R0CKAWAY SURF COMMUNITY PRIORITY LIST AND ASSOCIATED TOPICS

[snaggletooth]

1. Surf anywhere, anytime when lifeguards are off duty (as surfers are no longer considered bathers according to NYS law we can do this now). This means anywhere before 10am and after 6pm.

Agreed, but would add swim to that as well.

I think you guys really need to weigh the possibility of bringing this to the park services attention and having them say, "you're right. It is screwy that swimmers can only go in the water legally when lifeguards are on duty and surfers can go in whenever they want.  Let's make surfers adhere to the same rules we currently have for swimmers." 

I think there is a serious can't see the forest for the trees kind of thing going on here.  Historically, bringing a gov't agency's attention to a matter is a really, really bad way to get less oversight.  You're basically begging to be more heavily policed.  And, at the risk of sounding like a "do nothing," you guys are potentially 'effing with how we surf year round for the sake of the three summer months we have to deal with restrictions.  Is it really worth it? 

I was getting so worked up over the mess in the surfing area a couple weekends ago, then I realized that we're only really suffering from 10am to 6pm 2 days a week for 3 months . I agree with LN and a lot of people on what should be accomplished, but I'm really scared about losing our rights for the good surfing months (can you imagine not being able to surf in the fall and winter?) I'm a newcomer, so I don't really have a say, but I would be bummed to have to leave the life I'm starting to really love here if we lost the right to surf where we're surfing.

[Crackie Onassis]

1. Swim at your own risk. I believe this requires changes in the law and other liability issues (any lawyers out there?).

Like everywhere else in the USA.

[snaggletooth]

1. Swim at your own risk. I believe this requires changes in the law and other liability issues (any lawyers out there?).

Like everywhere else in the USA.

Beach regulation is a complete mystery to me - I grew up where the ocean is pretty unforgiving and there were drownings every year, not to mention great white attacks every few years. But, the only lifeguards I'd ever seen were on TV. First time I went to "the shore" you had to pay to just walk on the beach (let alone them dictating where you can and can't swim). my mom and i were cracking up.

[McFloater]

the possibility of what we're talking about here makes me want to throw up. 

[pefa]

1. Surf anywhere, anytime when lifeguards are off duty (as surfers are no longer considered bathers according to NYS law we can do this now). This means anywhere before 10am and after 6pm.

Agreed, but would add swim to that as well.

I think you guys really need to weigh the possibility of bringing this to the park services attention and having them say, "you're right. It is screwy that swimmers can only go in the water legally when lifeguards are on duty and surfers can go in whenever they want.  Let's make surfers adhere to the same rules we currently have for swimmers." 

I think there is a serious can't see the forest for the trees kind of thing going on here.  Historically, bringing a gov't agency's attention to a matter is a really, really bad way to get less oversight.  You're basically begging to be more heavily policed.  And, at the risk of sounding like a "do nothing," you guys are potentially 'effing with how we surf year round for the sake of the three summer months we have to deal with restrictions.  Is it really worth it? 

  second that.i feel the best thing to do is go to wed & listen, & speak very, very carefully and strategically with all ramifications wieghed and majority opinion behind it......

[1s]

I was getting so worked up over the mess in the surfing area a couple weekends ago, then I realized that we're only really suffering from 10am to 6pm 2 days a week for 3 months . I agree with LN and a lot of people on what should be accomplished, but I'm really scared about losing our rights for the good surfing months (can you imagine not being able to surf in the fall and winter?) I'm a newcomer, so I don't really have a say, but I would be bummed to have to leave the life I'm starting to really love here if we lost the right to surf where we're surfing.

Yup, you don't know whatcha got till it's gone.

[aurora]

A bunch of neighbors and I were talking and we are concerned with the buildings going up on 91/92st and 93/94. I am pretty sure that the one on 93/94 will be six stories as well even though they missed the regulatory foundation pour for six story buildings to be poured by dec. 06, they just poured it (disclaimer that is just what I have been told, i thought it was 3 stories) Some of our neighbors who know construction have noticed and called 311 about violations in the construction itself.

the thought we had were these:
First: people who live by these sights look at your sewers and make sure the construction folk don't clogg them so that they don't flood when we have storm.
second:I am not sure how many people will live in these places but alot of larger building projects which impact a community have to contribute in some way to make it better with parking, prettyness or garbage. since both of these buildings vicinity are pretty much the surf beach vicinity maybe we can fuss with them to clean the sewers so we don't have to paddle to the break and maybe they wouldn't mind chipping in for some more garbage cans/ matience fees outside of their overpopulated buildings which happens to be on the same sidewalk that many surfers use and put in a flowering tree to replace the migrating bees and birds they put out of buisness at the waterfront.
This could be a good oppertunity neighborhood wise focusing specifically on the streets impacted which just happen to be the same.

