By my best guess, about 200 men, woman, teens and children marched around Crystal Lake late Sunday afternoon, protesting city rules that prevent swimming in the great pond except in the designated area on designed days.
Debate over access to Crystal Lake has become an annual ritual in Newton. But this is the first time I’m aware of any organized protest aimed at mobilizing public support. (Open Crystal Lake also has a website)
The protesters included a few of the usual curmudgeons who’ve never met a city policy that they like. But mostly they seemed like nice, sincere folks, including parents with small children, who have not been persuaded by arguments that freelance swimming creates public safety, health and environmental risks. Either that, or they just want to swim and didn’t care what the consequences are. (I suspect the crowd included some of both.)
I saw no counter-protesters, elected officials or police.
Anyway, they held signs, walked at various speeds (some in different directions) and sang a revised version of “This Land is Your Land”
“This lake is your lake, this lake is my lake, from Newton Centre to Newton Highlands….”
It may be a sign of how far we’ve come in Newton and how few genuine problems we have these days, that this one seems so divisive. But with warm weather ahead — and really no compromise that could possibly make all sides happy — this isn’t an issue that’s likely to go away.
Or am I wrong? Can anyone think of any proposal that would allow more lake access while still addressing the public safety, health and environmental concerns?
In what seemed like a perfect metaphor for the challenges surrounding creating policy for the lake, several picketers got tangled in fishing line while marching past a few kids who were fishing on Sunday.
Essentially, we have a beautiful resource that appeals to lots of different interest groups. (For example, Open Crystal Lake’s proposal prohibits dogs from swimming, which pardon the pun, would certainly create howls of protests as well.) Untangling this stuff isn’t easy. I bet the only folks who are happy that they don’t have a say are our 24 aldermen.
I’m not sure why Greg’s forecast for a compromise is so gloomy. That’s exactly what seems to be in order here. I can understand why the aldermen would be reluctant to get involved, because no one is going to be completely happy with any result. Nevertheless, Mayor Warren should dive in and fashion a reasonable compromise. I’ll try floating this one…
SWIM AT YOUR OWN RISK:
NO dogs–NO unaccompanied children–NO swimming after dark.
[Next up, I’ll propose a compromise with North Korea. I assume that will be considerably easier].
That 200 protesters showed up for this “issue” is mind boggling to me.
I realize everyone got their issues — but isn’t there a war on? Geez.
Lisap made a good point in a previous thread that access might effectively diminish revenue at the beach — which might effect swim lessons and other funded aspects. Respecting that part — I’d prefer to leave the signs there but eliminate police monitoring (and the costs associated with police). The troubling part of this from my perspective was not attempts to regulate certain activity but that police took it a priority to take command at the lake basically (if not entirely) due to complaints from a few homeowners. We had ordinances about barking dogs too — but I don’t think I could get a police car to stay in my humble neighborhood and wait for a dog to bark.
>>> Protesters parade pond’s periphery
Crystal controversy continues, contentious comments clarify clash
I like Mike’s compromise position. Seems like a good fit. And yes, the fact that our police are being stationed outside the pond is really crazy.
Also, a question. Can you go boating anytime you want in the lake?
@Hoss: It’s not a war but as it stands we do have dozens or more people violating city regulations every day (and in the process sending a message to their children that it’s ok to ignore the law and the police).
@Mike and Fig: Not a compromise.
Any dog owners want to voice concern about a proposal that would keep pets from their god-given right to enjoy a dip in the lake?
@Greg– Let’s make a distinction between “law” and policy. No swimming is a policy, which is why a magistrate declined prosecution. I’m curious though, why do you feel my proposal does not constitute a viable compromise?
If I’m the parent of a small child and I’m saying “It’s OK son, pay no attention to that silly sign and no need to listen to that silly police man who just told us to get out of the water” it doesn’t matter if its a law or a policy, I’m setting a very bad example.
If swimming is not allowed anyplace except in the designated area during designated hours — and then that “policy” allows it, how is that a compromise?
Greg– Again, I have to draw another distinction. There’s a difference between disregarding a sign, which has already been determined by the available judicial process to have no real power under the law, versus disobeying a police officer. In this case-for this cause, I would never advise anyone to disobey a police officer, and agree that would be a horrible example for a youngster.
