Worst county in your state?

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

As for my dad's interpretation: it's a bunch of houses filled with white suburban folk. In a city known for its diversity...nah.

In a way, it is itself an example of that diversity for that reason.

Yeah, if you don't like an all-white neighborhood because you enjoy diversity, then you should have an equally low view of all-black and all-Chinese and all-Mexican neighborhoods as well.

You do realize that minorities get cloistered together not by choice but out of necessity. Redlining, housing costs, zoning, and citizen councils tend to keep white being white.   On the other hand, ethnic neighborhoods are looked upon as exotic, other, and different by those bored with plastic subdivisions.

[kphoger]

You do realize that minorities get cloistered together not by choice but out of necessity. Redlining, housing costs, zoning, and citizen councils tend to keep white being white.   On the other hand, ethnic neighborhoods are looked upon as exotic, other, and different by those bored with plastic subdivisions.

If a Chinese immigrant moves to Chicago, then I suspect he or she would be more likely to move to Chinatown than any other neighborhood–not out of necessity but by choice.  And plenty of ethnic neighborhoods exist because immigrant populations stuck together.  After all, minority neighborhoods aren't always "generic minority", but often tend toward one particular ethnic group or another.  The factors you state help explain why Mexicans and West Africans and Haitians often can't live in certain neighborhoods, but they don't explain why each of those groups often settles in a different neighborhood from the others.

My block is more predominantly white than, say, either block to the north or south of me.  That has to do with housing costs, which you mentioned, but it has nothing to do with any of the other factors.  The same can be said of larger areas too.  There are fewer Middle Eastern people in my neighborhood than some nearby, but that's because my neighborhood doesn't have large, affordable apartment complexes.  And some neighborhoods with large, affordable apartment complexes have fewer Middle Eastern people than others;  why? if not that new residents prefer to live where they can "fit in" and develop a social network of people like themselves, where there are grocery stores selling the food items they're used to, where people who look and talk like them are generally seen as more "normal".

And yes, ethnic neighborhoods are definitely seen as "exotic ... those bored with plastic subdivisions".  Heck, I'm not particularly bored by those, but I still get a sense of the exotic in heavily ethnic neighborhoods.

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

You do realize that minorities get cloistered together not by choice but out of necessity. Redlining, housing costs, zoning, and citizen councils tend to keep white being white.   On the other hand, ethnic neighborhoods are looked upon as exotic, other, and different by those bored with plastic subdivisions.

If a Chinese immigrant moves to Chicago, then I suspect he or she would be more likely to move to Chinatown than any other neighborhood–not out of necessity but by choice. 

Do you understand the difference between necessity and choice?

[kphoger]

Do you understand the difference between necessity and choice?

Yes.  It means, all things being equal, the person still chooses to live in a specific neighborhood.

So, with "Redlining, housing costs, zoning, and citizen councils" being equivalent, a Chinese immigrant should–according to you–be just as likely to move into an apartment in Chicago Lawn as into one in Chinatown.  I'm saying that simply isn't the case.

[hotdogPi]

Lawrence has two main immigrant groups, although I don't know if it's some neighborhoods of each or thoroughly mixed. The top three groups, including non-Hispanic white, are bolded.

I can confirm that more Spanish is spoken downtown than on the edge; it's about 60/40 in favor of Spanish downtown, maybe 70/30 English (rough guess) at the Lawrence/Methuen city line, and 85/15 (that's one in seven, which is still quite far from zero) in favor of English at the Stop & Shop where I worked in Methuen 1.5 miles from the city line. Of course, there are some Hispanics in Lawrence for which English is their primary language. I-495 exit 42 is a sharp dividing line despite both sides being in the city limits.

The racial makeup of the city in 2016 was 16.6% non-Hispanic white, 7.8% Black or African American, 2.8% Asian (1.2% Cambodian, 0.7% Vietnamese, 0.3% Pakistani, 0.2% Indian, 0.2% Chinese, 0.1% Korean), 0.4% American Indian or Alaskan Native, 0.0% Pacific Islander, 39.3% some other race, 2.7% two or more races, and 77.1% of the population is Hispanic or Latino (of any race) (47.0% Dominican, 21.7% Puerto Rican, 3.0% Guatemalan, 0.7% Salvadoran, 0.7% Spanish, 0.6% Cuban, 0.5% Ecuadorian, 0.5% Mexican, 0.2% Honduran, 0.2% Colombian, 0.1% Venezuelan, 0.1% Nicaraguan, 0.1% Peruvian).

