Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:C'mon folks. We can get to 1000 replies on this thread. Three to go!

Okay, but honestly maybe the same 3 people care. This is really an issue for your ANC meeting.

It's very possible to see one ANC supporting it (the one to the north) and the other ANC having major concerns (the one to the west and south).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The upper DPR playground near the school is probably the best pool site. The playground equipment could be relocated to the site of the former portable classrooms.

So you see no inherent problem of locating a pool 50 feet from a school housing 300 kids, most of who cannot swim?

Fences seem to work, and why do you assume that most of the students don't know how to swim? Racist much????

Anonymous wrote:The upper DPR playground near the school is probably the best pool site. The playground equipment could be relocated to the site of the former portable classrooms.

So you see no inherent problem of locating a pool 50 feet from a school housing 300 kids, most of who cannot swim?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:C'mon folks. We can get to 1000 replies on this thread. Three to go!

Okay, but honestly maybe the same 3 people care. This is really an issue for your ANC meeting.

Ironic that this was the 1000th post!

Anonymous wrote:C'mon folks. We can get to 1000 replies on this thread. Three to go!

Okay, but honestly maybe the same 3 people care. This is really an issue for your ANC meeting.

The upper DPR playground near the school is probably the best pool site. The playground equipment could be relocated to the site of the former portable classrooms.

There is never more than one tennis court being used at any given time, and most times, they re completely empty.

C'mon folks. We can get to 1000 replies on this thread. Three to go!

If there's a pool site at Hearst, Cheh & Co are keeping it confidential. They don't want to foment opposition from users who don't want to lose the field, the tennis courts and/or trees and green space. They will keep siting decisions off the table until it's too late for a public process to have any impact.

If there's a pool site at Hearst, Cheh & Co are keeping it confidential. They don't want to foment opposition from users who don't want to lose the field, the tennis courts and/or trees and green space. They will keep siting decisions off the table until it's too late for a public process to have any impact.

Anonymous wrote:Klingle Valley was not a park, it was a road and would be a good place for a pool

Maybe a long water slide. The park is not much wider than the walking/biking trail and nearby stream bed. But because of the costs to rebuild the road from stream erosion, it was smart to close the road. Enjoy this green urban oasis and great trail link between Rock Creek and the Cathedral.

Klingle Valley was not a park, it was a road and would be a good place for a pool

Exactly. All the effort to "Save Klingle Valleee!" was really about preserving the environment. We all know how well enjoyed that particular "urban oasis" is.

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.

I live very close to Hearst and have no issue with the park being more heavily used. I welcome what is happening at the school itself. Concerns about people from other areas coming into the neighborhood is SO not the issue. The issue is about spending tens of millions of tax payer dollars on facility that is not needed. The issue is historic and environmental preservation. I love Hearst Park. I really do. I think its a beautiful urban oasis and don't want to see it dug up and paved over.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1. And Hearst is very heavily used, particularly by rec teams, in the warmer months.
+1.