bigmacbear (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
bigmacbear) wrote2005-07-15 04:39 pm
bigmacbear) wrote2005-07-15 04:39 pm
Of local interest...
Yesterday a five-year-old boy drowned off Durand-Eastman Park Beach. It was the third drowning in six years.
Swimming is prohibited on this beach but the prohibition is unenforceable -- there aren't enough police officers to effectively clear the water and people just go back in. There's been talk of fencing off the water or putting in a rock wall but that would ruin the beach for other uses and wouldn't necessarily deter swimmers.
Of course, the underlying problem is that there is but one authorized public swimming beach in this county, and it is too often closed due to algae growth due to stagnant water backing up behind Charlotte Pier. The swimming season is too short as it is.
Democrats in the County Legislature have been pushing for years to have a supervised swimming area at Durand-Eastman but the Republican majority has been refusing to even consider the legislation, much less vote to approve it. The latest rejection came yesterday, about the same time as the drowning. How ironic, and tragic.
My take: There is no good reason to attempt to prohibit swimming on any public beach. It is a natural resource and the public should have the right to use it. If a particular spot is dangerous, it should be marked SWIM AT YOUR OWN RISK and people apprised of the dangers by signage (the National Park Service has done this admirably in San Francisco with the following sign).
Moreover, no governmental agency should be held liable for not providing lifeguards on a natural beach such as this. It seems to work for the ocean beaches; why not here?
How Libertarian of me. Ah well...
Swimming is prohibited on this beach but the prohibition is unenforceable -- there aren't enough police officers to effectively clear the water and people just go back in. There's been talk of fencing off the water or putting in a rock wall but that would ruin the beach for other uses and wouldn't necessarily deter swimmers.
Of course, the underlying problem is that there is but one authorized public swimming beach in this county, and it is too often closed due to algae growth due to stagnant water backing up behind Charlotte Pier. The swimming season is too short as it is.
Democrats in the County Legislature have been pushing for years to have a supervised swimming area at Durand-Eastman but the Republican majority has been refusing to even consider the legislation, much less vote to approve it. The latest rejection came yesterday, about the same time as the drowning. How ironic, and tragic.
My take: There is no good reason to attempt to prohibit swimming on any public beach. It is a natural resource and the public should have the right to use it. If a particular spot is dangerous, it should be marked SWIM AT YOUR OWN RISK and people apprised of the dangers by signage (the National Park Service has done this admirably in San Francisco with the following sign).
Moreover, no governmental agency should be held liable for not providing lifeguards on a natural beach such as this. It seems to work for the ocean beaches; why not here?
How Libertarian of me. Ah well...
no subject
This, no.
A few lifeguards seem a small enough thing to provide to keep the public cool in crowded public places. Paying for such, and preventing such tragedies, seems a lot better to me that pretending you can "close" an inviting.
no subject