Not In My Pool: pricing the riff-raff out of municipal pools

Municipal pools are important for equity, health (and fun)…

Death by drowning is the number 1 killer of young children, particularly amongst poorer people and racialised minorities, as a New York Times article of July 2023 reminds us. Access to pools and to swimming lessons are thus important, especially for those with fewer means and without their own pools.

In the meantime, in May 2023, Québec advised people to head for municipal pools during heatwaves. These can overwhelm the body’s temperature control mechanisms: access to pools, especially in an era of rising temperatures, is an important contribution to general health.

…so Hampstead’s municipal pool is now a pool for the rich

It is in this context that the municipality of Hampstead (an elite suburb of Montreal) has tripled the cost of using its municipal pool.

In 2022, it cost $4 for a resident child, and $6 for a resident adult to use the pool: expensive enough, but within reach of many (but not all) people.

In 2023, it costs $15 per person: so a resident family of four (two adults, two children) now pays $60 a day rather than $20.

Fees for non-residents are even more exhorbitant.

Hampstead’s pricing approach raises many question

Should municipal services and infrastructure charge any user fees?

Municipalities have historically played an important redistributive and equalizing role by gathering taxes from all residents, then provding basic public leisure and educational facilities (such as librairies, pools, parks…) to all ‘for free’ (i.e. paid for from tax revenue).

It is the pervasive belief that taxes must necessarily be kept low (a belief, backed by rather short-sighted economic orthodoxy, that benefits the wealthy…) that pushes municipalities towards user fees. These are regressive: for example, a $4.00 fee for swimming does not represent the same for a family with a $40 000 income as it does for a family with a $400 000 income.

Economists’ arguments that fees are more efficient beg a key question: how, exactly, is efficiency defined, and for whom?

Should municipal services and infrastructure charge (higher) user fees for non-residents?

This is a different question, since it relates to who the services and infrastructure are primarily provided for. There are stronger – and more equity-based arguments – for municipalities to ask outsiders to pay since non-residents will not have contributed (through their taxes) to building or maintaining the infrastructure.

However, in a metropolitan area this principle shoud be used sparingly: whilst Hampstead may object to its pool being used by non-residents, the far larger city of Montreal may object to non-residents (such as residents of Hampstead) using its municipal road network and parks (for example). In such a tit-for-tat pricing war, Hampsteaders have more to lose from being denied access to Montreal’s parks, roads, and other facilities than Montrealers have to lose by being denied access to Hampstead’s.

Will high prices keep the riff-raff out?

In an interview with The Gazette, one Hampstead resident claims that: “I can understand [Hampstead] want[s] a certain level of person, decorum, et cetera”.

This sentiment supposes that there are ‘levels’ of people (social class is alive and well!), and that somehow people with more money are better behaved than people without.

Boris Johnson? Donald Trump? Mohammed Bin Salman? I rest my case.

Should municipalities run tax-subsidised exclusive clubs?

With the cost of Hampstead’s municipal pool now closer to the cost of a spa, a wider question arises: at what price-point does a municipal service cease to be a service and become a private club?

Hampstead now seems to be running an exclusive (and subsidised) spa for well-off residents, pricing out residents of more modest means and basically excluding non-residents.

How can one ensure good behavor and avoid overcrowding?

Hampstead claims that the fee hike was necessary to avoid overcrowding. This is disingenuous.

A simple way of ensuring there are not too many people is to have turnstyle-counters at entry and exit. When a maximum number of users is reached, then no further users are admitted until some leave.

As for good behavior, in all pools there should be lifeguards and managers to ensure people respect rules, and to turf them out if they don’t behave. Since people from all walks of life misbehave, policing pool regulations will be necessary whatever the income level of bathers.

Indeed, it may be more difficult to turf out entitled wealthy users….

Note: I would like to thank Abby Cole, journalism student at Concordia, for putting me on to this. Her interview forced me to think this through!