Newton’s Parks and Recreation Commission will decide Monday whether to hold a public hearing on the swim-at-your-own-risk proposal brought forward by Open Crystal Lake. The Globe has a story here.
[polldaddy poll=”6131947″]
Newton’s Parks & Rec to discuss Crystal Lake swimming on Monday
by Greg Reibman | Apr 21, 2012 | Crystal Lake | 31 comments
It looks like the City of Newton attracts attention of Boston Globe and Boston Herald (Greater Boston media) as a local stronghold of totalitarianism, in where the public voice means little.
That is why the Herald asked: “We were beginning to wonder how much Setti Warren cared about his job as mayor of Newton…” and the Globe quoted: “If the commission decides against a public hearing Monday, it will essentially be squashing the swim-at-your-own-risk proposal, Magni said.”
While the people in support of freelance swimming in the lake seem to be very organized, I’m surprised that we’re seeing little in the way of organization from those opposed to the idea. I wonder if that’s something they’ll regret later.
It would be a challenge to create a protest against freedom… “this like is MY lake”, “this lake is not YOUR lake”?
@Hoss:
There’s a significant environmental argument to be made here, that’s an issue that’s been known to inspire people to organize.
Meanwhile our unscientific poll is running 2 to 1 in favor of anarchy.
There was a public meeting maybe six months ago. At that time it seemed like the anti-swim-at-your-own-risk folks were pretty well organized – letters to the editor, speakers at the meeting, etc. But yes, they’ve seemed pretty quiet lately.
I wonder if that’s because they assumed that the recent Parks & Rec announcement that they’re looking into new civil penalties was a sign that things had already turned their way.
Having seen the ebb and flow of this issue over the past eight years, I am confident that the response (pro and con) to swim-at-your-own-risk will be organized and enthusiastic on all sides of the issue.
If a Newton Thor Hyerdahl saw beer cans and pepsi bottles floating ten years post at-risk swimming, I’d be a protestor. Pee pee and child-poop is not the same where the food chain is involved (unless it’s sewerage where the food chain can’t keep up).
Many of those arguing against the proposal predict all sorts of dire consequences if enacted. It’s possible they’re right … or their fears are overblown.
I think a reasonable compromise might be to enact the swim-at-your-own risk on a trail basis for a limited period, say Aug 1 – Labor Day. See what happens. If the worse fears are true or false, you’ll know pretty quick.
In September take a look at what happened, and then make a longer term decision based on some experience rather than on either the pro or con side’s imagination.
…but I’m not holding my breath for that outcome.
Full Disclosure – I am an abutters nightmare. As a teenager in Jamaica Plain, I did in fact take the Green Line to Newton Center and swim illegally in the cove 35-40 years ago – though I believe the statute of limitation has since expired.
@Jerry. You were causing trouble even then.
We had a Columbus Day holiday swim for three or four years in the early 50’s. The lake was always closed on and off during the summer months because of the polio scare. We figured it would be safe that far into Autumn.
I bumped into Bob DeRubeis, Commissioner of Parks & Recreation today. He told me he had offered a compromise of having a guard there so people could swim pff season but was turned down. The problem for P&R is their concern about youngsters who are not accompanied by an adult having a mishap. It isn’t about liability, it is about public safety. Too bad.
@Ted: “pff?”
Ha! Damn smartphone.
off?
Hoss nailed it… This argument is about MY lake, not YOUR lake. I think Crystal Lake belongs to all Newtonites.
Greg says there’s a “significant environmental argument to be made” on the anti swimming side. Frankly, that argument is so weak it can barely tread water…
Storm water runoff contributes to polluting the lake far more than swimmers. And I would lay odds that sewer line fractures are currently an issue as well. The sewer lines from many Newton homes are over 100 years old. Even bird feces is a contributing factor.
The thing that scares me the most is the fact that we have a fueling station less than 200 feet upgrade from the lake. I like the folks who run that station, and buy my gas there. But I often wonder how such a use was ever approved at that location. I guess they didn’t pay much attention to stuff like that back in the day.
I would think that a reasonable compromise would be a trial swim-at-your-own-risk after the official season ends in mid-August. In the meantime, maybe we can all keep 2 year old Caleigh Harrison and her family in our thoughts as the search for this toddler resumes. She went missing from a beach in Rockport on Thursday.
@Lisap, Caleigh Harrison’s story is a terrible tragedy that underscores how dangerous the ocean can be. I learned to swim in the ocean (swimming lessons at Third Beach in Middletown, RI) and the first thing we were taught was to stay out of the water if there is a rip current (aka rip tide). A rip current can haul even the strongest swimmer out far from shore very quickly, which is why we were taught not to fight it and to swim parallel to the beach until you get out of the rip current and can swim into shore. I have been caught in a rip current and can attest to the feeling of helplessness at being literally swept out to sea.
Crystal Lake is very different. I think the good folks at Parks & Rec are concerned about unsupervised kids swimming in the lake and getting into trouble and drowning. While it is possible for swimmers of any age to drown, many kids lack the judgment to know when they need to come into shore that comes with age and experience. Sadly, most kids who drown have never learned to swim or cannot swim well and often get into difficulty mere yards from the shore where they water is over their head. It could just as easily happen in a public pool as in Crystal Lake.
