Recently on this blog and elsewhere, I’ve seen comments and reporting, complaining that the deployment of police patrols to curtail swimming in Crystal Lake outside of the designated areas was “a waste” of police resources that, among other hysterial claims, might deprive junior from having enough time to learn the recorder.
So I called Aaron Goldman, Citizen Assistance Officer, in Mayor Setti Warren’s office who helped debunk the myth that the city is spending thousands of dollars placing a patrol car at the lake on a daily basis to chase away violators of the no swimming rules.
According to Goldman, the Newton Police Department did not deploy added resources to patrol Crystal Lake last year. Instead existing on-duty patrols parked along Lake Ave, rather than say a different city street. And if or when there was a call, they would leave the lake to respond. There may have been some particularly hot days last year when an additional officer has been called to supervise, but this has not resulted in adding shifts or overtime, he said.
I also asked Goldman if he could estimate the cost to taxpayers when first responders are called to the Crystal Lake in the event of a drowning or, as was the case last August, a suspected drowning that proved to be a false alarm. I’ll let you know what he says.
Might want to fix that typo near the word overtime towards the end.
um, yep, thanks.
Gee whiz, stop the presses. I don’t think anybody thought the PD actually added additional officers for this task. The point is that the officer parked next to the lake is NOT out patrolling. So things like drivers failing to stop for pedestrians in crosswalks are taking a back seat to swim patrol.
Hey Greg, here’s an idea… When you talk to Aaron Goldman again, how about asking him where the Mayor stands on banning swimming in Crystal Lake?
As Mike Striar suggests, there’s an opportunity cost. Every such task done on a regular basis has an elimination benefit. Take away 10 or so similar tasks and you could save $100,000 by reducing the force by one; or gaining force by one by using the same position in a more strategic crime position.
Think of this one: I noticed this week that the section of Chestnut Street between Comm Ave and Beacon has a posted 20 mph limit. It’s a very high traffic area and there are many, many more individuals breaking that rule than at Crystal Lake. A biker or someone crossing the road could be killed today. Which rule does one enforce? One where I ignore (ie, take a risk) and get hurt, or one that I ignore and you get hurt?
Of course police enforcing Chestnut St 20 mph rule will get Waban residents upset, whereas police controlling Crystal lake enjoyment makes lake abbutters very happy. So there’s a win-win by sitting at the lake versus other types of enforcement
This strategy is particularly maddening http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0ItPoaY1E0
Maybe some of the supporters of this initiative didn’t live in Newton when the drownings in Crystal Lake occurred. I remember 3 in the last 20 years. The victims’ families will never be the same and those in charge of supervising the lake were devastated.
We do a lot of things at our own risk every day. However, it’s the responsibility of the city to evaluate the level of risk of an activity as well as its potential tragic consequences. Allowing unsupervised swimming in a murky lake is simply not worth it.
jane has a moving point. But if all of the three deaths were non abbuters and they each were swimming (as opposed to walking on unsafe ice or flipped in a canoe, etc) would not having other (risk-accepting) swimmers at the same place help?
I don’t know the history of drownings at Crystal Lake, but it was posted on another thread that two had taken place in the supervised area. I’m curious if anyone knows more details???
In any event, I could not disagree more with the statement made above by Jane. It’s not the government’s responsibility to manage risk for free thinking adult citizens, Jane And I certainly wouldn’t depend on the government to manage risk for my kids. It’s not a function local government is particularly good at. One needs look no further than the thread on this blog commemorating the tragic Oak Hill bus crash, for a reminder about who should determine risk. Adults should determine risk for themselves, and parents for their children. Have we really gotten to the point where “Land of the Free” means nothing?
Hi Mike S — I found the three death reference is in the committee report below where it says: “Ald. Brandel asked about drowning incidents at Crystal Lake. According to an email from Lt. Downing of the Newton Police Dept., there have been 5 drownings in the last 20 years – three were accidental and two were suicide”
http://www.newtonma.gov/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=41207
So if three deaths have occurred in a no swim-zone (it’s unknown how many in the swim area) and we don’t want to accept that more risk takers would reduce risk, then is the logical conclusion to back-fill and build condos?
Mike writes..
Sorry, no presses here at Village 14, just electrons!
and Mike adds…
Both Aaron and the mayor read this blog and are invited to use a few of those electrons and join the conversation at any time,
What? “Stop the presses” is an outdated saying?
Man, I’m still using “hold your horses.”
Ha, stop the electrons, Greg. You say the mayor is reading every word here on Village 14?
