Getting your Evanston news from Facebook? Try the Evanston RoundTable’s free daily and weekend email newsletters – sign up now!

Legalized Restrictions

In 1920, Evanston City officials paid $6,000 a year to advertising specialist Charles Ward “to extol the advantages of the summer suburb as a summer resort.” [1] The campaign was a success.

As a result, in July 1921, City Council members declared that Evanston’s “hometown folks” were being “crowded out of their own parks, beaches and amusement places.” [2] Many in Evanston sounded an alarm: the City’s beaches were undergoing a “ruthless invasion” by Chicagoans. Reports of tens of thousands of people coming to Evanston to take a dip in the lake alarmed many residents, City Council members and the mayor. The terms “invaders,” “undesirables” and even “hoodlums” were widely used to describe these interlopers and there was no question: they were not welcome on Evanston’s beaches. [3]

“Chicago’s unwashed” are trying “to crowd us off our Lake beaches,” warned one Evanston official. [4] Also noted were the “invaders’” general “trashing” of the beaches and generally “unpleasant” behavior. Many Evanston residents who lived near the beaches were outraged to see the congestion brought by the “invaders.” Cars were reportedly “parked on sideways, parkways, and on private lawns,” as a local paper reported. “In some places cars were parked five deep with no chance of them getting disentangled until the outside cars were moved first.” [5] Evanston City Council member A. J. Smith stoked the hysteria when he claimed that not only were “Chicago hoodlums” monopolizing Evanston bathing beaches but they were occasionally “even throwing people in the lake.” [6]

Police Chief William Freeman pledged to double down on patrolling the beaches. If he “is able to tell a respected Evanston citizen from a ‘Chicago hoodlum’ in a bathing suit,” the press noted of Freeman, “he will keep the Chicagoans off Evanston bathing beaches.” [7]

Now Evanston City officials took their first legal action to restrict the City’s beaches. In July 1921, Evanston Mayor Harry Pearsons ordered the police to enforce “a new ordinance prohibiting automobiles without the Evanston license from parking near the beaches, parks and on downtown streets.” [8] And thus, Evanston became the first North Shore community to restrict access to its beaches by “forbidding motorists with Chicago license tags from parking in the vicinity of the beach.” [9]

As a result of the new restriction, Evanston now began a battle with Chicago, to some degree, that would continue for years. It was pointed out that while it was perfectly acceptable for Evanston residents to go south and enjoy all the recreational activities Chicago had to offer, the reverse seemed not to be the case. In fact, Evanston was charged with looking down on the “Chicago riff raff” in its undemocratic effort to keep out “undesirables.” “There is a suspicion among some people,” one newspaper observed, “that Evanston . . . is becoming somewhat snooty.” [10]

The story of Evanston’s battle to limit beach access reached both coasts and everywhere in between. Los Angeles Times, July 8, 1930.

“ ‘There’ muttered the North Shore with tight lips,” one reporter wrote after Evanston’s parking restriction went into effect, “ ‘We’ve raked up their banana peels, their watermelon rinds, their debris littered paper plates. We’ve made a bonfire of their crumpled papers. We’ve straightened up the torn and twisted flowers and bushes. It looks like Arcady again.” [11]

Other North Shore towns soon followed suit. Through imposing similar restrictions, Kenilworth, Winnetka, Glencoe, Highland Park and Lake Forest now also refused to allow out of towners to “tarry in their sanctified atmospheres.” [12]

But Evanston’s new restriction proved not enough to keep all “invaders” from the City’s beaches.

Clark Street beach, 1930. (Photo from Evanston History Center Archives)

By 1922, an estimated 650 to 1,800 people were visiting Evanston beaches on a daily basis. Calvary and Main Street beaches were the most popular, with Clark Street beach coming in third. [13] Use of the beaches increased steadily, and by 1929, Evanston broke all records, with an estimated 650,000 people said to have visited the beaches that season. On one particularly hot day, an estimated 122,000 bathers were at the beaches, which was twice the City’s population. [14] Meanwhile, Chicago’s beaches saw a decrease in attendance. [15]