[webny99]

So where on Lake Ontario are the best beaches? I might have to ask the same question for Lake Erie. Gitche Gumee is too cold to swim in but it can be done.

The east shore has some great beaches with ocean-like waves at times. My list for top five overall would be (county name in parentheses):

1. Southwick (Jefferson)
2. Sandy Island (Oswego)
3. Selkirk Shores (Oswego)*
4. Fair Haven (Cayuga)
5. Hamlin (Monroe)

As for a great lakeshore park with no official beach, it's Chimney Bluffs (in Wayne County). The scenery is Utah-esque at points, and with the lake in the background. I wouldn't want to swim there because it's so rocky, but people do and have never been kicked out to my knowledge. As for Lake Erie, the Ontario (Canada) side has some good ones, but in the US it's Presque Isle (in Erie County, PA) hands down.


*Swimming at this one is questionable... been there when it's been open and closed

[kphoger]

As for Lake Erie, the Ontario (Canada) side has some good ones, ...

That's the only place I've swum in Lake Erie, in fact.  Rondeau Provincial Park, Ontario.  I went swimming a couple of times at the regular beach just east of the campground, which seemed like a pretty popular place.  I also briefly skinny-dipped in the lake just east of the visitor's center after dark one night, while the couple I was camping with was taking a stroll down the beach.

[webny99]

I wish New York was a "swim at your own risk" state. Banning it altogether in (most) non-lifeguarded areas is a royal annoyance, even though enforcement can vary wildly.

Wouldn't it be cheaper to pay a lifeguard than someone to enforce a no-swimming rule? Pretty sure lifeguards get paid less than cops.

Whoops, missed this until now...

At a place like Lakeside Beach, I suspect they don't pay either one. With Hamlin Beach (which has 3 official swimming areas) nearby, they figure it's not going to be a big draw regardless, so they stick up some "No Swimming" signs instead.

[Scott5114]

How exactly would someone enforce a no-swimming rule without swimming (and thus breaking the rule) themselves? I doubt they're going to bring a helicopter out and forcibly pull you out of the water...

[kphoger]

How exactly would someone enforce a no-swimming rule without swimming (and thus breaking the rule) themselves? I doubt they're going to bring a helicopter out and forcibly pull you out of the water...

One might assume the swimmer would eventually get out of the water...  I suppose also that, if a police officer directs you to get out of the water, he or she might enjoy waiting around awhile if you refuse.

[webny99]

How exactly would someone enforce a no-swimming rule without swimming (and thus breaking the rule) themselves? I doubt they're going to bring a helicopter out and forcibly pull you out of the water...

One might assume the swimmer would eventually get out of the water...  I suppose also that, if a police officer directs you to get out of the water, he or she might enjoy waiting around awhile if you refuse.

Yeah, when it's "enforced", it's usually a park ranger driving a Ranger or other all-terrain vehicle along the shore and yelling at everyone in the water to get out. There was one year (2017?) where it happened a bunch, but across a half-dozen or so visits this year, there was never so much as a park ranger in sight.

[empirestate]

I mean, who from Rochester never snuck up to Durand beach in the middle of the night and swam? Heck, that beach was never even open for swimming during normal hours...but the water didn't evaporate, and they never came and rolled up the sand, so...you had a beach.

Durand Beach is in Monroe County. I was talking about the fact that there is nowhere to swim on the beach anywhere in Orleans County.

Yes, and yet there remains a beach there. Doesn't matter what county it's in–a beach is still a beach, regardless of whether people may, or actually do, swim from them.

I think his point is merely that those people swimming at Lakeside Beach are no more "rulebreakers" than people who go swimming at Durand Beach outside of swimming hours.

My point is just that it's a beach, even though you may not swim there. This is in answer to the question of what kind of park would be named for a beach, if swimming isn't permitted.

