>On Wednesday, July 1st, a village Council meeting will take place in which a final decision will be made whether or not to proceed with plans to convert Graydon to a cement swimming pool. The RPP has sent out emails urging supporters of the project to email council members and the Ridgewood News that this conversion should be a “priority project”.
According to the RPP, the majority of residents surveyed wanted Graydon to maintain its spacious, sandy, natural, lake like appearance, yet they felt the current facility is unclean and unsafe. Despite the RPP efforts to recommend a facility that would provide the sandy spacious environment that most residents wanted, their research indicated that the only feasible solution was to convert Graydon to a much smaller concrete facility. Unfortunately, this design can not provide residents with the sandy spaciousness of Graydon, but it can allow for the perceived feeling of a “cleaner” and “safer” swimming environment. Ironically, all public swimming facilities pose both health and safety risks, concrete or otherwise.
For example, public cement bottom pools in Arizona, Texas and Upstate New York (to name a few) had to be shut down last summer because patrons were getting ill from a parasite found in human/mammal fecal matter called cryptosporidium, that was discovered in the water. This is just one of many clorine resistant parasites and bacteria that plague public swimming pools (MedicineNet.com). In addition, public pools that exceed their swim load capacity are much more likely to experience transmission of water borne illnesses.
Concrete pools also have inherit safety risks. Head and spinal injuries from hard pool bottoms and slippery surfaces are common. Drownings also occur in crowded public swimming pools, while lifeguards are on duty, everyday in the US (National Center for Disease Control).
My question is this. Since the proposed concrete facility can not provide the same natural appearance and spaciousness of Graydon and it can not eliminate the health and safety risks of a public swimming facility, then why take on the enormous financial burdan of converting it?
The RPP often compares Graydon to the public pool in Westfield, because of the similarity in demographics. I urge our Council before making any decisions about Graydon’s conversion to take the 30 minute ride down the Garden Stare Parkway and observe this hidden from public view pool on a sunny Sunday afternoon. The noise level is deafening and the pool is overwhelmingly crowded. Not to mention the fact that Westfield’s facility does not have to share parking with those using two athletic fields. Remember, in order to make this new facility self-funding, it has an 8,000 member quota to fill. Even in Graydon’s hayday it didn’t have 8,000 members. If I lived on one of the streets near Graydon, Vets or the Maple Ave field, I’d be concerned.
Speaking of similar demographics. Allendale has a sand bottom pool and residents there don’t feel a need to covert it to a cement bottom pool. Why? Is their membership declining? Is their pool operating at a loss? Is Graydon supposed to be a business or is it an amenity like a public library, community center, park or athletic field? I am always hearing how Graydon is operating at a loss. With a $14 million dollar bond to pay off, in addition to annual operating costs, how many years will it be before the “new Graydon” turns a profit?
Although I do not support the RPP iniative to convert Graydon to a concrete facility, I do feel that their efforts have been a catalyst for the many improvements that have been made over the past 3 years. Since many of the RPP supporters have stopped using Graydon, they have not experienced the changes that have been made like I have. The aeration system installed last year made a tremendous difference in water quality. A second aerator was installed this year. I was swimming in Graydon on opening day. Standing in chest high water, I could see my feet. That’s clearer than the ocean at the Jersey shore! The sand bottom, is now thoroughly dredged and cleaned before Graydon is filled for the new season. The goose population has also improved dramatically, thanks to the deligent, daily efforts of animal control. These changes have certainly helped to keep both the grounds and water cleaner.
So let’s not stop there. First off, lifeguards could routinely skim the water at the end of their rotations. Additional safety measures can be taken. A fence separating the 4 ft section of Graydon from the 12 ft section can be installed to better monitor those entering the deeper water. A lifeguard station should also be installed in the center of Graydon to better observe those swimming there.
I realize that Graydon’s membership has been declining over the past several years, with this year’s membership being at an all time low. I fear that many who normally would have joined Graydon have deliberatly boycotted this year in order to benefit their cause. Still and all, if all of these cost effective steps and improvements do not increase membership at Graydon, than raising membership fees from $77.00 per person to $100-$125.00 per person is still a bargain. The proposed fee for the “new Graydon” is $150.00 per person, which, I fear, will increase annually in order to offset the enourmos debt this reconstuction will incur.
I have emailed our Council members, paronsohn@ridgewoodnj.net; dpfund@ridgewoodnj.net; pmancuso@ridgewoodnj.net; kkillion@ridgewoodnj.net; azusy@ridgewoodnj.net; as well as the Ridgewood News as a Letter to the Editor, ridgewoodnews@northjersey.com; including an email to Mike Sedon, who has been covering this topic for the paper at sedon@northjersey.com and urge others to do the same.
With so many priority issues facing our community during these difficult economic times, it seems to me that the conversion of Graydon is not one of them.
Suzanne Kelly
Ridgewood
