There’s nothing about this yet on Wicked Local, but Newton’s Parks & Rec Department has just declined to review a swim at your own risk proposal for Crystal Lake and is recommending a $500 fine for anyone who violates the no swimming rules, according to two tweets from the Newton TAB reporter Ashley Studley.
#Newton Parks & Rec Commission votes against proposal for swim at own risk at Crystal Lake. Will not send it to public hearing
— Ashley Studley (@AshleyStudley) April 24, 2012
#Newton Parks&Rec commission recommends aldermen set fine up to $500 for illegal swiming at #CrystalLake
— Ashley Studley (@AshleyStudley) April 24, 2012
So does a citizen need to show id for this situation? Or will they take us to jail?
I’m not certain if it’s still the case, but there were snapping turtles on that side of the Lake when we used to fish and swim there as kids. We saw one of them in the murky and grassy water near where people are now swimming and another in the area closer to Newton Highlands where the park benches are located.
No duckling or seabird was safe from those powerful jaws. These things can inflict quite a devastating bite.
Does anyone know if these creatures have been spotted recently in these areas.
Has anyone at Crystal been chomped by a snapper???
imagine this scenario: friday july 13th, wellesley lawn worker after a full day takes a dive prior to green line ride. cops pull him in. monday arraignment; two days incarcerated due to lack of id to make civil fine; then deportation weeks later ’cause, you know…
nice work way to go neighbors
A $500 fine? The Parks and Recreation Commission is starting to remind me of North Korea. Completely disconnected from reality, and threatening to nuke those who dare to stand up to them.
I have no problem with the fact that Parks and Rec decided to vote against the swim-at-you-own risk proposal. Proposing a $500 fine instead though just seems like highhanded retribution for asking about it.
For an issue that seems to have a large number of citizens on both sides, that $500 fine just seems to be needlessly confrontational.
Maybe the high fine has to do with the potential tragic consequences of unsupervised swimming in murky water. It sends a clear message that it isn’t a safe thing to do.
Since the police haven’t had any enforcement powers (other than yelling at people to get out of the water) I wonder if they are hoping to curtail behavior with gradually increasing fines. It would be terribly harsh and draconian to give someone a $500 fine for a first offense, but I suspect that the upper limit is intended as a deterrent for “habitual offenders”. It certainly sends a very strong message that P&R is very strongly opposed to this.
There’s a story on Wicked Local now.
I’m wondering if a fine up to $500 means $500 would be for repeat violators with lesser fines and warnings before that.
Newton Parks & Recreation Commission should recommend the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to set fine up to $500 for legal gambling – that would increase the state revenue.
Is there a difference in the liability of a town as pertaining to it’s lakes and ponds that depends on how rural or urban the town is? I have friend in NH who have ponds and lakes all over their town and there are no signs and people just swim a their own risk. You read of deaths in lakes/ponds every summer but rarely read of a lawsuit. Lake Winnipesaukee for one, where you just swim in your backyard. Why is this a big deal here and no anywhere else?
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
– including, by means of swimming in Crystal Lake.
I attended the meeting last night and can clarify the point on the fine.
The state of Massachusetts gave the Newton Park and Recreation Commission (not the Department) the authority to regulate access to the state owned Great Pond of Crystal Lake. This occurred in 1924 and the access regulations where established in 1929 with a fine of $20 for violations. It was noted last night that $20 was a steep fine in 1929 equivalent to ~$620 today.
There was a second motion (not Tweeted) to ask the BOA to create a ordinance to give the police an enforcement tool with a fine of $20, consistent with the 1929 rules.
The third motion was to recommend that the $20 maximum be changed by a Home Rule Petition, needing approval from the State Legislature, to allow the City to change the fine to something that may be more meaningful with a maximum of $500. The $500 cap is, to my understanding, the maximum that municipalities can impose due to State regulation. A fine of $100 – $250 was discussed as a starting point.
Groot is right – the fine was suggested up to $500. As he said, they had to first accept the $20 fine and then members made their additional recommendation of a fine up to $500. As Groot said, some suggested a $100-$250 starting point. I’ll be posting a fuller story to Wicked Local Newton shortly.
From what I gathered, some members want to make sure the fine is hefty enough to deter illegal swimming – but could do so in incrementally, per offense. The Aldermen will have to file a home rule petition before making a change.
Thanks Groot and Ashley. Just to be clear, Parks & Rec can request the police go forward with the $20 fine. (No aldermen intervention needed) Increasing it above $20 would take a home rule petition?
@ Groot Gregory’s mentioning years 1924 and 1929.
Those were years when the U.S. society was going into the Great Depression, which was the result of the official political stupidity.
Does the Newton Parks & Recreation Commission facilitate some local equivalent to the Great Depression?
First, what were the “access regulations” in 1929? I very much doubt the restrictions that the Parks and Rec. Commission are attempting to enforce today are reflective of those in 1929. The restrictions in the 1920’s may not have had anything to do with swimming.
