GUILFORD — I applaud the voters of Marlboro for adopting language that expresses the town's “support [for] the civil rights of all people, without regard to their race, ethnicity, religion, gender identity, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, age, and education level.”
A nice practical step might be to welcome folks to swim responsibly at South Pond.
Beautiful and tranquil, South Pond - by law, a public body of water - is surrounded by land owned by the Ames Hill-Marlboro Community Center (and its attendant land trusts), and leased to the Marlboro Park Association. All three beaches are private - members only.
How do you become a member? Reside and pay taxes in Marlboro.
Marlboro supports all people. But the Ames Hill-Marlboro Community Center doesn't want all people swimming at South Pond.
The AHMCC's primary goal is preservation. Its secondary goal is social, educational, and recreational opportunity for “its members and the youth in the area.” But you aren't allowed to walk into the water and swim there unless you're a member, so “youth in the area” must refer only to the children of members. This is the message conveyed to outsiders, and the social heritage bestowed unto every child who is allowed to swim there: members only.
But wait - isn't it a public body of water?
Yes - and after intervention from the Fish and Wildlife Service, the AHMCC ceded a public boat launch to the state in 1960. It is restricted for swimming. The town's official site makes a point that “there is actually no swimming allowed” from the boat launch. The public boat launch, we are told, “occasionally attract[s] delinquents.”
Is this the language of inclusion? Of course not. It's the language of exclusion. Moreover, it is the practice of segregation and restriction.
Content on Marlboro's town website (marlborovt.us/about/south-pond/) provides information about the origin of the AHMCC, the restrictions on South Pond, and the moral dimensions of access. The authors hope “the readers will understand the restrictions and limitations regarding access.” I have read it several times, and I understand it: It's a sad example of privilege - and a uniquely ironic one in light of the town's recent declaration of sentiments.
Access to good water and healthy recreational facilities is a relatively picayune request in the context of bigotry, but surely sharing a beach with neighbors is within the reach of Marlboro's fight against global fascism. Or is the backyard exempt?
Help me to urge the Ames Hill-Marlboro Community Center to share our water. Call them or write them and tell them that their exclusion is incompatible with a community that strives to be as “inclusive as possible.” Perhaps if we, the non-members, are not able to persuade them to share, the people of Marlboro, with their zeal for social justice, can. (Or maybe a lawyer can.)
Thus far, my singular attempts to resolve this issue directly, or even obtain meaningful data from the organization, have been unsuccessful.