But officials are still working out the logistics and the aldermen have to approve. Wicked Local has the details.
[polldaddy poll=”6362603″]
Newton considering $20 fine for illegal swimming in Crystal Lake
by Village 14 | Jul 3, 2012 | Newton | 14 comments
Without rehassing this issue yet again — can someone explain what happens if law enforcement asks from ID from a swimmer and the swimmer has none?
Can we also explain why Newton on one hand respects the environment enough to give our tax dollars to a Texas green energy company, but on the other hand doesn’t see any issue with letting a police car run with AC at a pond for 600 hours a season? That’s like my car running continuiously from today until August. (Not to mention the budget impact on trained law enforcement sitting watching ducks for 600 hours)
as one who has been attending the P&R commission meetings, there is more to this than what is merely being reported by either the Newton Stab or the Newton Needham Chamber of Commerce representative to the Village 14 voice. Issues of state law preemption, deeded immediate abutter bathing (swimming) and docking rights v. the people’s waters, conflicting interpretive jurisdiction related to statute i.e. Great Ponds act, police union intervention on unclear patrolmen duty, lack of sufficient police resources and holding cells, District Court caught in repugnant unclear language, the only ones benefitting are the attorneys representing the defendents. Now there’s an idea, we need more lawyers on the Band o’ 24..
It’s time the members of the Parks and Recreation Commission resigned. The Commission is supposed to represent all Newton residents, but they have deliberately chosen to represent the interests of a small group of property owners who want to keep Crystal Lake as their own private swimming hole. This kind of elitism has no place in our city government. Mayor Warren should stop hiding behind this commission, replace them, and open up Crystal Lake to the people of Newton.
@Mike: You are mistaken if you believe abutters are the only folks in favor of restricting swimming outside of the designated area. I’m a Highlands resident but live nowhere near the lake. And yet I’m certain that we should not allow swim at your own risk for all the reasons I’ve stated on prior threads.
Or maybe it’s time for adults to start acting like adults and live by the rules. But instead, people think that because they don’t like the rules, they can just simply ignore them. And then they teach their kids it’s okay to do it too.
Fundamentally, I don’t disagree with Whole Truth… But let’s tell the WHOLE truth, instead of just the part that fits your side of the argument. Yes, in general people should follow the rules. But I wonder where we’d be as a community, as a state, and as a country without civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is a tool for change. There may be a price for using that tool. But based on the number of people I’ve seen in Crystal Lake over the past week, it’s obvious that there are a lot of people willing to risk the penalty in an effort to bring about the change.
I acknowledge Greg’s point. Of course there are people who are not Crystal Lake abutters that are in favor of banning swimmers from the lake. In my opinion though, this ban has been driven by abutters who have exclusive private rights [by virtue of an ancient agreement] to a public resource. If the abutters weren’t pulling strings, this ban would not exist.
Greg, as far as your specific objections, I’m trying to recall what they are… Obviously safety is one of them, and I believe it’s fair to debate that point. However, past discussions of this issue have revealed that historically there have been more incidents in the regulated swim area, than in the areas where swimming is illegal. So if you want to debate safety, I’d ask that you support your position with something other than an instinctive response.
I’ve seen at least one member of the Parks and Recreation Commission use the safety issue in the press, without anything other than personal opinion to support that position. If the Commission were so concerned about safety, why are they not warning lake abutters of the supposed dangers? It’s true they cannot legally stop the abutters from swimming at their own risk. But if the “danger” is substantial enough to ban all others from swimming there, shouldn’t there be some dialogue written or oral with the abutters? Perhaps the Commission views deeded rights as an an inflatable device that keeps abutters safer than everyone else.
Greg, I think in the past you’ve also expressed concerns about the environmental impact of a swim at your own risk policy. Again, just my opinion, but before unelected government commissions go about curtailing the rights of citizens by banning otherwise legal activities, I believe they are obliged to meet certain standards. One of the things they owe the public, is a public hearing. And if memory serves me correctly, the Parks and Recreation Commission declined to hold such a hearing. Another thing the Commission owes the public, is proof of need. In other words, it’s one thing to say a swim at your own risk policy would have a negative environmental impact… But where’s the proof?
@Mike: Folks aren’t swimming in Crystal Lake to make a political statement. They’re swimming because it’s hot and the water is cool.
Newton has an odd sense of freedom and environment. The same Newton folks that pay to try parachuting, hot air ballooning, rock climbing, etc, etc, — don’t want us in sight of their yard enjoying what nature left here. Shame on those that use a risk excuse to keep neighbors away from their yard as if their own kid riding a bicycle wasn’t doing something much more dangerous.
How does a police officer on shore issue a fine to a swimmer who’s in the lake? Fold the ticket into an origami boat and float it out?
The same way you don’t give a ticket to a driver, while speeding. You ask them to pull over/come ashore.
Yes, someone could disobey a request to come in (just as some speeders refuse to pull over). Yes they may not have any id and could give a fake name, blah, blah, blah. But I think most people realize that it’s not prudent, wise or appropriate to disobey or lie to a police officer.
Let’s not get carried away. If police ask you to go away and you don’t, they can put cuffs on you. But it’s nonsense to think a police officer is going to take you in for not having id. It is further nonsense that police would send a fine to someone based on given name/address without id. This is the whole point the city is trying to deal with
But they are making a political statement, Greg. There are other places to swim. Pools, other lakes. We’re only a short drive from the ocean. The people swimming in Crystal Lake are making a conscious decision to swim there. Most of them can read the signs and know the rules. So I agree, they’re swimming because they’re hot and the water is cool. But in choosing Crystal Lake, they are also making a political statement.
I admire that statement. I support it. And it’s time the mayor of Newton paid attention to it.
Was walking by the lake last Monday about 4pm, saw lots of illegal swimmers on a hot day, no cop in sight. Saw a young lady in a bikini from afar. As I walked closer, I realized she was wearing a bra and underwear.
I don’t believe that helps the cause of those who want at risk swim policy.
GT, you’re right. Visitors to the lake need to be respectful of neighborhood residents. No question about it. I’m not unsympathetic to the residents who are concerned about noise and unruly behavior. Let’s distinguish though, between people who are there to enjoy this public resource in a recreational way, and those who are thoughtless and disrespectful.
Although I support “swim at your own risk” as an alternative to the current regulations, it’s not my first choice of how Crystal Lake should be managed. Safety is always of paramount importance to me.
I believe City Government is there to serve the residents though, and these rules are indicative of mission failure. The City should recognize that there is a higher demand for swimming than is currently being accommodated, and expand the swim plan accordingly. We should allow swimming in the coves as well as the designated swim area. The City should make sure all those areas are free of underwater debris and other things that may pose unintended threats to swimmers. And we should expand our life guard program to protect seasonal, daytime swimmers in these additional swimming areas.
Of course someone is going to ask me “how do we pay for that”? So I’ll just float my response right now… An expanded recreational swim program at Crystal Lake would be an easy sell to corporate sponsors. [Of course that would no doubt corrupt our children and bring about an end to the Universe].