I basically said I couldn't find a beach anywhere in Orleans County not that one doesn't exist. But I still can't see much of the beach at Lakeside Beach State Park.

It is not much of a beach, that's for sure. And that's not out of the ordinary for the Great Lakes; as I mentioned before, big recreational beaches with lots of sand don't really happen on them. (Presque Isle would be a big notable exception.)

But more to the point (which is at risk of becoming belabored) being "much" of anything isn't really a characteristic of a beach in the first place. All you need is sand, pebbles, shells, or some other crumbled-up substance, and an interface with some water.

Well, you have to pay a vehicle fee to get into Lakeside Beach State Park, too.  But, besides that...

Well, only to get your vehicle in. If you can get there some other way, you have the right to free access at all state parks. Doesn't help you much at Lakeside Beach, but the distinction is hugely evident at a place like Niagara Reservation.

Although New York is home to a substantial number of beautiful beaches and waterfront homes, there has been limited litigation regarding the application of the public trust doctrine to beach access. Accordingly, the boundary between the private landowner's rights and the public's rights is unclear. Nevertheless, the extremely modest case law in this area suggests that the private property owner has the sole right to all real estate that is landward of the high water mark, none of which the public may lawfully use, while the public only has the right to access the lands seaward of the mean high water mark. This approach could result in criminal charges against individuals who cross privately owned dry sand beaches to reach the foreshore.

So it would technically, theoretically, supposedly be legal for non-guests to access that beach, so long as they stay below the high water mark.

The Great Lakes don't really have tidal datums like that; although there is some tidal effect, the lake elevation is more a product of earthbound hydrologic forces (rainfall and snowmelt, for example). Some kind of similar doctrine probably applies to the lakes, but the horizontal difference between lake levels is usually pretty negligible.

[Flint1979]

It looks like you are answering for Lake Ontario and Lake Ontario only because Lake Michigan indeed has several beaches and sand dunes all the way along the eastern shore pretty much. You have Warren Dunes State Park, Silver Lake State Park, Holland State Park, Tunnel Park in Holland, Silver Beach in St. Joseph, Van Buren State Park, Oval Beach in Saugatuck, Saugatuck Dunes State Park, Grand Haven State Park, Pere Marquette Park in Muskegon, Muskegon State Park, Duck Lake State Park, Ludington State Park, Mears State Park, Fifth Avenue Beach in Manistee, Orchard Beach State Park, Empire Beach in Empire, Sleeping Bear Sand Dunes and several others that have sandy beaches. I just named 18 beaches on Lake Michigan off the top of my head in this post.

[webny99]

I think his point is merely that those people swimming at Lakeside Beach are no more "rulebreakers" than people who go swimming at Durand Beach outside of swimming hours.

My point is just that it's a beach, even though you may not swim there. This is in answer to the question of what kind of park would be named for a beach, if swimming isn't permitted.

Normally if a park has "beach" in its name, one's expectation would be that you could go swimming there. Since you can't, calling it "Lakeside State Park" would be sufficient.

As for the point about rulebreakers, at Durand Beach it's not swimming hours so much as a swimming area. The only lifegaurded area is at the far western end, and for most people, the hours at which it's lifeguarded are irrelevant, because they're going to avoid that part anyways and just pick a spot further east to enjoy the beach.

Although New York is home to a substantial number of beautiful beaches and waterfront homes, there has been limited litigation regarding the application of the public trust doctrine to beach access. Accordingly, the boundary between the private landowner's rights and the public's rights is unclear. Nevertheless, the extremely modest case law in this area suggests that the private property owner has the sole right to all real estate that is landward of the high water mark, none of which the public may lawfully use, while the public only has the right to access the lands seaward of the mean high water mark. This approach could result in criminal charges against individuals who cross privately owned dry sand beaches to reach the foreshore.

So it would technically, theoretically, supposedly be legal for non-guests to access that beach, so long as they stay below the high water mark.

The Great Lakes don't really have tidal datums like that; although there is some tidal effect, the lake elevation is more a product of earthbound hydrologic forces (rainfall and snowmelt, for example). Some kind of similar doctrine probably applies to the lakes, but the horizontal difference between lake levels is usually pretty negligible.

