I worry about many things, but two that have been on my mind a lot this
Summer are the changing definitions of:
Reasonable risk
Desirable diversity
I am hugely saddened by the removal of the
"fairy tale" tree at Clark Park and
the expansion of the Basket Ball Court in Clark Park and
the banning of diapered children from the Leisure pool at UCSC
I believe there are no 'risk free' situations.
I expect nature to limit our risks when it comes to big trees.
The type of storm that could have taken down that huge hollowed tree,
probably would have also kept pedestrians out of that section of the
park.
I mourn what I consider its premature removal, and feel loss for the kids
who won't experience the hollowed out 'cave' at the base of one of my
favorite, neighborhood trees.
I remember the installation of the original 3/4 sized Basketball Court at
Clark Park.
I remember it as a "white" attempt to isolate from 'blacks" who were
"taking over" the Kingsessing Rec Center.
Society is more integrated today, and I hoped it was time to restore
Clark Park to "Park" functions and return Basketball to the Rec Centers,
of which there are several, close-at-hand.
I feel safe at Kingsessing Rec Center, on 47th Street and on the B-Ball
courts at Wilson School (the 4500 Block of Woodland).
I encourage others to use these centers.
The lives improved may be those of your own family and those of
youngsters who already play at the Rec centers.
My kids often benefited from superior competition and when it came time
to 'travel' to games we could offer rides and snacks to kids who had
neither.
We learned a lot, socially and culturally, by exploring class and culture
differences and commonalities, during the fellowship of friendly
competitions.
As Soccer expands, the teams should avail themselves of the Rec Centers,
with their wonderful fields, real goal posts, building with facilities,
including bathrooms and proper meeting rooms and in Summer, pools &/or
spray areas to cool off in, after practice and games.
The Kingsessing Rec Center runs from 49th to 51st, from Chester to
Kingsessing Avenues.
The 'block' house a Train Station, Free Library with Public Computers and
Reading Clubs, Parklands, hundreds of trees and benches, Playgrounds, a
Pool that runs from shallows to 5' deep, a huge playing field and
Football field, new Tennis and Basketball Courts, a Wall ball Wall and
Walking Paths. The Fields and Courts have impressive new lighting
systems, and arrangements can be made to keep them on for public events
that run past dark. There is a staff that provides maintenance and
supervision and runs summer Camps and Sports Programs.
If you want your first look to be 'virtual' than please check out the
photos I included at the end of a link I developed for a home located
Northwest of the Rec center (on 51st Street).
http://picasaweb.google.com/campionef/1120S51st
The string of photos ends with 7 Rec Center Photos and 2 Street Photos.
When you click on the link the photos appear as thumbnails.
You can click on any one photo to enlarge it, but the largest views are
visible using the "Slideshow" feature.
I took the photos Friday at Noon.
There were only a total of 8 kids on the grounds, 3 on one half of a BB
court, 2 on the swings and 3 walking around trying to choose what to do.
In recent seasons, I have taken groups of five to ten, 4th and 5th grade
CYO kids to these courts, on several occasions.
We always had a great time, learned some B-Ball and life lessons and got
some coaching support from a Rec Center Staffer.
I hope the Youth Soccer League explores the potential uses Games and
expanded practices.
I hope individual families learn and use the local facilities /
opportunities.
I hope people realize that true diversity includes interactions across
ability, age, class, color, gender, nationality, political and religion
differences.
Most recently, The UC Swim Club decided to ban Diapered babies from the
Leisure Pool.
The ban is driven by a caution that, to me, seems unreasonable.
Sides are being taken, and memories that do not jibe with mine are
surfacing, in support of the ban.
I see simple arguments:
1. If you want to change rules, mid season, you need majority support of
the membership.
Anything else is "bait and switch".
2. Proof that the pool was the source of a contagion is possible, IF the
contagion exists.
It is not fair to state, 'the water we tested, the number of samples we
used and the type of tests we chose, were not adequate for the task of
confirming the presence of Crypto, so we must assume the test results
were a false negative'. To me, that is just crazy talk. Do the right
tests or back the truck up.