To the north of Evanston, some towns were able to control access to the beaches more readily. In Wilmette and Kenilworth, for instance, City officials now easily “ruled out” any “undesired” visitors by erecting bathhouse entrances to their beaches. But, as was noted in the press, Evanston, “with its string of open beaches,” was “hard pressed as usual for excuses to keep out the outsiders.” [16]

In July 1931 members of the Evanston City Council found a way to control access. But it would take some time to work out the details of the new plan. First, City Council members passed an ordinance requiring nonresidents to pay a $1 fee to use the City’s beaches. Also passed was a more restrictive parking measure for streets near the City’s beaches. A week later, on July 8, 1931, City officials and City Council members met in a closed door special session to discuss a new ordinance allowing the City to “regulate the City’s bathing beaches.” [17]

That night, by a vote of 12 to 1, the new ordinance was passed.

As a result of the new ordinance, City officials now planned to “restrict” two of the City’s beaches by erecting fences around them and charging admission to everyone, both Evanston residents and non-residents alike. [18] The ordinance also reiterated the requirement that bathing suits “must meet the requirements of common decency” and that no one would be permitted “to change clothing in cars or behind improvised screens under penalty of arrest.” [19]

City Council member Sherman told the Evanston News-Index why he cast the sole dissenting vote against the ordinance. He understood that “the only justification for such an ordinance was to keep out undesirable elements” and he did not feel that the ordinance went far enough to achieve that goal. [20]

“The ordinance is nondiscriminatory in its wording,” reported the Evanston News-Index, “but provides that two beaches controlled by the City shall be fenced and an admission fee charged.” [21] Evanston Mayor Charles Bartlett fully backed the new ordinance, reiterating that it “was not adopted for the purposes of keeping out persons who wish to use the bathing beaches, but it was intended to give the City the power to regulate conditions.” [22] 

While initially City Council members agreed to restrict only two beaches, that number soon doubled: The ordinance ordered fences to be erected around four of the City’s seven municipal beaches. These four now became “closed” or “restricted” beaches. Each would not only be physically enclosed, but also guarded at the entrances.

Now, anyone who wished “to bathe in privacy at four closed beaches in Evanston” was required to go to Evanston’s City Hall and purchase a season ticket or buy a daily ticket (50 cents per “dip,” per person). A season ticket cost $1 per family. Tickets for children under the age of 14 were 25 cents. [23] “Anyone attempting to use the restricted beaches without paying the customary fee,” the City ordered, “will be subject to arrest and a fine of not less than $1 or more than $50.” [24]

Immediately, construction crews began building the fences. [25]

Chicago Tribune, July 12, 1931. The City of Evanston spent a reported $1,300 to fence the four beaches and in the first month of beach restrictions, it took in $2,500 in revenue through the sale of beach tokens. A decade later, the City reported taking in $11,300 in a single season’s beach token sales. [26]

The ordinance was explained to the public as “a means of regulating the beaches so as to avoid a repetition of the extreme congestion which occurred some weeks ago.” [27] Also noted was the assertion that “many bathers abused the privileges of public property use. The parkways were strewn with debris. There were many complaints of unnecessary exposure.” [28]

The morning that beach tokens went on sale, three hundred people jammed into City Hall and the clerks were overrun. The supply of tickets was quickly exhausted and many were told to return the next week. [29]

The 1931 beach token (upper left) was the first beach token issued by the City. Officials instructed residents that they could easily wear the tokens by hanging them around their necks or attaching them to their beach garb. Around the same time, Northwestern University also began to require beach tokens for those who wished to gain access to the university’s private beaches. [30] (Evanston Beach Tokens and Passes, Collection of the Evanston History Center)

At the same time the beach ordinance was passed, the City Council also acted on a petition received by over 500 Evanston residents who demanded that parking near the beaches be more strictly regulated. The City Council complied.

As the new beach restrictions went into effect, new 15-minute parking restrictions were imposed within a “restricted area” that “extended from South Blvd north to University Place from the lake to Judson Avenue including all intersecting streets” on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays throughout the beach season. All cars, both those owned by residents and visitors alike, were subject to the parking restriction. [31] Evanston police were “instructed to watch for overtime parking” and all violators “will be given a ticket to appear in police court. Warrants will be issued for anyone failing to respond to the ticket summons.”[32]

On July 19, 1931, the beach fee system went into effect.