I was considering how to address that, but you've done so more accurately and sufficiently than I would have. 

[kphoger]

It looks like you are answering for Lake Ontario and Lake Ontario only because Lake Michigan indeed has several beaches and sand dunes all the way along the eastern shore pretty much. You have Warren Dunes State Park, Silver Lake State Park, Holland State Park, Tunnel Park in Holland, Silver Beach in St. Joseph, Van Buren State Park, Oval Beach in Saugatuck, Saugatuck Dunes State Park, Grand Haven State Park, Pere Marquette Park in Muskegon, Muskegon State Park, Duck Lake State Park, Ludington State Park, Mears State Park, Fifth Avenue Beach in Manistee, Orchard Beach State Park, Empire Beach in Empire, Sleeping Bear Sand Dunes and several others that have sandy beaches. I just named 18 beaches on Lake Michigan off the top of my head in this post.

And, unless I missed it somewhere, you left out Indiana Dunes National Park (though I suppose you probably were considering that the southern shore instead of the eastern shore).  Go up to the northern shore, and I've been swimming within the city limits of Manistique.

My point is just that it's a beach, even though you may not swim there. This is in answer to the question of what kind of park would be named for a beach, if swimming isn't permitted.

Normally if a park has "beach" in its name, one's expectation would be that you could go swimming there. Since you can't, calling it "Lakeside State Park" would be sufficient.

Perhaps you should change your expectations to match reality.   

For what it's worth, check out these other no-swimming beaches:
Monastery Beach, California
Hanakāpīʻai Beach, Hawaii
Sylvan Beach, New York (later re-opened)

[webny99]

My point is just that it's a beach, even though you may not swim there. This is in answer to the question of what kind of park would be named for a beach, if swimming isn't permitted.

Normally if a park has "beach" in its name, one's expectation would be that you could go swimming there. Since you can't, calling it "Lakeside State Park" would be sufficient.

Perhaps you should change your expectations to match reality.   

For what it's worth, check out these other no-swimming beaches:
Monastery Beach, California
Hanakāpīʻai Beach, Hawaii
Sylvan Beach, New York (later re-opened)

Those are just named beaches. They aren't parks that have "beach" in their name.
Naming a beach where swimming isn't allowed is one thing. Naming a state park after a beach where swimming isn't allowed is another.

[empirestate]

It looks like you are answering for Lake Ontario and Lake Ontario only because Lake Michigan indeed has several beaches and sand dunes all the way along the eastern shore pretty much.

Not Lake Ontario only, but Ontario is a stronger example of my point than Lake Michigan is because of its east-west orientation. (The same types of beaches can be found at the east end of Ontario as well, but with Ontario that's the short end.)

Of course, this idea isn't limited to the Great Lakes, either; there are many regions along the world's ocean shorelines where large beaches aren't naturally common, either. While we often tend to associate the presence of a large waterbody with that of a beach, it isn't always so.

Normally if a park has "beach" in its name, one's expectation would be that you could go swimming there. Since you can't, calling it "Lakeside State Park" would be sufficient.

Quite right, people do tend to associate beaches with swimming, because they make it very physically conducive to do so (as opposed to, say, a steep fjord or rocky cliffs). However, the presence or absence of a government regulation prohibiting swimming isn't really connoted by the word "beach", just as the after-hours rulebreakers at Durand aren't any less at a beach than those behaving nicely at Hamlin.

So to the point of what kind of park would call itself a beach if you can't swim there, I'd say, well, the kind with a beach. If there's a misleading word in the name, I'd actually go with "park" rather than "beach", since a park suggests that certain recreational resources are being set aside expressly for the use of the public. So, what kind of beach calls itself a park and you can't even swim there?

As for the point about rulebreakers, at Durand Beach it's not swimming hours so much as a swimming area. The only lifegaurded area is at the far western end, and for most people, the hours at which it's lifeguarded are irrelevant, because they're going to avoid that part anyways and just pick a spot further east to enjoy the beach.

My point with Durand is simply that there are rules at all, as there are at Lakeside Beach. If there's an area of the beach where you can't swim, it's still a beach. If there's a time of day when you can't swim, it's still a beach. But in this case, the word "beach" doesn't appear in the name of the park that controls it; however, members of the public would still say things like "hey, let's go hang out on the beach tonight" (at least in our younger years we would).