Taking a principled stand against an unjust policy however, is an entirely different story. And if handled correctly could provide a very positive lesson for children in bringing about social change. I believe there is a respectful way to challenge authority, and violating this policy is within those boundaries. It is also the most likely course of action [in this specific case] to result in the desired change.
Regarding my proposed compromise solution, you’ve set an impenetrable barrier. How is it possible to reach ANY compromise if you start with the premise that the existing policy stay in place? The compromise would be to keep the swim program in place, but modify the policy to reflect the compromise.
@Mike:
Precisely my original point.
@Mike
You might want to settle the North Korea situation first and then move on to the thornier Crystal Lake dispute.
Jerry– Haha, I’m already coming to that same conclusion.
Jerry wrote:”Crystal controversy continues, contentious comments clarify clash”
cool comment
Greg– Then I have to agree with you. Compromise is impossible if the existing policy stays in place. I think where we differ, is on whether it should or not. I believe the policy should be changed and a compromise solution found. I believe Mayor Warren should serve as intermediary.
If Tom Menino were in charge — he wouldn’t be an intermediary. Is this the type of gov’t we choose to have — one that let’s a few eggheads on committees to decide things mostly according to personal preference without regard to a bigger plan?
I agree Hoss. We should settle it right here on Village 14.
Greg, If you can hand out fudge, I’ll make my vote your way. (But I don’t think you have expressed an opinion on the continuous police presence.Not that it’s a big deal when fudge is involved…)
@Hoss: I think the cost of police patrols are minor compared to the costs/risks of not have police there. If you have rules, they should be enforced.
Tom Sheff — Get it — fudge? (Ward 5, Emerson)
Thanks to Hoss, I think we’ve inadvertently stumbled on a solution. Change the name to Fudge Lake, then no one will want to swim there. LOL
Crappy idea, Mike. Might work!
Greg, That’s fair, but my mind converts those words to “urbanization governance”or the micro-managing of nature where citizens come in contact with it. We may as well close the Appalachian trail, mountain climbing, fun in river rapids, etc, if citizen safety is a priority that we are comfortable. (I have mixed feelings about dad encouraging swimming around a No-Swimming and even deeper feelings if police have talked with dad, so I get your point there)
So be it — but if swimming is a Newton police priority I conclude either we have too many police or do not have a proper policing plan. Have we ever seen a policing plan? (Honest question, I have only lived here for 13 years. — and beyond that have not seen much written about our current chief other than what his communications officer says) I lived in a town that favored certain property above others. This policing seems to favor lake homeowners above other concerns
How about other ponds in Newton? Bullough’s Pond has no police in the Winter. Folks might ice skate on it. Shouldn’t there be a police car by the old skating ramp?
I grew up in a state with hundreds of large lakes near my home. The idea that each should be patrolled would be laughable. And those lakes had gators in them…
Greg, call it a compromise, call it a sensible solution. No children swimming without adults. No swimming after dark. Other than that, swim at your own risk.
Fig:
Precisely. If there were hundreds of large lakes in or near Newton, this would not be an issue. Crystal Lake is the only one easily accessible along the Green Line.
Not to say it can’t happen, because someone can drown in any body of water. We apparently just saw that very thing with the young BC student in the Chestnut Hill Reservoir. But I’d be willing to bet that the odds of someone dying from a heart attack on the shore, are greater than the odds of someone drowning in Crystal Lake. Again, not dismissing the risk. Just trying to keep things in perspective.
@Mike – I’m concerned that folks may underestimate the water risks because we don’t have access to information detailing how many swimmers needed help from the guards. The risk should not be measured by actual drownings, but rather by how many times the guards had to go to the aide or assistance of a swimmer OR a parent who reported not being able to find their child.
A more apt comparison would be Jamaica Pond, which is about 3X the size of our pond.
Just use the boathouse, folks.
@Lisap– I share your concern, but life is in fact a series of measured risks. The “swim at your own risk” proposal reflects that reality. I believe adults are capable of making their own decisions about things like this, and [in general] government should respect that.
@Bill– You can make any comparison you’d like, so I’ll make one of my own. Massachusetts has hundreds of miles of unguarded coastline and people swim in the Atlantic Ocean without incident nearly every day.
One thing that should be clear to everyone, is that there is more of a demand for recreational swimming in Newton than is currently available. I would like to see the city doing more to support this healthy activity.
I see this disagreement a little differently. In former Soviet Union, during the time of “Perestroyka” (rebuilding), there appeared the next anecdote.
