Maplewood and South Orange community pools

The website for the Maplewood pool states that both Maplewood and South Orange residents can get membership.  The website for the South Orange pool states that it is only for South Orange members. What's up with that?  The deal only goes one way?  The South Orange Pool website does mention opening dates for 2017, so it doesn't appear to be an issue with them not updating the website. 

The South Orange pool rate is partially covered by a grant, so is substantially less expensive than Maplewood. 

IIRC, last year the SO pool may have allowed some Maplewood members, but they had to pay the more expensive Maplewood rate to join. You may want to call to ask.  (Similarly, IIRC, SO residents had to pay the higher Maplewood rate to join the Maplewood pool).

One difference: The Maplewood pool has a diving team program, which seems to be fairly unique to community pools in general.

The deal goes both ways.  SO residents can join Maplewood's pool and vice versa.  It's limited to a certain number of families per season. Everyone that does it pays the Maplewood rate and the towns split the money.

I wish that they would just set up a reciprocity agreement that would allow each town's pool members to be able to go to the other pool by paying the applicable guest fee (but without requiring them to be a "guest" of a pool member accompanying them.)  

Cameron Field was dedicated in 1914 to be free to the public. It was named for the Rev Lewis Cameron  of Holy Communion Church whose idea it was to have the free park. The town fathers are aware of this.

.

yahooyahoo said:

The deal goes both ways.  SO residents can join Maplewood's pool and vice versa.  It's limited to a certain number of families per season. Everyone that does it pays the Maplewood rate and the towns split the money.

Then it isn't promoted very well.  The Maplewood pool website says it is open to Maplewood AND South Orange residents.  The South Orange pool websites states it is only open to South Orange residents. 

I feel like I got a form home about it from my child's elementary school last year, as our school has both SO and Mplwd students. I heard that the intended 'purpose' for the reciprocity was for kids to be able to go to the same pool as their friends.

sprout said:

I feel like I got a form home about it from my child's elementary school last year, as our school has both SO and Mplwd students. I heard that the intended 'purpose' for the reciprocity was for kids to be able to go to the same pool as their friends.

It forces the families to choose between the two, so that doesn't help kids who have friends at both pools.

sac said:

sprout said:

I feel like I got a form home about it from my child's elementary school last year, as our school has both SO and Mplwd students. I heard that the intended 'purpose' for the reciprocity was for kids to be able to go to the same pool as their friends.

It forces the families to choose between the two, so that doesn't help kids who have friends at both pools.

True. But in the context of Clinton school, it may have meant that the smaller S.O. population there could join the majority at Mplwd pool.

sprout said:

sac said:

sprout said:

I feel like I got a form home about it from my child's elementary school last year, as our school has both SO and Mplwd students. I heard that the intended 'purpose' for the reciprocity was for kids to be able to go to the same pool as their friends.

It forces the families to choose between the two, so that doesn't help kids who have friends at both pools.

True. But in the context of Clinton school, it may have meant that the smaller S.O. population there could join the majority at Mplwd pool.

I just wish they would work harder on a solution that would allow pool members at each town access to the other pool as well.