Those are just named beaches. They aren't parks that have "beach" in their name.
Naming a beach where swimming isn't allowed is one thing. Naming a state park after a beach where swimming isn't allowed is another.

Right. As I say above, the discrepancy to me would be why it's a park, not whether it's a beach. If the existence of a government regulation is the determining factor, then it's the "park" aspect (a creation of the government) rather than the "beach" aspect (a creation of nature) that's in question.

(Not super important, by the way–the amount of discussion so far belies the triviality of the point I'm making. But that happens a lot around here, and is all part of the fun.)

[kphoger]

By the way...  if there does end up being an Orleans County roadmeet...  and I do end up going...  then I'm definitely going to camp at the marina...  just so I can swim at a beach in Orleans County.

I also might swim at the beach in the state park.  Just because.

[webny99]

It looks like you are answering for Lake Ontario and Lake Ontario only because Lake Michigan indeed has several beaches and sand dunes all the way along the eastern shore pretty much.

Not Lake Ontario only, but Ontario is a stronger example of my point than Lake Michigan is because of its east-west orientation. (The same types of beaches can be found at the east end of Ontario as well, but with Ontario that's the short end.)

Indeed, and it's worth pointing out that four of the five quality Lake Ontario beaches I named are on the eastern end of the lake.

My point with Durand is simply that there are rules at all, as there are at Lakeside Beach.

Durand? Rules? Wait... what? 

So to the point of what kind of park would call itself a beach if you can't swim there, I'd say, well, the kind with a beach. If there's a misleading word in the name, I'd actually go with "park" rather than "beach", since a park suggests that certain recreational resources are being set aside expressly for the use of the public. So, what kind of beach calls itself a park and you can't even swim there?
...
Right. As I say above, the discrepancy to me would be why it's a park, not whether it's a beach. If the existence of a government regulation is the determining factor, then it's the "park" aspect (a creation of the government) rather than the "beach" aspect (a creation of nature) that's in question.

I'm not disputing that it is a beach. It's not a very nice one, but it does meet the most basic criteria. As for why it's a park in the first place, that's an excellent question. A place to picnic with views of the lake, I suppose, but a county park would work just fine for that purpose, as it does in Wayne County. The state has essentially done three things here:

(1) created a park on the lakeshore, with a beach
(2) disallowed swimming at said beach
(3) included the word "beach" in the common name of the place

I'm fine with any combination of two of those things, but not all three. (I worded #3 very carefully to ensure I'm OK with #2 and #3 at the exclusion of #1.)

(Not super important, by the way–the amount of discussion so far belies the triviality of the point I'm making. But that happens a lot around here, and is all part of the fun.)

Of course!

[kphoger]

As for why it's a park in the first place, that's an excellent question. A place to picnic with views of the lake, I suppose, but a county park would work just fine for that purpose ...

It seems rather arbitrary to think it's OK for a county park but not a state park.

[webny99]

As for why it's a park in the first place, that's an excellent question. A place to picnic with views of the lake, I suppose, but a county park would work just fine for that purpose ...

It seems rather arbitrary to think it's OK for a county park but not a state park.

State Parks are normally reserved for the major attractions, and in this case, since swimming is disallowed, there's nothing setting this one apart from any generic local, town, or county park (which are usually free). What additional value the state sees there that they decided was worth investing in and charging $7 for, I don't know.

And the county park I referred to is called "B Forman Park" or colloquially "Pultneyville Park"... no mention of a beach.

[kphoger]

Shall I assume you're likewise opposed to the New York state parks below, which also do not allow swimming?

Amsterdam Beach State Park
Bristol Beach State Park
Haverstraw Beach State Park
Nyack Beach State Park

[webny99]

Shall I assume you're likewise opposed to the New York state parks below, which also do not allow swimming?

Amsterdam Beach State Park
Bristol Beach State Park
Haverstraw Beach State Park
Nyack Beach State Park

Bristol Beach is not a State Park, and from what I can tell, all of the other three are free to use, which counters the higher expectations that are normally associated with State Parks.