@Mayor Warren– Let the people swim!
I remember one of the drownings — it was probably about 13-14 years ago. A teen, from Boston I think, who didn’t know how to swim started out in the supervised area when the beach was crowded but he left the roped-off section. He was on his feet and there was a sudden drop-off in the ground level, and he went under. He was not far from the supervised area and he was not under for long — about a minute, but, obviously, it was long enough.
In July of 2010 a 3 year old was a near drowning. The child got in over her head and had no pulse when she was pulled from the water. She was resuscitated by the guards with some help from a physician who was at the beach, and she fully recovered. I too remember the teenage boy who drowned at Crystal Lake. He was recovered by the guards very, very quickly but they were not able to revive him. In both cases the kids’ parents were right there on the beach with them when this happened.
I think that the biggest issue that I personally have with this policy is that I do not believe that anyone who swims at their own risk truly and genuinely believes that if something awful should happen then they will be completely on their own, nor do I believe that the Parks & Rec staff would stand by and fail to go to their rescue. Given the small size of the lake, authorizing swimming in the whole lake is tantamount to requiring the City to monitor the safety of all swimmers wherever they may be and the City clearly does not have the employees or resources to do that. It doesn’t require much imagination to consider the public uproar that would have been heard last summer if no one responded to the report of a missing swimmer.
If we permit swim at your own risk does this mean that the only responsibility we owe to people who swim at the coves is a search and recovery of a body, and not a search and rescue? Are we willing to have Parks and Rec instruct the guards that under no circumstances are they to respond to a report of a missing swimmer outside of the designated swimming area? Or, are the individuals who wish to swim from the coves willing to reimburse the city for the cost of any rescue necessitated by their risky choice should they require an emergency response?
@Mike-
“It’s not the government’s responsibility to manage risk for free thinking adult citizens”
And yet, the government does manage those risks for us in innumerable ways – when we get in our cars that are designed with safety features, purchase food that is regulated so it does not contain contaminants, get on a commercial airplane, take a hike in a public park on designated trails, purchase medication over the counter and by prescription after those drugs have been tested and shown to be safe for human consumption. We live in a very risk controlled culture, and I think that as a general proposition we are very risk averse and expect our government to protect us from harms. We become angered when we believe that the government is ineffective or ineffectual in protecting us (e.g. the present case of the risk presented by the coyote population has many angered and upset that there is little that the City can do to eliminate the risk they pose).
As a general proposition I agree with you; I’m a competent, capable adult and I am fully capable of relying upon my own judgment to make risk assessments for myself and my family. My freedom to take risks, however, has to be measured against not simply the likelihood of harm should I take that risk, but the potential degree of harm and the societal cost. If there is a high risk of little harm and no societal cost then my actions generally should not be constrained. However, where there is genuine risk of significant harm and significant cost to the community, my freedom to take that risk is rightly subject to limitation.
Lisap — Most of the regulations you site are protecting consumers from greedy corporations that might offer the cheapest, most unsafe alternative if allowed. Can you pls stick to nature and our enjoyment of it? There are plenty of places in nature to walk in unmarked areas, climb a stone cliff, hang-glide, etc. We’re not talking bungee jumping here — it’s allowing someone that gets up at 5:30am in July, takes a 5 mile bike ride and wants to end the trip with a short dip. Moreover, if that someone is an abbutter — they are currently free to do it and take all the risks including possible city rescue costs that we are talking about. Is it ok if I pretend to be an rich for 20 minutes?
On your lifeguard example, is sounding a whistle, then leaving the post not allowed?
@Hoss – I can stick to nature, and I would in return then ask you to stick to water examples. Unlike the lake, which is specifically an environment which humans are not naturally equipped to survive, the examples you cite are all consistent with the environment which we are pretty well equipped to survive. To take it a step further, they aren’t environments that are generally recognized as requiring trained emergency responders (life guards) in order to ensure the safety of their users. People do indeed get into trouble in those situations as well, but it is most typically when they wander off the beaten path into areas where there are dangerous conditions. Interestingly, the State of New Hampshire often seeks reimbursement from those folks who do wander off and get into trouble.
Second, the early morning rider you mentioned represents only a tiny fraction of the people who are looking to use the coves for swimming. I had to drive past the coves twice a day last summer and I was always shocked by the number of children and very small children there on a typical afternoon.
