Council?s decision to open beach rushed

To the editor:

In the past years I have been one who has taken advantage of the outdoor swimming beach at what is now known as Bonnifield Lake.  I?ve enjoyed it to cool off, observed people bringing their pet dogs to the water edge and allowed those pets to poop into the water while children were nearby (and not cleaning up the poop, either, just letting the currents take the poop off to who knows where), and now feel the sadness of the loss of Jesse Harl.

The city was right to close the beach for the time being, and assign to the public safety committee the task to review all the factors involved and make a recommendation to the full city council. That the council chose to vote to reopen the beach before the public safety committee had a chance to meet and weigh all the factors was, in my view, a disservice to the importance of having such a committee.  I commend Martha Rasmussen for her vote not to re-open the beach, and also Daryn Hamilton for at least wanting to let the committee meet and reach a consensus before pre-empting the whole purpose of the committee by voting to reopen the beach. Such action minimizes the value of all city committees, whether or not the committee votes to recommend what the council voted to do during the city council meeting on July 23rd.

As to the Ledger reported remarks by Bob Klauber, I would observe that while there are risks in anything we do, his comparisons miss the mark. Roads are intentionally built for vehicles.  Bike and jogging trails are intentionally built for those purposes. Softball and other sports fields are intentionally built for that purpose.

What is now known as Bonnifield Lake was never, ever intended to be a public swimming hole. It was designed to provide a source of water for Fairfield. Period. That it was adapted nearly 10 years ago by filling in a portion of the water edge with literally tons and tons of sand (which process I observed first hand) was done with good intentions to serve a portion of the Fairfield community, but underneath the water lie many debris items from roads that were tossed into the water by various work crews over several decades of time.  The original waterworks fixtures remain in place ? they were not removed to accomodate swimmers (some, perhaps, but not all). The floating deck/dock had to be removed a couple of years ago for the very reason that people were diving in areas where such debris lie underneath and such diving was not allowed. Swim at your own risk may be a way to deflect legal liability, but if someone were to crack their head on a big block of roadwork debris I would expect that the medical bills would be so large that we all would pay the price some way or another.

There is a big difference between intended uses and adapted uses.

As I write this the public safety committee has yet to meet and reach a consensus; perhaps they will vote to keep the beach open, perhaps not.

Whatever the final outcome, taking steps to prevent or minimize another death in a body of water that was never intended to be a swimming hole should be a top priority of our city leaders.

? Richard K. Thompson, Fairfield