But with that aside, my overall position is the same as it is for Lakeside Beach:
(a) change the name, (b) allow swimming, and/or (c) make it a county or local park.

Beaver Island State Park illustrates a much better handling of the expectations game: find a better name and still allow swimming.

[empirestate]

Not Lake Ontario only, but Ontario is a stronger example of my point than Lake Michigan is because of its east-west orientation. (The same types of beaches can be found at the east end of Ontario as well, but with Ontario that's the short end.)

Indeed, and it's worth pointing out that four of the five quality Lake Ontario beaches I named are on the eastern end of the lake.

Yes, indeed. It seems to be location-specific; I'm not sure what the exact geological forces are, but I'm assuming a combination of prevailing wind/weather patterns, and the lay of the former ice sheets that created the lakes in the first place.

So, whatever those forces are, they're not really prevalent along the lake's southern shore. That probably explains why Lakeside Beach is relatively unimpressive, and the larger beaches at Hamlin and Charlotte had to be artificially enhanced (by a series of groins at Hamlin, and by the Charlotte Pier at Ontario Beach). Durand is probably an exception; I think the natural bight there favors beach creation more than the adjoining stretches. Another nearby example is Oklahoma Beach, a private beach on the sandbar enclosing Irondequoit Bay. I think that's a natural deposition of material, but the former railroad embankment may have contributed to the prominence of the bar (and the Durand beach, for that matter).

I'm not disputing that it is a beach. It's not a very nice one, but it does meet the most basic criteria.

Yeah, the question about whether it's a beach stems from Flint's comment, not one of yours.

As for why it's a park in the first place, that's an excellent question. A place to picnic with views of the lake, I suppose, but a county park would work just fine for that purpose, as it does in Wayne County. The state has essentially done three things here:

(1) created a park on the lakeshore, with a beach
(2) disallowed swimming at said beach
(3) included the word "beach" in the common name of the place

I'm fine with any combination of two of those things, but not all three. (I worded #3 very carefully to ensure I'm OK with #2 and #3 at the exclusion of #1.)

Sure, I don't wonder at the disappointment or curiosity around why a beach was preserved in a state park if it swimming isn't permitted. I don't know the history behind this particular park, but I'm guessing it was set aside as a combination of a campground and other recreational activities, both passive and active.

I also don't know whether swimming has always been prohibited there. I assume it is now because the beach isn't substantial enough to sustain intensive recreational use, both from an environmental and a public safety standpoint, or maybe just the lack of funding to provide lifeguards.

But the question to me is just one of nomenclature, and whether the term "beach" expressly denotes, or strongly connotes, the permission of swimming. On that subject, I'd note that an inherent characteristic of a beach is a physically accessible waterfront, conducive to exploitation of the water for various purposes (recreational and otherwise). Notably, I don't see any specific prohibition on launching craft from Lakeside Beach, and that's certainly another possible use of a beach. Fishing, as well, is also expressly permitted in the park. So the presence of the beach here does, at least, provide some opportunity to exploit the lakeshore, even if not in every way imaginable.

State Parks are normally reserved for the major attractions, and in this case, since swimming is disallowed, there's nothing setting this one apart from any generic local, town, or county park (which are usually free).

Why this was in the state's interest is, I think, a very fair question. I can say that the way in which an areas falls into the state parks commission's responsibility isn't always as obvious as one might think. (I might just point to Donald J. Trump State Park as an obvious example.) In this case, I would expect a major factor to be the fact that the state had to acquire lands for the parkway anyhow, which was happening around the same time the park was created.

Also, it's worth noting that the only fees charged at Lakeside Beach are for camping, and for vehicle entry. So if you were land a canoe or kayak there–i.e., if you actually utilized the beach for a beach-related recreational purpose–you could get in for free. :-)

[kphoger]

Shall I assume you're likewise opposed to the New York state parks below, which also do not allow swimming?

Amsterdam Beach State Park
Bristol Beach State Park
Haverstraw Beach State Park
Nyack Beach State Park

Bristol Beach is not a State Park

Ah yes, its governing body is actually broader than the state, in that the commission under which it operates was formed by interstate compact between New York and New Jersey.

(Also, you should tell the USGS that it isn't a state park.  What's up with that?)