bus.

I think what you're looking for is a private community pool, which you'll have to pay for.

None of those is walkable to where I live and I don't have a car, but thanks for playing.

Anonymous wrote:101 and heading to the neighborhood pool!

Dammit, we don't have one.

You are not entitled to your own facts. In addition to the huge pool complex at Wilson, here are three pools in NW that you can visit.


- Francis Pool - 2435 N St., NW
- Jelleff Pool - 3265 S St., NW
- Volta Park Pool - 1555 34th Street, NW

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That directly contradicts the latest information I have, DPR, particularly on weekends like this, understand that residents need a place to cool off. Weather like this is only going to get worse because of climate change.

Exactly. Not a good reason to cut down large mature oaks and cement-over a swath of green space. This isn't the 1950s anymore.

And, once again, no one is suggesting cutting down mature oaks or paving over green space, but you can keep repeating it til you are blue in the face.

Where exactly are they suggesting the placement of the pool and pool house?

The silence is deafening.

But not to worry, no mature trees will be felled and no green space paved at the pool's "undisclosed location."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That directly contradicts the latest information I have, DPR, particularly on weekends like this, understand that residents need a place to cool off. Weather like this is only going to get worse because of climate change.

Exactly. Not a good reason to cut down large mature oaks and cement-over a swath of green space. This isn't the 1950s anymore.

And, once again, no one is suggesting cutting down mature oaks or paving over green space, but you can keep repeating it til you are blue in the face.

Where exactly are they suggesting the placement of the pool and pool house?

101 and heading to the neighborhood pool!

Dammit, we don't have one.

Actually yes they are. People are talking about replacing the current natural grass field with fake grass. That's effectively paving it. If you put a pool on the field, it is not effectively paving it, that is literally paving it. The pre-plan description of the pool's footprint is two acres which would cover half the field with concrete. In addition, there would be construction of buildings and fences on the current field. SO YES there are suggestions - proposals - planning for paving over the field. It's hard to imagine a public pool without the kind of access required for emergency vehicles that would require removal of at least several trees.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That directly contradicts the latest information I have, DPR, particularly on weekends like this, understand that residents need a place to cool off. Weather like this is only going to get worse because of climate change.

Exactly. Not a good reason to cut down large mature oaks and cement-over a swath of green space. This isn't the 1950s anymore.

And, once again, no one is suggesting cutting down mature oaks or paving over green space, but you can keep repeating it til you are blue in the face.

Anonymous wrote:Again, why it would be a far more pleasant for homeless families than the police station parking lot. Put the pool by the police station and the homeless shelter by Hearst.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That directly contradicts the latest information I have, DPR, particularly on weekends like this, understand that residents need a place to cool off. Weather like this is only going to get worse because of climate change.

Exactly. Not a good reason to cut down large mature oaks and cement-over a swath of green space. This isn't the 1950s anymore.

It's federal land. That the city can use for recreation purposes. Good luck getting Congress to say DC can build a homeless shelter on it.