Beacon Citizen Network (BCN): a place for neighbors to get the word out, be heard and stay informed in all matters concerning Beacon, NY.




Beacon Beach

To discuss and try to implement the construction of an artificial beach along the Beacon waterfront, extending from the Long Dock park shoreline south toward Dennings Point. (see larger photo through website link)

Location: Beacon
Members: 8
Latest Activity: Apr 14, 2012


This group does not have any discussions yet.

Comment Wall


You need to be a member of Beacon Beach to add comments!

Comment by Steve Knowles on January 6, 2011 at 1:26pm
One of the photos on the Long Dock site shows that the "Red Barn" building used to be used for the manufacture of "Hammond's Slug Shot", a rotenone-based insecticide/piscicide (fish killer)(and somewhat ironically, this area of Beacon was apparently once called "Fishkill on Hudson").  Rotenone is now approved for organic pest control, since it is naturally produced by plants (natives in some countries use it to harvest fish)
Comment by Philomena on January 6, 2011 at 12:17pm

Yes, water chestnuts are nasty, nasty things - Wappingers has tried (not sure if they still do) the mechanical methods for cutting the plants in one of the ponds in the area used for fishing and boating - it was expensive and not sure if it was effective long term.


btw, this pic shows the long-term plans for Long Dock :

Looks like the section "9" is supposed to be for day boat launches, and "3" is also for water access.


Also - pretty sure this one shows that the land you are talking about is part of the project :

Comment by Steve Knowles on January 6, 2011 at 11:41am
Thank you for the water chestnut link!  Perhaps slight burial kills the seeds, and constructing a beach would eliminate that problem from part of the nearshore area.  I remember the Long Dock project, at least back when it was first discussed, included small boat launching as part of the plan, and I thought the project map included the shoreline south of the Long Dock peninsula as where the small boat launching would occur, so the water chestnut problem would seemingly have been considered.  Perhaps a small swatch could be cleared for boat launching, and a beach would still be a beach (and the water chestnuts would prevent swimming)
Comment by Philomena on January 5, 2011 at 5:26pm

water chestnuts are incredibly invasive and notoriously difficult to control once established. The little bay area between Dennings Point and the railroad tracks is usually a solid mat by mid-summer. Here's some info on them :

Comment by Steve Knowles on January 5, 2011 at 5:19pm

I'm with you Jonathan!  Will we ever get back to people being responsible for their own actions? (the attorneys have really ruined things, across the board!)  At what point are people who knowingly do something that is considered a risk to their life or health prevented from trying to sue someone else for their own action?  If a sign says no swimming, and someone swims, and drowns, can their heirs really sue because the person wasn't fenced out of the area?  (I guess that actually is the case, since I believe natural swimming holes have to be fenced in to prevent people from swimming there, and then suing if they drown; it really is madness!)(what if they use a helicopter to get over the fence, can they still sue?; see what happens when common sense is taken out of the law)


I don't know the biology of the water chestnuts.  Perhaps if they are killed at the root, they don't take over an area so easily?  Perhaps a biologist can provide a quick overview of those nasty things (when I moved to Beacon, I thought some kind of alien plants were growing in the Hudson; those wicked seed pods look like something from outer space!)


I can work up a reasonable cost of constructing an artificial beach (but in NY, there is the reasonable cost, and there is the cost that contractors and politicians agree on that exceed the reasonable cost by 10x!(walkway over the Hudson is a prime example)  There is almost free sand available from NY Harbor dredging project, but it won't be available too much longer (the cost would be to transport it up the Hudson; each scow holds about 5,000 cubic yards of sand)

Comment by Jonathan on January 5, 2011 at 2:29pm

I like the idea, alot.

But...  the water chestnut takes over the whole bay and makes any wading, swimming, windsurfing, boating, etc... impossibble for the majority of the summer.

The only solution for this would be for the city to buy a mechanical weed harvester and run it on a periodic basis.  Our city is strapped, so thi swill never happen.

There are too many laws, rules and regulations in this country.  I dont want someone telling me its illegal to swim/windsurf/paddle when I want to in the Hudson River.  If you cant swim, dont go in the water.  If you cant follow this simple rule then let Darwin do his magic to you...


One option to maybe make this happen is to charge a use fee for the beach.  Cornwall has that nice park down by the river, and people have to pay for a permit.  Its cheaper for residents, but all others have to pay more. 


Comment by Philomena on January 5, 2011 at 1:18pm

This article here states there is a lifeguard at the Riverpool :


Here's some info about the Riverpool itself :


If you think this project is important enough, like Fred Schaeffer did the walkway, then go for. Talk to Scenic Hudson about the plans they may already have for the property, get some real numbers as opposed to guesses, and then go for it. One thing though - "No Swimming" signs will be a magnet for kids to go swimming at night, so that all has to be taken into consideration as well - how much will the liability cost ?

Comment by Steve Knowles on January 5, 2011 at 12:27pm

As to the cost of constructing an artificial beach.  I'm pretty sure the profile (slope of the shoreline) is very low along the area depicted in the photo, which means the volume of sand necessary to construct a beach is very low.  I would propose posting "NO SWIMMING" signs, limiting the use of the beach to tanning, playing frisbee, volleyball, wading, boat launching, sand castle building, etc. (but if someone swims, then they would be breaking the law and risking their own life  (wink, wink) )


If 36 million dollars could be "raised" to construct the Walkway over the Hudson (which should have cost no more than a few million dollars), then I'm sure the paltry sum required to build this beach could be obtained somewhere.

Comment by Steve Knowles on January 5, 2011 at 12:22pm
I apologize for my less than enthusiastic support of the Riverpool!  I grew up in Florida, near a Gulf beach, and also swam in the estuary near my house, as well as the river far upstream of the estuary.  The idea of having to stay inside a ring because it's too dangerous to go outside just doesn't appeal to me.  (having to stay inside a marked off area to swim at Sandy Hook seashore, because it's the only place with a lifeguard, REALLY burns me!)  I believe if someone wants to swim in the Hudson, they should just swim in the Hudson.  I paddled my surfboard around in it a few years ago, and am still alive.  I guess the attraction of the riverpool is that it's cheaper than a swmimming pool, in terms of a public place to swim where there is a lifeguard?   
Comment by Hollis Bogdanffy-Kriegh on January 5, 2011 at 10:10am
BTW, I am grateful for this discussion actually because it is an opportunity to share information about what is presently happening with the riverfront. So, thank you Steve, Vane and Philomena for all of your information. I just looked at the Riverpool website again (I hadn't looked at it since last summer) and was happy to read the information there, particularly the "How to help" page. I am wondering if it might be useful for Riverpool to have a group presence on Beacon Citizen so people like me might follow it more regularly. PS: I just "liked" Riverpool on Facebook in order to follow it more closely. Thank you all again.

Members (8)


© 2020   Created by Kelly Kingman.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service