Evanston’s Three Free Beaches, 1931:

Calvary, Greenwood and Clark Street

Evanston’s Four Restricted Beaches, 1931:

 South Boulevard, Lee Street, Main Street and Lincoln Street

Soon, the reports were in: Each of the free beaches saw a rise in attendance. Clark Street beach saw the sharpest jump, with an increase of 4,000 visitors in one day. Closed beaches saw a decline. The most notable decline was seen at Lee Street beach, which counted 16,000 visitors prior to the restriction going into effect and then plummeted to 6,000.[33] Overall, a two-third decline in attendance was noted at the restricted beaches. [34] Over time, it was observed, the fee system caused beachgoing “congestion to shift” to the City’s free beaches, leaving the restricted beaches far less crowded. [35]

Closed beach, Lincoln Street beach, Evanston, 1932. In the 1940s, Northwestern University issued a reminder that the Lincoln Street beach was university property, but Evanston had been permitted to operate the beach for public use. (Photo from Evanston History Center Archives)

After the restrictions went into effect, Evanston police continued to patrol all the beaches. On a single day in July, seven men were arrested on one of the City’s free beaches, Calvary beach. The men had dropped the “straps of their suits to the waist” and proceeded to bask in the sun “in full view of other hundreds of users of the beach.” Brought before Evanston’s police magistrate and charged with indecent exposure, each plead not guilty. They explained that they had “supposed they were on a Chicago beach where police are not concerned with such ‘trivialities’ of the question of public modesty.” Their defense did not sit well with the magistrate, who ordered each of the men to pay a $5 fine as an example to “others who take the attitude that Evanston police vigilance existed only on paper.” [37] 

Parking restrictions near the City’s beaches provided an opportunity for Evanston’s taxi fleets to promote their services. Advertisement, Evanston News-Index, July 20, 1932.

Opposition

After the fences went up, most of the Evanston City Council members, along with the Mayor, congratulated themselves for arriving at a solution to regulate the City’s beaches, stating that the ordinance allowing the City to charge admission to the four closed beaches “makes no discrimination against nonresidents.” [38] And in fact, the access fees were the same regardless of where one lived.

But the reality of these restrictions told a different story.

Just after the announcement was made that four of the City’s beaches would be restricted, somebody dumped a large amount of oil in the water off the newly restricted Lee Street beach. “Many believed it to be retaliation for the charges and fences,” an observer noted. [39] 

Many others were outraged by the restrictions and a few spoke out.

When the City Council members first presented the idea of charging a beach fee to non-residents, John Henry Wigmore (1863-1943), an Evanston resident and former dean of the law school at Northwestern University, made his opposition known. In an open letter published in the Evanston News-Index and other papers, Wigmore, who lived near the lakefront at 207 Lake St., challenged the City Council’s publicly stated reasons for imposing beach restrictions.

As far as attempting to curb “disorderly conduct” on the beaches, Wigmore wrote: “Nothing of the kind takes place. My residence directly overlooks the lakefront park. On the last two hot Sundays and Saturdays several thousands of happy families have come there. A more orderly, well behaved gathering we have never seen. Not a squabble, not a yell or scream, not a shout, no coarse language. It might have been a Sunday school picnic.” [40]

As to whether out of towners were “crowding out Evanstonians” from the beaches, Wigmore asserted: “There was room for plenty more people if they had wanted to come. Parking cars in the side streets? Yes, they did park cars along my house front, and doubtless all the other side streets and house fronts for several hours, but what of it? Whose street is it? Not the abutters. It is a public highway. Dozens of Evanston streets are filled every day and night with cars parked in front of other persons’ premises.” [41]  

Wigmore concluded by questioning the “attitude” of City officials. “Just because an Evanston citizen owns or leases a piece of land,” he stated, “does not entitle him morally to crowd out of Evanston public parkland and beaches any person who happens not to live in Evanston.” [42]