One dog is barking to another dog, “How is it getting on?” The other is answering: “All right! My master has lengthened my chain by a yard… though moved away my feeding trough by yard and a half… but then again I am allowed to bark as much as I want.”
“Feeding trough” stood for Freedom, “Chain” – for Limitations. It seems to me that the disagreement about the swimming in Crystal Lake is a local attempt to find the right balance between Freedom and Limitations there.
I would propose the next slogan, “Swim free or drown.”
@Re – I’ll get the bumper stickers printed
@Mike – It’s true that life is a series of calculated risks, but how often are we actually left to face the consequences of our choices? When some fool wanders off a trail while hiking Mt. Monadnock notwithstanding the warnings to stay on the trail, a search and rescue mission is sent out. Likewise, when skiers go off into no skiing areas and cause an avalanche no one shrugs and says – “oh well, they took their chances”. We respond – quite aggressively too. When – not if – when the next report comes in that someone has gone under at one of the coves there will be a massive and expensive response. That’s not exactly accepting the risk of one’s choices. So, I suppose much of my objection comes down to this: it’s only swim at your own risk until you start to drown.
Lisap — You’re bringing to mind a body recently discovered. I don’t think he was swimming. He might have been doing something stupid or something very calculated — we couldn’t have prevented either. (Your coming up with assorted arguments and not sticking to a consistent theme — tells me you have a strong opinion which needs all your guns to defend)
Hoss – I have several concerns and a couple of objections. I also share a little bit of insight as the parent of one of those lake lifeguards. Personally I’m much more of a pool person – I don’t like swimming anyplace with less than at least 10 feet of visibility so that keeps me out of most, though not all lake water.
If the lake can tolerate the usage at the coves and the swimming is truly and genuinely at the risk of the people who go there, then most of my concerns are satisfied. I’m not sure anyone can persuade me, however, that with the bath house barely more than a golf shot away, that people will really believe that they are swimming at their own risk. Remember what happened last year when it was reported that a swimmer didn’t come back up? People ran right to the bath house for help, and the guards started to search. The first parent who looks away and can’t find his child will want every available person to help search – it’s human nature, it’s reasonable, it’s entirely to be expected, and it is inconsistent with the idea of swimming at your own risk.
Hoss said:”Tom Sheff — Get it — fudge? (Ward 5, Emerson)”
No, I don’t get it. Maybe you’re confusing me with someone else…which people have beeen doing a lot of lately.
@ Mike, Re, Lisa – Y’all make very good points.
Is anyone on this thread part of Friends of Crystal Lake or Newton Conservators? I’d like to hear your opinions on the Open Crystal Lake proposal.
@Lisa – Can you clarify the $15k figure you quoted in an earlier thread? Is that the total revenue of the bath house or is it the swimming lesson only revenue? Also, where did the $185,090 Parks and Rec budget for outdoor swimming in 2011 go if not to Gath Pool or Crystal lake? Do you know what slice of the Parks and Rec budget keeps the lake clean and safe?
@Bill – Sounds like you’re concerned with $, safety, and perhaps a bit with the preferences of swans. Here are some points to consider.
– If I can safely enter and exit the lake at Cronin’s Cove at my own risk, oh and refrain from relieving myself, why should I have to pay? What direct/indirect cost am I imparting on the city, its property or its residents? The emergency response cost argument doesn’t hold water. My dad pays our taxes to support the outdoor swimming Parks and Rec budget (as well as the emergency response budgets). Am I a freeloader if I don’t want to be double taxed for swimming on hot day? Also, no one is stopping the City from extracting gains from Cronin’s cove. Liability is only assumed when people are explicitly charged to use the premises. The city could sell ice cream and do everyone a kindness.
– What is the time frame of your 4 death statistic? Please cite a source. If its over 200 years, including the period when ice skating was the most popular activity on the great pond, I’m not seeing the danger here. Also we are referring to a period when no one actually gave a hoot if people went for a swim in a public pond. Pools weren’t popular either. Lets see some historical numbers for swimmers each summer and determine if we are playing with fire today. Clearly there will be more incidents if there are more swimmers. But I think its worth asking how many more swimmers would use the lake if the coves were legalized. My guess is that swimming would be up 15% at most. Emergencies happen. That’s why we have emergency response units. I don’t understand why you and Greg are surprised to see them responding. Again, there is a budget for that designed to keep us safe. Did that missing person case stem from a swimmer entering the water from a cove? How did that story conclude? Hopefully everyone was safe.