Second, the proposed fine of $500 is so severe that it requires a Home Rule Petition and an act of the Legislature to be implemented. This clearly demonstrates how out of touch the Commission is with reality. They would need one of our State Reps or State Senators to present that petition to the Legislature. This is an election year, and any legislator carrying that petition will be instantly vilified by the hundreds of people who have shown themselves to be in favor of “swim at your own risk.”
Lastly, supporters of “swim at your own risk” should now turn their attention to Mayor Warren, who has the ability [but apparently not the political courage] to broker a compromise at Crystal Lake.
Last summer, the police would sit in their cars and sound the alarm at illegal swimmers until they got out. Is this what the plan is for this summer too? What is the stated arguement against swim at your own risk the Commission is giving? Is the Commission prohibiting Crysal Lake property owners from swimming too?
@Lucia – “What is the stated arguement against swim at your own risk the Commission is giving?” The Tab says:
“Is the Commission prohibiting Crysal Lake property owners from swimming too?” – No
Can anyone think of a non-traffic fine in Newton that requires a show of id (as opposed to something at a home where you can identify the offender based on house number)? If you can think of one — what happens if the person doesn’t have id with them?
$500 per individual is crazy high. Now we’ll have dad refusing to identify himself in front of the kids (and the pooping dog)!
Mike Striar — There is some background on the 1929 regs in this Tab letter: http://www.wickedlocal.com/newton/news/x1780478870/Matt-Pawa-Triathlete-argues-for-opening-Crystal-Lake#axzz1synGcaGj
If we’re going to continue to prohibit renegade swimming, I’d rather see the fine enforced, rather than just having the police chase people off repeatedly. The city could use the money, so go ahead and increase it for 80 years of inflation, it’ll help pay the cost of collecting it.
I’m conflicted on whether the ban should continue. As someone who swims an hour-plus a day in a pool, and on vacation in an ocean cove on an island in Maine, sometimes alone, but hugging the shore and in a wetsuit (so whatever happens, at least my body won’t sink), I sympathize with the triathletes and other open-water swimmers. However, given the location near the Green Line, no restrictions could be a free-for-all. And I think if you tried to limit at-risk swimming to ‘serious’ swimmers who know what they’re doing, as opposed to every teenager that wants to cool off on a hot day, by making people pass the Life Guard swimming test, for example, that might expose the city to liability? (Ted?)
That’s why I’d use an air temperature standard, as I proposed in an earlier thread. Put up a thermometer. No swimming unless the air temperature is under some cutoff — 55 or 60 degrees. That would give the athlete swimmers plenty of opportunities to train (mostly be during hours when the official swimming is not open), weed out the non-athletes, and limit the environmental stress on the lake.
So, will the fine also be charged on anyone who sends their 4 legged friends in for a dip?
This is just silly. $500? Even $50 is too much. Does anyone know how the commission is appointed? Is there a possibility for a referendum? (that is also silly, but c’mon folks…)
@Fig: Read comments above. $20 would be the fine. $500 would be maximum fine after repeated violations and that would require approval from Beacon Hill.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the 2012 equivalent of $20 in 1929 is $268, not $600+ as discussed
http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
@Hoss– Thanks for providing that link to the opinion piece in The Tab. My instinctive response appears to have been correct, the 1920’s era regulations were not directed at recreational swimmers, but other uses. It’s pretty pathetic that the Parks and Recreation Commission is distorting the intent of the regulations and misusing their authority. By doing so they are in effect acting as proxy for lakeside abutters opposed to swimming.
This lake decision was more telling on the egos of Newton’s commissions than anything. We’ve now had three rulings by three separate Newton commissions in the last 12 months where minor commissions have made executive decisions.
1) Election Commission on Residency — The commission met in an open meeting. They voted according to party with a non-commission member casting the deciding vote. The non-commission member got to file a judgement on behalf of the committee that included case study that was not discussed in committee
2) Licensing Board on a Chain Store’s Ability to Use Limited License — The Board goes beyond the usual discussion involving liquor sales licensing, i.e., the community risks — and determines it’s own economic ruling, that we citizens have enough choices based on price level of items offered.
3) Parks & Recreation Commission — Sees that not a few, but around 200 protestors want less policing and meets to discuss whether there should be a open discussion with the community. The meeting instead takes a hard line against the issue, and cowardly passes the ball to the BoA such the BoA members get the heat from citizens with respect to any decision they might make.
What does a Mayor do in Newton? Why can’t these commissions offer a recommendation to our working mayor and let that one elected person be the CEO? This is uncomfortable
The 1929 Rules and Regulations can be found here: http://www.crystallakeconservancy.org/1929-rules-and-regulations.html
Good link Tricia – I love the rules again lying down, sleeping, orating, preaching, and playing musical instruments.
This really provides a charming bit of insight into how recreational activities were viewed in 1929. “No person shall . . . solicit the acquaintance of or annoy another person”, no “loud outcry” and you may not “move in a military or civic parade, drill or procession”.
Bob: Did you say “snapping turtles?”
If there aren’t any snapping turtles perhaps we ought to stock them. Probably less expensive than a daily police patrol.