Others pointed out that the City’s free beaches shared a common trait: they were all fairly “removed from private residential districts.” [43] As such, visitors to those beaches were less likely to bother residents near the lakefront who lived in expensive homes. Additionally, the free beaches, it was noted, were either impossible to fence or of lesser quality. According to one Black Evanston resident, the free beaches were “full of stones, glass, and refuse, and the worst one of them all is set aside for the Negroes to use. This Jim-Crow beach is totally unfit for use,” he asserted. [44]

Edwin B. Jourdain, Jr. (1900-1986) pictured in 1932. In April 1931, Jourdain was elected to the Evanston City Council as alderman for the City’s Fifth Ward. He was Evanston’s first Black City Council member. In early 1932, however, he was dramatically unseated from office, charged by his opponent with (unsubstantiated) election “irregularities.” In April 1932, Jourdain ran again, won again, and took his seat, serving on the council until 1947.

One of the leading voices against segregation in Evanston was City Council member Edwin B. Jourdain, Jr. In a letter to his friend, W.E.B. DuBois, co-founder of the N.A.A.C.P., Jourdain wrote of his outrage at the City’s history of forcing Black people “to sit in balconies only of movie houses [and] to use only a ‘colored bathing beach’ on the lake-front,” among other practices. [45] But just four years into office, Jourdain had made numerous advances in his fight against segregation in Evanston. By 1935, he defeated a rule prohibiting “mixed” baseball games on City-owned diamonds, secured the abolition of discrimination in “the seating of movie patrons,” changed the hiring examination system in relation to hiring Black lifeguards and secured “a ruling by the Mayor before the City Council against segregated bathing beaches in Evanston.” [46]

Despite the beach ruling, however, the system of requiring the purchase of tokens to access closed beaches continued. And it was precisely this system that appears to have provided City officials with a means to continue to control access without codifying any further restrictions. According to a 2018 interview conducted by Shorefront Legacy Center with Spencer Jourdain, the youngest son of Council member Jourdain, the continued use of the beach token system offered a “workaround that did not require written policies.” Spencer Jourdain explained that the beach token system allowed City officials “to screen Black residents and block them from purchasing the tokens . . . The exclusion was maintained by the use of tokens to help maintain the ‘beautification’ of some of the beaches, and to keep Blacks – and other ‘undesirables’ out.” [47]

Challenges

On July 17, 1936, Northwestern University student William Yancy Bell, Jr. purchased a beach token for admission to a Northwestern University bathing beach. According to The Crisis ​magazine, when Bell “presented himself for admission, he was told he could not enter because he was colored.” [48] Bell insisted on his right to enter and was told by the beach guard that “he would be thrown out if he tried to enter.” [49] Bell stood his ground while the guards ordered “all of the people on the beach, including Bell, to withdraw from the enclosed beach and then the captain of the lifeguards stood at the entrance and let every white bather return and then barred Bell from entering under ‘pain of physical ejection.’ ” [50]

William Yancy Bell, Jr. (c. 1914 -1967) graduated from Northwestern University with honors, with a BA degree in classics. Bell took part in numerous efforts to fight segregation and discrimination at Northwestern University and in the City of Evanston.

A few months later, Bell was represented by Irvin C. Mollison of the N.A.A.C.P in a lawsuit against Northwestern for $5,000 in damages for denying Bell access to the university’s bathing beach. The lawsuit charged the university with violating Bell’s civil rights. University officials responded that the 1885 Civil Rights Act of Illinois was not applicable in this case since Northwestern was a “charitable” institution and, as such, exempt from the law. [51] University lawyers reportedly “sought to evade a trial on the merits of the case, knowing that the testimony will disclose that the denial of Bell the use of the beach after he had paid for it can be explained only on the grounds that Bell was colored.” [52] The judge in the case denied a motion to dismiss the case. [53]

Like the City of Evanston, Northwestern University had restrictions and rules governing the use of its beaches. But nowhere did the university state that its beaches were accessible only to white students, faculty and staff. But just as with the City of Evanston, Northwestern enforced segregation by practice and behavior, not by policy.