As for abutters having greater rights than anyone else you won’t find me supporting that. The lake belongs to all of the citizens of Massachusetts, not just the citizens of Newton and I don’t think that their access to the lake should be superior to anyone else’s. (JMHO)
I’m not clear as to what you’re asking re: lifeguards blowing their whistles. Sorry-
Lisap, If those parents are making an economic decision, instead of our neighbors calling them noisy, lewd, polluters; I wish we could help them enjoy our treasure safely.
@Hoss – I so agree! 🙂
Lisap– You make some excellent points. I can’t possibly disagree with everything you wrote. I don’t even disagree with most of what you wrote. But I do disagree with two important points…
One is your use of the term “societal cost.” I’m not sure what that term is referencing. Is it the cost of rescue or search and recovery should an accident take place? If so, there are numerous circumstances in everyday life, some anticipated [car accidents], other’s unanticipated [home fires] where emergency responders are called upon to do their job. That aspect of public safety [emergency response] IS the responsibility of the government. Yet, we all drive and live wherever we want, without significant government restrictions. If you’re in a car accident or your house catches fire, the government is supposed to come to the rescue, and I think that’s a fair expectation for the public to have. Even in unanticipated situations, [like a missing child for example], we rightfully expect emergency responders to show up. Taking it a step further, if someone is injured in a Newton park, emergency responders are called. That’s their job. What makes swimming in Crystal Lake any different than those other examples in terms of “societal cost”?
The other point I disagree with is the apparent assumption you’re making that adults are actually safer in the designated swim area. I’ve yet to read a single piece of information on any of these related threads or articles, which supports that conclusion. Where is the track record of adult swimmers drowning in Crystal Lake? The lake was open to swimming for literally hundreds of years, and I’ve yet to see a specific incident cited of an adult, swimming by themselves who drowned. Not to say it couldn’t happen. I recognize the possibility that it could. But I’m very uncomfortable basing an entire public policy on things that MIGHT happen.
Just as my own frame of reference, I have a summer house in Manomet, where there is a mile and a half stretch of unguarded beach. My family has been going there since I was a young boy. Even with waves, storms, tides, and undertows, I can’t recall a single drowning having taken place in the 50 or so years I’ve been going there.
@Mike, by societal cost yes – I am referring to the cost of search and rescue which is incurred when someone gets into trouble. What makes swimming in an unprotected area different from the examples you present is that this is an activity which carries a significant known risk of great harm. Accidents by their nature, are unforeseen, unexpected events – unfortunate happenstances, and yes – we certainly do want to render aide and assistance when they happen. We also render aide when bad yet foreseeable events happen, such as car accidents, but we also try to curtail the riskier aspects of that activity to minimize those incidents e.g. speed limits. One of the golden rules of swimming is to never, ever swim alone because water is a very harsh, quickly deadly environment for non-aquatic creatures.
I previously posted that I think it would be extremely insightful if Parks & Rec provided information on the number of rescues/assists they perform each summer as I think that information would be more informative than the actual number of drownings in the lake. I have knowledge of two serious rescues (significant responses) last summer quite early in the season. Both cases involved older adults who quickly went into distress in the guarded area. In one instance, witnessed by my husband, the guard essentially went off her chair on the end of the float into the water and reached the swimmer within seconds. The second event required multiple guards to rescue the swimmer. I also know that life guards have been protecting the lake for many years (my own great uncle was one according to family lore). I suppose there are two ways to view the limited number of drownings: one is to take the view there aren’t a significant number of drowning events and the other is to take the view that prevention has been effective.
Lisap– I think that if we applied your standard of “societal cost” beyond Crystal Lake, we’d have to ban things like swimming at unguarded ocean beaches and mountain climbing. I could easily argue that either of those things are more dangerous than swimming in Crystal Lake.
That’s what bothers me. Where do we draw the line? I’m just a freedom loving American, who believes in allowing adults to make their own decisions, unless they are directly harming someone else. And I see a very real problem when any level of government starts infringing on those freedoms. I truly believe in the motto Live Free or Die. Those words have real meaning to me. I get very uncomfortable when I see any level of government curtailing freedom without clear cause.
That’s exactly what’s going on at Crystal Lake. An unelected government Commission is making a decision that they are unwilling to support in a Public Hearing.
@Mike – I strongly lean toward your viewpoint – I too lean toward permitting people to do what they wish so long as they aren’t harming anyone else. As I said before though, my beef is mostly with the fact that when the bathhouse is open, there’s no such thing as “swim at your own risk”. Rather, it’s swim at a slightly greater risk – to the person who wants to take their chances and to the parks and rec staff who are going to be going out to save that person. And let there be no doubt about this: those kids have been told that they may not have a legal obligation to rescue someone outside of the ropes, but they certainly have a moral obligation to do so.
