Let us count the reasons:
- There are official and perhaps dubious reasons:
"Officials told [one man who asked] that it would be too dangerous and that he could be
arrested for trespassing, but, to him, it seemed easy enough to hire
lifeguards and allot an area along the beach designed by Frederick Law
Olmsted. Officials said it would ruin the serenity of the pond to have
children screaming and splashing, even though he thought it could be
limited to a few months and be regulated by time and numbers. Officials
told him it was a backup for the city's water supply, but the 68-acre,
spring-fed pond has not provided water to the city since 1848 and would
have to be treated if it were ever reconnected to the system."
Gerry Wright, director of the Jamaica Park/Olmsted Park Project, says"allowing swimming to return would threaten the delicate ecology, now in
Zen-like balance, along the 1.5-mile trail surrounding the water."
Maybe but it would be interesting to get some independent confirmation that the "delicate ecology" actually is in "Zen-like" balance.
- official and "environmental" reasons
"[Toni Pollak, commissioner of the Boston Parks and Recreation Department] "worries that swimmers would endanger local wildlife, such as the
snapping turtles, mallard ducks, and double-crested cormorants that
frequent the pond. Then there are the potential liability issues."
Although none of those species seem to be endangered.
""Can you imagine the deafening din of children from every corner of the city descending on the pond? Yikes!" yelped Patrick Lally.
- and some reasons that don't come across well:
""It would become brackish and dirty with children and adults using it
as their bathtub," said Emily Tisei Moscol, 28, of Dedham. "Not allowing swimming
is one way of actually preserving the pond.""
Because dirty people want to use it to bathe.
(Image: Wikipedia)