Evoking emotions around a missing toddler is a wild swing gone into the brush. This recent apparent tragedy, while near swim-able water, has nothing to do with recreational swimming. Sad as it is, toddlers go missing anywhere. If a lifeguard is watching kids playing on the beach, they are not doing their job correctly.
@Ted, I think the story underscores how dangerous water can be – whether lake, pool or ocean. Fatal drowning is the second leading cause of unintentional injury related death in children ages 1-14. 50-75 percent of all drownings occur in open water such as oceans, lakes, ponds and rivers (CDC). For every child who dies another 4 require emergency care. Furthermore, a stunning statistic which I’ve seen widely reported is that 70 percent of all preschoolers who drown were in the care of one or both parents at the time of the accident. You’re right about the dangers of rip tides (survived one too in southern Fla.) and growing up around boats I learned at that water is terribly unforgiving of carelessness and neglect. I too believe that the folks at Parks & Rec are doing their level best to ensure that everyone has a good safe experience at the lake. I also know that they do take into consideration not just the patrons but also their employees, and the trauma they go through if they aren’t able to save someone from drowning. As one highly respected and long serving P&R supervisor said to me, that’s not an experience these kids ever get over.
@Hoss, Sorry but I very strongly disagree. This tragedy underscores how very quickly a child can disappear into water and drown, and that all it takes is a bare few seconds of inattention for tragedy to happen – whether at a pool, a lake or the ocean.
I strongly recommend this CDC prepared report on the effectiveness of lifeguards which also includes a section on recommendations by the Army Corps of Engineers on how to make unguarded lakes safer. http://www.ripcurrents.noaa.gov/resources/LifeguardReport.pdf
Lisap, respectfully, if we assume there was a drowning and not abduction or parental abuse type thing, the child was not swimming. There is no ordinance about kids playing ball near water in Newton. If Walmart wanted to build here — it would seem quite off-base to bring to mind instances of kids gone missing (abducted, etc) in Walmart stores for the purpose of attaining opposition to the store.
Substantiating the ban on free swimming with the public safety concern does not look convincing, giving that now it is legal in Massachusetts the Gambling, which is much more destructive to human lives than the swimming-at-your-own-risk.
Hoss, The child was unattended on a beach next to water. The overwhelming presumption is that there was a drowning. A sad but all too frequent scenario with very small children is that while the parent is briefly distracted the child gets into water and drowns. Another sad but sobering statistic is that everyone’s risk of drowning is 5 times greater at an unguarded beach. At this point, there’s no credible evidence to suggest that this is anything other than exactly what it appears to be – a solemn reminder that water is often very quickly lethal. This is precisely the risk of an unguarded “swim at your own risk” beach.
As for kids playing next to the water, though there isn’t any ordinance preventing that, if the kids go into the water then the police do have the authority to order them out. If at-risk swimming is permitted at the coves there’s no way to enforce the ban on unattended children swimming there.
As I posted earlier, I do think a reasonable compromise would be to permit at-risk swimming after the bathhouse has closed for the season. While the bathhouse is open, I believe that the practical effect of this proposal will be to force parks and rec to monitor the entire lake and not simply the area at the bathhouse, an unreasonable and untenable expectation.
LisaP suggests a very reasonable compromise: Permit at-risk swimming after the bathhouse has closed for the season.
Lisap, The dangerousness is not a factor for me. Police aren’t assigned to protect me from my own actions unless those actions might hurt you. I think you’ve said in the past you enjoy horse riding. I do too. Riding a very dangerous. But we and our kids are free to take the very enjoyable risk. (Ok, it’s not a gov’t horse but neither is this lake)
Your best argument for me was the loss of revenue!!!
Peace.
Lisap is always a voice of reason on this blog. She stays away from anything resembling personal attacks, and uses facts and logic to support her positions on issues. I think she’s proposed a reasonable compromise. Personally, I’d like to see the idea extended to both pre and post bathhouse season. As I’ve previously stated, I think Mayor Warren needs to broker a compromise solution to this issue.
Then it is agreed. So what else is going on in Newton?
@Mike – thank you very, very much.
@Hoss – Wish we had stables in Newton. 😉
Ted has already told us that the Open Crystal Lake folks aren’t satisfied with Lisap’s compromise.
Mike Striar’s call for a strong mayor could fix the commission’s leanings. The thing that concerns me is what happens in the ten weeks or so of summer — do police continue to sit waiting for crime to happen? Aside from traffic crime that would have obvious impact on others, I don’t see this kind of crime monitoring elsewhere in Newton If it were not for police supervising fairly innocent actions of citizens, I don’t think I’d care too strongly on the issue.
Now I’m concerned that I misrepresented Mr Striar’s comments — fudge it, I’m for a vocal administration that doesn’t let commissions do what we think a mayor does!
No misrepresentation involved, Hoss. You just picked up on my terminology [Strong Mayor] from a different thread on school building maintenance, and applied it [perfectly reasonably] to this thread, where I urged Mayor Warren to broker a compromise solution at Crystal Lake.
Same basic theme… I like an active and engaged mayor. To his credit, I think Mayor Warren is that type of mayor. I understand his reluctance to get involved in the Crystal Lake dispute. I just think he’s the right person to end this debate amicably and quickly.