A number of Hamilton residents who’ve been accessing a Stoney Creek beach for years found out on Thursday they’ve been trespassing all this time.
Anna Czerwonka says she’s been renting a home near Lake Vista Park for close to two years now and had been regularly taking strolls on a nearby beach with her husband and five children during the spring and summer months.
“We don’t use the beach for swimming, we just walk there and walk along the shoreline,” Czerwonka told Global News.
“It was always nice to have that access and just to be able to go there and sit on the rocks and watch the water.”
Czerwonka and a number other of residents normally accessed the beach via a pair of gates that were just northwest of a children’s playground and a gazebo in the park.
The occasional beachgoers became concerned about their waterfront escape when just a few weeks ago, the gates were padlocked and warning signs posted suggesting fines of up to $10,000 for trespassing.
“There was a padlock like that in the wintertime, but it was always removed in the summer,” said Czerwonka.
“I assumed that it was the city removing it for the summer.”
Without any prior notice or explanation, the closure had a number of locals reaching out to Stoney Creek (Ward 10) councillor Maria Pearson with concerns that the nearby park and beach might be sold for private purposes.
Neighbours feared that possibility when they noticed Lake Vista was not listed on the Hamilton public parks directory.
Pearson responded to residents via an e-mail on Thursday and included a statement from manager of parks and cemeteries Kara Bunn revealing that most of the area is owned by the city but is simply not open to the public.
“The city has never opened or condoned public access to the shoreline behind Lake Vista Park,” Bunn said.
“There may have been incidents where the gate has been opened by people trying to access the beach; however, the gates are only intended to be used by staff accessing the area for maintenance and monitoring activities related to the stormwater outfall and shoreline.”
Meanwhile, Pearson confirmed the omission of the area’s listing as a city park and said she would investigate, while reaffirming there is no intent to sell this piece of parkland.
Czerwonka says she’s disappointed that the prohibiting of public access was not properly communicated through signage by the city and that residents are only learning now that they’ve been essentially breaking the law over the last few years.
“You don’t assume if it’s inside a public park that there’s a certain area you’re not allowed to go to unless it’s marked that way, and it wasn’t,” said Czerwonka.
In an e-mail reply to Czerwonka, Pearson said she didn’t disagree that the exclusion of signs was an issue but couldn’t comment further on why since she doesn’t have the history of plans set out along with the city’s water assets.
“I have queried how it could have been construed that this beach was for public access with the stone wall being in place all along the northerly parkland boundary along with the gated storm water outfall,” Pearson replied.
For Czerwonka, affirmation the beach is not for public use is also disheartening since it was one of the reasons she and her husband chose to live in the area.
“It’s like one of the reasons we moved here, ” Czerwonka said.
“That we could walk to the beach and have that access, now it’s gone, and they’re telling us that we never should have had it in the first place.”
Comments