Lifeguards Cannot Save Souls

[XLFD]

 

Lifeguards saved two teens from drowning at Ludington’s Stearns Park Sunday and also helped a young girl who got in too deep Friday afternoon. 

 

Three lifeguards — Spencer Lindbloom, Cassie Sarto and Ryan Russell — were on duty at the time and Ludington Mayor John Henderson said "Sarto brought in one of the boys while Lindbloom brought both the other boy and a local man who was trying to help in to shore."

 

“This is why we have lifeguards at the beach, to provide life-rescuing service,” Henderson added. “I think it is one of the most important programs we have, with six blocks of Lake Michigan beach, it needs to be protected by lifeguards.”

 

The local man who attempted to help during the rescue is a first responder who was at the beach Sunday with his family when he saw the lifeguards sprint into the water with their rescue tubes. “The man had trouble and needed Lindbloom’s help to get back to shore”, Henderson said.

 

“He said those kids (lifeguards) are in great shape and he had trouble in the water,” Henderson said. “He said Spencer (Lindbloom) was strong enough to pull both (the man and the teen) back in.”  Henderson said “two lifeguards — Dylan Lindbloom and Blake Reimer — helped a girl after she got out in deep water at 4:35 p.m. Friday”.  (Ludington Daily News, 6-29-09)

 

We didn't always have these young heroes patrolling our shore.  Mayor Henderson made reinstating the lifeguards at Stearn Park a cornerstone of his campaign back in 2001, and he was able to get a lifeguard crew and equipment together the summer after his election.  He pointed to it as the main highlight of his first year (LDN, 12-30-02).

 

After barely surviving the city budget ax in 2003 (LDN, 11-25-03), the City Manager saved $27,000 by eliminating lifeguards in 2004.  His reason was that his liability insurance provider said it would be worse for the city financially if someone drowned in the presence of lifeguards than if the city did not provide that service, an argument often quoted (LDN, 12-7-04).  Mayor Henderson remained publicly quiet on the topic.

 

After a two year absence, and during better economic times, lifeguards came back in 2007 and remained until this year, despite continued opposition by Councilor Paul S. Peterson who claimed they were unnecessary, that there is something wrong when Ludington is the only community on the shore of Lake Michigan that has lifeguards, and that the money could be better spent elsewhere (LDN, 11-28-06 and 11-30-07). 

 

Four months into 2008, a woman publicly thanked the lifeguard Derek Karl for saving the lives of her son and other teens caught in a rip current at Stearn’s beach in 2007 during a city council meeting(no comment from Paul S. Peterson) (LDN, 4-15-08).  This catches us up to this last year’s heroics in June that saved the two boys and a girl that started this thread.

A little over two months later (8-31-09) the city council met in a special session to approve a new project costing $826,440 of public monies.  A new 1,000-foot dock along the north wall of the city marina giving boaters more of an opportunity to visit Ludington. Boaters wouldl be able to tie up to the dock during the day, walk downtown, then choose to get a slip for the night or head back out again.

 

“The goal is to bring more boaters downtown,” said Ludington Mayor John Henderson, who said he had the idea for the project after visiting Pentwater by boat for an evening.  He made a drawing on a napkin and that started the project in motion. That was three years ago (LDN, 9-1-09)

 

Three years ago coincided with when the City Marina started losing money due to fewer boats and less people boating (LDN 4-17-09).  Sounds like they already have more boat slips than what they need during these times.  This ‘improvement’ does not help Ludington citizens or our tourists except for allowing the affluent among them to park their boat along Loomis St. to maybe save less than a blocks worth of walk to the downtown area.  

 

Nearly three months later, the budget for 2010 called for cutting five full-time city positions, not hiring lifeguards and other seasonal employees, freezing salaries for two years and raising rates for several city fees.  This was passed two weeks later, with no public comment from Mayor Henderson either time about the lifeguards. 

 

He had no accolades for the heroic lifeguards who saved three children and one man just 5 months prior.  No quotes about how necessary and important these lifeguards were.  No appreciation for all the times the lifeguards had helped with a variety of summertime city projects, such as helping at Friday Night Lives or painting fire hydrants.  He just sat in his chair and listened as five full-time city employees and seven lifeguards were given their pink slips while perhaps thinking to himself what a fine legacy his transient docks would be.

 

Assuming the average cost of lifeguards over the last three years remained constant, the money involved with Mayor Henderson's brilliant idea to expand the city marina could have funded the lifeguard program in Ludington for 33 years ($826,000/$25,000).  Seven summer jobs for 33 years with who knows how many lives being saved or a few currently-unneeded transient boat slips?  Is this really the choice they made?

 

[AQUAMAN]

Not much in the LDN archives. A total of 8 articles, none but one gave much info.. Even that one centered on a saved boy's mother's comments for thanks. Another in Manistee stated they discontinued LG even after 2 drownings last year, and applauded our CC for having them here. Any other ideas?