– The only lake biology I know is from my Cabot school field trip to Bullough’s pond. Still, I know to agree with Mike that eutrophication is more harmful than some pee pee or sunscreen.
In conclusion, we HAD a nice thing going here as history tells us… Crystal Lake and its former aliases used to be a center for recreation all season round. Perhaps the swans left because some Newtonians are just too uptight for their liking?
@TheWholeTruth – You’re posts make you sound foolish. Are you one of those parents with a leash around their child?
To everyone worried about the message parents are sending to their kids… Focus on your own families. God forbid someone may be teaching their kid to question their surroundings. Or are they just splashing around in some cool water on a hot day? Its hard to tell. Giving the patrolling cop the finger and going for a swim is a different story. No one is arguing that point. I think all of us in favor of legalizing swimming are just trying allow a cop to do something more productive than keep people from getting wet.
@Brett – the figure I quoted came from a pdf prepared by Parks and Recreation. It’s has quite a lot of information and if I have a chance I’ll try to find it again and post the link for you. The $15,000 figure I quoted was for swimming lessons at Crystal Lake, not all revenue. From my recollection the total income generated for Crystal Lake was a roughly around $100,000 and I noted that the total revenue was down a few thousand from 2010. Parks and Rec provide separate numbers for Crystal Lake and the Gath Pool. Another interesting statistic showed that sales of season passes at Crystal Lake were down from 2010’s figures in all areas except for sale of passes to seniors which was the only category to go up. The City had a trial 2 year program of charging seniors $20 for the passes in 2009 and 2010 and sales dropped, then rebounded and exceeded prior sales in 2011. (I do not recall seeing an expense report, but there was a reference to some repairs at the Gath Pool which I think were $100,000.)
As for the number of drownings, I did see a reference that the drownings were within the past 20 years. An Alderman asked for the information and this is what was reported by Parks & Rec. Again, I’ll try to find a cite for you but this information is all available to you online. On the one hand, some people have pointed out that these drownings took place in the guarded area to which I would respond that the reason the number isn’t higher is because it took place in the guarded area. If Parks and Rec could provide the public with the number of rescues and assists that would probably shed quite a bit of light on how many severe injuries and deaths are actually prevented in the guarded areas, but I was unfortunately unable to locate this online.
I agree with you that with more swimmers there will be more risks. According to the US Lifesavings Association, a national association for lifeguards, the chance of drowning at a beach without a lifeguard is 5 times greater than drowning at a beach with guards. A second time honored rule for safe swimming whether in a pool, a pond or the ocean – never swim alone. http://www.usla.org/?page=SAFETYTIPS
I take issue with the argument that responder services are available to keep us safe. They are not. Emergency responder services are available to us hopefully to save us from death or serious bodily injury when an unexpected event occurs and we need rescue. Drowning from swimming alone in an unguarded area is not an unexpected event, hence the argument by you and others that swimming should be permitted at your own risk. It’s unacceptable to say on the one hand that you are willing to assume the risk of swimming alone in an unguarded location and then say at the same time that the risk is minimal because you pay taxes to keep you safe. Drowning happens very quickly Brett, it is often quite silent. It typically isn’t like the Hollywood depiction of a person waving their arms and screaming for help. If you plan to rely on someone calling 911 for you then understand that they will most likely be conducting a search and recover not a search and rescue.
I understand that New Hampshire permits their department of fish and game to charge negligent hikers for the cost of rescuing them. Out of curiosity, would you and others who support “swim at your own risk” be willing to assume the cost of your own rescues?
Hoss, I dont know who you are, so I dont know if I know you or not, but I am sure you know I am running a campaign this year and you put out an incredibly irresponsible comment about me. I have no idea what (ward 5 emerson) means? I am assuming it means emerson school and quite frankly I dont ever remember being there (unless there was a polling booth there I visited during election time). I dont know what you’re game is, but either prove it or apologize. You’re little remarks are childish and immature, if you want to continue this offline you can email me at [email protected], but I suspect this is all a childish game.
tom sheff — I previously suggested the idea of handing out sweets could generate positive turnout. Fudge is a sweet
Hoss, so what you’re saying is I should bring Fudge to the ward 5 (emerson) polling place to increase voter turnout. Got it. Sorry for the mix up…tough to keep up with all of these conversations at the sametime.