As far as Parks & Rec goes, it would have been more politically prudent to accept public comments but at the end of the day this is the governmental body which is authorized to make policy. They have received and reviewed a petition and this is an issue which has been floating around since 2009 at least. I’m not sure that there are any arguments which have yet to be made to them or information that could be provided at a public hearing, and they have made it clear that they are not going to bow to pressure from a small group of people.
The true cost of policing this issue is probably equal to or greater than the bathhouse area revenue. Eliminate the fee AND policing and I’m good. (Either keep the no-swim sign, or replace it with an at-risk, NO CHILDREN sign, makes no difference to my senses if police aren’t stationed there)
Hoss – And you think that people are going to respond to signage?
Crystal Lake may be considered a “treasure” to those who don’t regularly experience a clear lake. but in truth it’s murky and difficult to supervise. When my children were young, I took them to the supervised section of the lake on several occasions. Then one day the staff sounded an alert to clear the water – we were told a child was missing. The life guards dove in and around the roped area looking for a possible victim because there was absolutely no way that a body could be seen from the surface. The search went on for what seemed like an eternity until the child was located somewhere on the grounds. I never took my children to swim in the lake again – it was the Gath Pool for us when we swam in Newton. They did spend their childhood years swimming in a clean, clear lake where an adult could supervise them when they went under water, but they were also taught the basics of water safety – you don’t swim alone, after drinking, in murky water, etc. The lake is a lovely place to walk, but even under the best of circumstances it isn’t the safest place to swim.
It’s easy to think that these tragedies happen to other people, but I urge you to put yourself in the place of the families and friends of the three drowning victims and ask yourself if it’s worth accommodating a tired jogger/bike rider.
jane — I’m not sure how we disagree if you’re talking about the supervised swim area. I made no opinion about that area.
Jane– So, you’re referencing an incident that took place years ago involving a child who was supposed to be in the supervised swim section of the lake, [but it turns out wasn’t even in the water], to justify a ban on adult swimmers who want to swim at their own risk?
I’d also prefer a much less threatening “Live Free or Die” moto. I’d go for a Newton sentiment of: Live Free, and Die Free.
@Mike – if Parks & Rec keeps records of incidents I’m sure we’d all see that what Jane described was not an isolated incident. Part of the difficulty we have in assessing the risk is that we aren’t privy to the details of just how many searches take place each summer.
Actually, that’s exactly my point, Mike (and Hoss). If you read my post closely, you’ll note that my focus was on how difficult it was for trained life guards to search a small, shallow, supervised section of a murky lake. When or where this incident occurred or that the child was safe were incidental to the story. The same incident could happen at any time in any part of the lake, given the condition of the water.
Supervised, unsupervised, adult, child – it doesn’t matter – under the best of circumstances, this isn’t the safest place to swim. Why make it even less safe? I just don’t get it.
@Jane– Your story starts in the supervised section of the lake, but ends when the youth turns out to have been safely on shore. Based on that experience you’ve determined it’s unsafe for adults to swim in other parts of the lake. We’ve had three or four threads dealing with this topic now. No one has referenced a single specific case where an adult recreational swimmer drowned. While I recognize that swimming has it’s dangers [just like so many other things in life], I think there is a larger danger in basing public policy on perception rather than facts. One might look at a child riding a bicycle on a public street, and see that activity as being fraught with danger. Personally, that is exactly how I view children on bikes, especially on major streets like Beacon or Comm. Should we ban ALL bike riding, because of my perception of the danger?
But, Mike, you keep skipping the middle of the story which is my point. The ENTIRE lake is murky and if a swimmer runs into trouble under water in ANY part of it, then it is extremely difficult for anyone to know that.
No one has ever mentioned banning swimming in Crystal Lake. The city is saying that residents need to swim in a safe manner and that requires supervision. It is in fact no different from the regulations we have regarding biking on major streets – you have to be in the bike lane, you can’t ride on sidewalks, you have to obey the rules of the road, etc.
How did bikes get drawn into this, Jane?
If you’re going to draw analogy to biking, please do get the law right. Cyclists are not obligated to ride in bike lanes, even on the <1% of the city where there are bike lanes. While in most cases riding in bike lanes is better for cyclists and motorists, cyclists are free to use the full right-of-way and will do so when safety dictates (cars parked in bike lanes, turning traffic, poor pavement, &c.).
Sean-Read Mike’s comment in which he compares swimming and biking. I was merely clarifying my perception of his comparison and not commenting on biking per se.