[XLFD]

I did enjoy the reader's comment posted by "ED" on 4-15-2008 that said:

"Why aren't the Lifeguards at the beach a permanent and necessary oridinance/dept. of the City yet? As we can see from this article, City Lifeguards at the Stearns Beach is a necessity, not an option. They saved a life last summer. Even if they only saved one life in 50 years, can the City of Lud. ignore the common sense, safety, and liability issues here any longer. It narrowly passed again by a 4-3 margin, when it should be unanimous. And at such a low cost to taxpayers. Like we should put a price on human life? Come on Lud. City Officials, put this to a vote with the public for permanent Lifeguard Stations for Ludington. It is good for everyone and sends a message that our City cares about safety for all, now and far into the future, irregardless of costs. This is just a no-brainer to us locals, and I suspect the tourists too. Just ask that woman whose son's life was saved to testify for a minute. Hello? Are you commissioners awake and listening?"

If our city leaders put the lifeguard program as a mandatory budget item, Ludington tourism brochures could proudly boast this fact and the fact that Ludington offers the only lifeguard program up and down the coast of Lake Michigan.

Simple economics-- offer something that people want, but others don't have and you will do well in business. And those tourists who come here because they have heard of the fine lifeguard program may just be ones who want to start a business in a community that cares for the welfare of its citizens and visitors...

[Dave]

Hard to argue with that logic :-)

[AQUAMAN]

Never ceases to amaze me how our politicians think. Everytime they finally come up with something that actually works and makes sense, they find a way to cancel it somewhere down the road. But, if it's something that can't and doesn't work, has no chance to work, now or in the future, they'll continue that program in the farcicle hopes that it will in the future for eternity. No normal thinking businessman would ever do such a lame thing. Why pour moneys into failed programs. The Lifeguard program is never a failure. As Ed said above, it's a no-brainer and should be a permanent part of the budget, not voted on every year cause noone drowned. Disgusting.

[Willy]

Could it be that if lifeguards are on duty and they fail to rescue a drowning victim that the City would be held responsible? Maybe that is why we see no lifeguards anymore.

[XLFD]

This is one of the foremost arguments (beyond the economic) used by those who argue against lifeguards. If someone does drown in the presence of lifeguards there is the possibility that the city may be judged liable, more liable than if the lifeguards were not there.

Using the same reason, maybe we should de-fund the area fire departments also. So many more liability issues come with them, you know.

[Willy]

I understand, however swimming is a voluntary pursuit and any risk involved is assumed to be the responsibility of the swimmer.

[AQUAMAN]

Good point RJE, there are signs of "swim at your own risk" posted on many beaches and pools wherever you go. I don't see them in Lud., but I would assume they are already on order by the City to start posting around Memorial weekend now. Part of Brent Scott's argument against them budgetwise was the LPD was costing taxpayers upwards of $1Million/annually now in the current budget. They also recently purchased a long-ladder fire truck costing upwards of over $900K. They are already committed to making huge sacrifices for safety now, why then be skimpy on this petty cash item??? It should also be noted our particular area of Lake Michigan has a long history of being a haven for lost ships/wrecks, due to the bottom structure and storms associated with our area. Undertoes, high winds and waves, squawls, and sudden intense thunderstorms are commonplace during our summers. This alone puts us in a more dangerous zone than many other ports on Lk. Mich., and deserves the extra measure of safety that we can easily provide to the tourists and citizenry.

[AQUAMAN]

Tried to call Kaye Holman on this today, her line is disconnected. Similar to Gary Castonia, he won't answer all day. Finally got ahold of Paul Peterson, he just continues to rant how the city is broke basically, and cannot fund the Lifeguards anymore, permanently pretty much. As for public support, a petition, even funding the Lifeguards with donations and a partial grant or some city funds, his opinion is no, it just won't fly now. When mentioning the city has $900K in the general fund over the budget, he says that can only be tapped for an emergency. As for the saved lives last year, he didn't remember that. He did mention that they feel the lack of Lifeguards will decrease city liability in the case of a drowning. And having them increases that liability. Also, he mentioned we are the only port on the lake to have them, noone else does, so why should we. Oh yeah, no answer or return call from Greg Dykstra either. John Henderson's phone is no longer listed in my phone book, so he's playing games too. So, basically, they all want to bury the issue, and keep the status quo of no, we don't got no money no more. Funny, about a year ago the question of no money was nowhere to be found in their vocabulary. Now, that's ALL they talk. They must have finally turned on the news and got it now.

[XLFD]

Peterson's dialog sounds just like he does on the city council meeting minutes. Greg Dykstra served his twelve year term, and is now retired, replaced by former LEO Wally Taranko. Newbie Wanda Marrison (replacing twelve year veteran Dave Weston) is the best bet to actually find someone with a spark of decency and humanity in them. Thanks for doing some agitating Aq, I hate to be the only "fly in the ointment"!
City Council 2010 Minus PSP.jpg

[XLFD]

RJE,
Personally, I almost always do my swimming out between the first curve and state park because I like swimming amongst the bigger waves found traditionally in that area, with the family or without. Therefore, I assume the risk for me and mine. Many older kids head down to Stearn's beach during the summer months perhaps with their friends, and without parents. If I were the parent, I would feel a lot safer knowing there were lifeguards around.

For a little over $20,000 in wages, you can give seven kids one of the coolest summer jobs around, the thrill of helping/saving others, and something interesting to put on their resume. Sounds a lot better than spending $840,000 on a few unneeded transient slips for boats at the municipal marina.

[XLFD]

Very good point, John.