[malibu casey]

First: people who live by these sights look at your sewers and make sure the construction folk don't clogg them so that they don't flood when we have storm.

excellent point.  the contractors who poured the foundation of that "thing" being built next door to us spilled a bunch of concrete onto the street, and then swept it into the storm drain.  guess what happened when it rained?  DEP went after them I believe, since "someone" photographed them doing it.  I think alot of the builders just anticipate certain fines and factor them into their costs though, figuring they won't get caught for all of it.

[Crackie Onassis]

A bunch of neighbors and I were talking and we are concerned with the buildings going up on 91/92st and 93/94. I am pretty sure that the one on 93/94 will be six stories as well even though they missed the regulatory foundation pour for six story buildings to be poured by dec. 06, they just poured it (disclaimer that is just what I have been told, i thought it was 3 stories) Some of our neighbors who know construction have noticed and called 311 about violations in the construction itself.

the thought we had were these:
First: people who live by these sights look at your sewers and make sure the construction folk don't clogg them so that they don't flood when we have storm.
second:I am not sure how many people will live in these places but alot of larger building projects which impact a community have to contribute in some way to make it better with parking, prettyness or garbage. since both of these buildings vicinity are pretty much the surf beach vicinity maybe we can fuss with them to clean the sewers so we don't have to paddle to the break and maybe they wouldn't mind chipping in for some more garbage cans/ matience fees outside of their overpopulated buildings which happens to be on the same sidewalk that many surfers use and put in a flowering tree to replace the migrating bees and birds they put out of buisness at the waterfront.
This could be a good oppertunity neighborhood wise focusing specifically on the streets impacted which just happen to be the same.

I wonder how that building got its approval?

[nycwipeout]

I looked into something about posting rules on signs (Jake found the one in his Parks Book but I can't find it online) but then I came across this little tidbit:

Effective Date:  06/23/2004
Title: Section 6-2.2 - Definitions

4.11 Water quality. Bathing beaches shall meet the water quality criteria for bacteriological, physical and chemical quality specified below.

4.11.1 Bacteriological quality. Based on the mean of the logarithms of the results of 5 or more samples collected in a 30 day period, the upper value for the density of bacteria shall be:

4.11.1.1 2,400 total coliform bacteria per 100 ml; or

4.11.1.2 200 fecal coliform bacteria per 100 ml; or

4.11.1.3 33 enterococci per 100 ml for freshwater; or

4.11.1.4 35 enterococci per 100 ml for marine water; or

4.11.1.5 126 E.coli per 100 ml for freshwater (E.coli is not to be used as an indicator in marine water.

4.11.2 Chemical quality. The water shall be free of chemical substances capable of creating toxic reactions, skin or membrane irritations to the general public.

4.11.3 Physical quality--water clarity. In all bathing areas, except the Great Lakes or ocean beaches, it shall be possible to see an eight-inch black-and-white disk in four feet of water. Clarity tests should be performed at a four foot depth in the bathing area at a minimum of three different locations. A map depicting test locations, dates of sampling and current conditions should be submitted.

So I ask, why isn't this being done 5 x times a month?

[little_nasty]

I looked into something about posting rules on signs (Jake found the one in his Parks Book but I can't find it online) but then I came across this little tidbit:

Effective Date:  06/23/2004
Title: Section 6-2.2 - Definitions

4.11 Water quality. Bathing beaches shall meet the water quality criteria for bacteriological, physical and chemical quality specified below.

4.11.1 Bacteriological quality. Based on the mean of the logarithms of the results of 5 or more samples collected in a 30 day period, the upper value for the density of bacteria shall be:

4.11.1.1 2,400 total coliform bacteria per 100 ml; or

4.11.1.2 200 fecal coliform bacteria per 100 ml; or

4.11.1.3 33 enterococci per 100 ml for freshwater; or

4.11.1.4 35 enterococci per 100 ml for marine water; or

4.11.1.5 126 E.coli per 100 ml for freshwater (E.coli is not to be used as an indicator in marine water.

4.11.2 Chemical quality. The water shall be free of chemical substances capable of creating toxic reactions, skin or membrane irritations to the general public.

4.11.3 Physical quality--water clarity. In all bathing areas, except the Great Lakes or ocean beaches, it shall be possible to see an eight-inch black-and-white disk in four feet of water. Clarity tests should be performed at a four foot depth in the bathing area at a minimum of three different locations. A map depicting test locations, dates of sampling and current conditions should be submitted.

So I ask, why isn't this being done 5 x times a month?

I have brought this up a number of times.  The statute is ridiculous because it can never be triggered since testing only occurs about twice a month.  It is a JOKE!

[nycwipeout]

I have printed out the DOH laws related to Bathing Beaches

I made a bunch of copies and will bring tonight - one interesting point though is
6-2.20 Aquatic supervisory skill requirements
there are levels I and II which are specifically for lifeguards

then there are levels III and IV - at minimum they must possess
2 (ii) Possesses a Current ARC Community C.P.R. or equivalent certification.

These are THE ONLY people that are allowed to supervise an aquatic space

greenbacks are not even listed

[Looseness]

Jake revived this concept in the aight b!tches thread, so what do we want to try and achieve now Spring is here and there will be people and trash and greenbacks?