Since, as far as members know, the only people made sick shared a common
household, and since all parties agree that Crypto is highly contagious,
the lack of other victims actually speaks for the cleanliness of the
Pools and the success of the Policies that were in place.
3. In my memory... the member who claims "... when my twin daughters were
young enough to wear diapers they did not go into the "big" pool..." has
saved for herself memories that are less true and less flattering than
what I'd call reality. Her kids LIVED in the big pool and grew up to be
Champion Swimmers, Life Guards and College Athletes who still thrive in
and on the water. I remember her beautiful little girls passing the
"Deep Water" test before they entered elementary school. Mom even fell
in love with and married one of the UCSC Lifeguards. I believe the
opportunity to swim, early and often was a great thing for her daughters
and a wise choice by this mother. It makes me sad to hear her, and
others, sanitize their memories, especially when the eliminated memories
are the ones that might be more positive and useful to others.
I can't find any Bylaw that requires more than protective pants. My own
experience is of teaching my daughter to be comfortable in deep water, at
UCSC, BEFORE her first birthday. My memory of the RULES around the
distinction between big and baby pools is that until a kid passed a "deep
water test" he/she could not:
Swim unsupervised in the big pool
Enter the deep end or go off the Diving board (even with
supervision)
I remember NO Restriction on Diapered babies in the shallow end of the
big pool.
I have vivid memories of a 9 month old Katie, suspended under water with
her eyes wide open.
And I have another memory of being chastised by a life guard because an
18 month old Michael had CLIMBED the Slide ladder and zoomed out into
water over his head, when my back was turned for just a second. Even
though he was not yet a swimmer, Mike wanted to repeat the fun, again and
again, but he was so young it needed two Adults, to safely monitor his
favorite 'game'. One to secure his climb up the ladder, the other to
'catch'-rescue him from water that was well over his head.
Both of my kids have grown to be Scholar Athletes and some credit is due
UCSC for the HEALTHY social and REASONABLE hygiene policies of the past.
Even though I type this, in relative isolation, on a computer I believe
social contact is necessary despite risks.
If a family can more easily raise a scholar-athlete, or a child who might
develop the skills to better survive flooding or boating accidents,
through access to water deep enough to teach swimming skills, we should
be getting those kids into deeper water, not isolating them to a trough
that is only 9" deep.
Families have expressed a willingness to accept a "Belt and Suspenders"
policy of "Rubber Pants over Swim Diapers".
We can not eliminate all risks, but we can maximize opportunities.
The unintended negative consequences of the ban outweigh the benefits.
1. The ban encourages families to rush toddlers into "big kid" suits
prematurely (increasing risks).
2. The ban also discriminate against only against the families with small
children.
Incontinence is not limited to babies but can be more easily contained
and managed with babies.
In my experience, diapered babies are usually cleaner than the adults,
many of whom have come straight from a morning of gardening, or of
cleaning their own or other houses.
No one at the pool seems prepared to question the continence of its Adult
members or older children.
3. The ban also adds liability and risks for those families with children
that are more than a year apart in age.
Who manages the 6 year old if the parent (or grandparent or teenaged
sitter) is stuck in the wading pool with the 1 year old?
Most 6 Year olds are too fast moving and awkward to be cavorting near
infants and small toddlers.
They definitely need the challenges and opportunities of the bigger pool.
4. Who gains?
All members meet in the toilet and shower and eating facilities, so the
ban does not actually isolate contagions.
It just provides a false sense of security.
5. Most of the Adults who do not currently have infant children or
grandchildren to supervise can get their recreation in the lap or diving
pools.
Why give one class of members three times the opportunities of another
class?
Especially if there is no true isolation, only inconvenience and
frustration for the members with the youngest kids.
I used to think UCSC stood for University City Swim Cooperative, but even
I have drifted into thinking of it as "Club".
Whether Cooperative or Club, let it be one that honors the needs of all
reasonable members.
Let reason and communication prevail.
All the best!
Liz
Elizabeth Campion Cell Phone: 215-880-2930
215-546-0550 Main, -546-9871 fax, Desk + VM: 215-790-5653
PRUDENTIAL, FOX & ROACH REALTORS, LLC
Please read Consumer Notice & enjoy "HOME PILOT" tools at
www.PruFoxRoach.com