I think stationing some of these posters next to the no swimming zone would be a LOT more off-putting and scary than stocking the lake with snapping turtles (tongue firmly in cheek, before someone gets his or her dander up)…
It’s important to keep in mind what has actually taken place here. This vote by the Parks and Recreation Commission was not simply a vote to maintain the status quo. Nor was it just a vote to severely increase the punishment for people who dare challenge their authority. The Parks and Rec. Commission actually had the audacity to vote against a PUBLIC HEARING. That is what I see as the most disgraceful part of all this… Their complete arrogance!
As for their arguments against swimming [according to the front page article in this week’s Tab], they are so paper thin that they don’t hold water…
Let’s look at the argument of Commissioner Richard Tucker for example. He’s worried about teenagers swimming in Crystal Lake after a party, and cites the recent [apparent] drowning death of the young BC student in Chestnut Hill Reservoir. To the best of my knowledge, no one has proposed allowing nighttime swimming in Crystal Lake. Certainly no one has proposed allowing drunken teens to swim after parties. So Tuckers fear is simply a weak and transparent, anti-swimming excuse.
Then there’s Commissioner Andrew Stern, who without the benefit of any formal input from the public, took it upon himself to launch a preemptive strike against supporters of “swim at your own risk”, by privately [secretly?] meeting with two members of the BOA [Danberg and Blazar] in an attempt to fashion a new anti-swimming ordinance, presumably with this absurd $500 fine attached.
The Vice- Chairman of the Commission, Kathleen Heitman told the Tab… “I’m very much afraid of a person dying because of the inadequacy of not having a lifeguard nearby.” To her credit, Commissioner Heitman raises perhaps the only real and legitimate argument to be made against “swim at your own risk.” But she herself makes the best argument for a public hearing on the matter, when she goes on to say [presumably about the potential for a drowning], “I wouldn’t want it on my conscience”. If the Commissioner doesn’t want a potential tragedy on her conscience, the way to avoid that is by including the public in crafting public policy. Not by allowing one’s personal fears to dictate such policies.
@Mike Striar – One clarification to your last posting. Commissioner Stern was tasked by the Commission to work with members of the BOA and Parks & Rec to look at enforcement options. When Fogel et al presented their revised proposal to the Commission at the previous meeting on the topic (Feb? or Mar?) there were items in their proposal that needed some level of enforcement. The Commission wanted to give the police the enforcement tools regardless of the outcome of the current proposal.
Mike Striar — I thought the reference to the BC student (including by name) to be particularly offensive. All the commissioner knows is that this beloved man was at a bar and was ultimately found dead in a municipal reservoir. He knows nothing about the man’s sobriety level or why he ended up in the water. The student could have struggled with an attacker and was pushed, he could have taken his own life…; all that is nearly certain is that he was not enjoying a February swim. If the death of someone in my family was used as this type of public example, I’d want an apology.
Now can three elected officials meet to discuss policy without breaking the public mtg law?
@Groot Gregory– Thank you for the correction. I apologize to Commissioner Stern, while of course continuing to disagree with his position.
I’m with Hoss – Tucker’s comments were indefensible.
@Hoss – as long as they don’t form a quorum of anything.
It is great to see vibrant debate on this topic. As the author of the guest column in the Tab (“Triathlete Says . . .”), and one of the folks in the middle of this effort to allow open water swimming at Crystal Lake, I commend those of you weighing in on the issue and holding up the PRC’s process to the scrutiny it deserves. It was a real travesty for the Parks and Rec Commission to deny a public hearing. Whoever thought such a thing would happen in Newton? Perhaps the Commissioners knew that such a hearing would show the overwhelming support in our community for open water swimming at Crystal Lake. And as many of the above comments point out, the reasoning of the Commissioners was extremely weak; most of the reasons are also contradicted by the decision to interpret the 1929 rules in a manner to allow abutters to swim at their own risk. I invite all those who are rightly affronted by PRC’s high handed treatment of the citizen petitioners to continue to weigh in and advocate for a solution that reflects the clear and overwhelming majority sentiment in our community to allow open water swimming in the lake. The dismissive attitude exhibited by PRC members toward the petitioners and their proposal will not be the final word. Our elected officials, including our outstanding Mayor and our many fine Aldermen, will no doubt be responsive to the views of constituents that the Commission apparently holds in such low regard. PRC may have authority over the lake but as an instrumentality of the city it cannot remain unanswerable to the will of the people forever.
@Matt Pawa, As I read the special act of 1924 relative to Crystal Lake, the legislature specifically granted rule making control over Crystal Lake to the City of Newton “through its playground Crystal Lake commission”. The act then further authorizes the playground commission to “make rules and regulations governing . . . bathing . . .or other recreational activities . . . on Crystal Lake in said city.” The act then provides that all such rules and regulations are “subject to approval of the division of waterways and public lands of the department of public works of the Commonwealth . . .” How can the Board of Aldermen or the Mayor grant redress when the commission is acting within the scope of its authority which was directly granted by the Commonwealth?