In 1942, A.L. Foster, executive director of the Chicago Urban League and a resident of Glencoe, won a permanent injunction restraining Glencoe officials from denying beach use to Black residents. [54] The case was brought by Foster himself after he and his family members had been denied access to the beach. Foster expressed his hope that his victory in winning the injunction would cause Black residents “in other north shore villages to insist upon the right to use the beaches.” “It is my understanding,” Foster observed, “that Negroes are discriminated against in the use of beaches in Evanston, Kenilworth, Wilmette and Winnetka as well as those beaches in villages farther north.” [55]

In the years after passage of the ordinance allowing Evanston officials to regulate the beaches, however, restrictions would only intensify. And, gradually, even Evanston’s free beaches would become restricted. By 1945, only two of the City’s beaches were free. [56] By 1948, Evanston was charging admission to six of the City’s seven beaches. The only free beach was the “Davis-Lake” beach, which had historically been labelled the “colored beach.” [57] By 1956, there were no free beaches in Evanston, although Evanston’s Recreation Board allowed those in need of financial assistance to present their cases to the board.

In 1968, the north office of Cook County Legal Assistance took notice and announced it was legally challenging admission rates to public bathing beaches in Evanston and other north shore communities including Wilmette, Kenilworth, Winnetka, Glencoe, Highland Park, Lake Forest and Lake Bluff. 

“Legally the use and benefit of Lake Michigan should be open to all State residents without distinction,” said Leo Holt, lead attorney. Holt also challenged the establishment of a “free token system” for low-income residents. “The free token system fails to reach great numbers of low-income residents who have no established contact with one of the referring agencies,” he said. [58]

Leo Ellwood Holt brought the lawsuit against Evanston and other north shore cities and towns. As a young criminal defense lawyer, Holt represented numerous civil rights activists. In 1966, Holt represented Martin Luther King Jr. during the open housing marches in Chicago. [59] In 1986, Holt was elected Cook County Circuit Court judge. Chicago Tribune, September 15, 1968.

Evanston prevailed in defending the practice of restricting beach access. And, as readers may know, the practice continues to be discussed and debated. Most recently, in 2021, (almost 90 years to the day after the passage of the City’s first beach restriction ordinance) the Evanston City Council addressed the issue of beach access. While a proposal to allow entirely free beach access was not adopted, by a majority vote, the Council voted to allow Evanston residents free beach access on Saturdays, Sundays, and Mondays. [60] 

And thus, the history of Evanston’s beaches continues to unfold.


City of Evanston website (accessed July 15, 2021)

  • To see some bathing suits from the 1920s, artifacts, and images related to Evanston beaches, visit the Evanston History Center to see the temporary exhibit, “Ode to Greenwood Street Beach.”
  • Do you have a beach-related story or photo to add to this history? We welcome hearing from you! Please email Jenny Thompson at jthompson@evanstonhistorycenter.org

In case you missed earlier parts of A shifting shoreline

Part 1- A look at Evanston’s beaches

Part 2 – Policing the beaches


[1] “Find Advertising Paid All Too Well,” Decatur Herald, July 8, 1921.

[2] “Find Advertising Paid All Too Well,” Decatur Herald, July 8, 1921.

[3] “A ‘Tough’ Job,” Indianapolis Times, June 30 1932.

[4] “In the Wake of the News,” Chicago Tribune, August 3, 1921.

[5] “Parking ban is in Effect at Lake Front,” Evanston News Index, July 10, 1931.

[6] “A ‘Tough’ Job,” Indianapolis Times, June 30 1932.

[7] “A ‘Tough’ Job,” Indianapolis Times, June 30 1932.

[8] “Find Advertising Paid All Too Well,” Decatur Herald, July 8, 1921.

[9] “Bathing Beaches on North Shore Bar Chicagoans,” Waukegan Daily Sun, July 22, 1921.

[10] “Object to the Chicago Riffraff,” Potsville Evening Republican, July 8, 1930.

[11] “Bathing Beaches on North Shore Bar Chicagoans,” Waukegan Daily Sun, July 22, 1921.

[12] “Bathing Beaches on North Shore Bar Chicagoans,” Waukegan Daily Sun, July 22, 1921.

[13] “Four Drowned Toll of Local Beach Season,” Evanston News Index, September 25, 1922.

[14] “Cooler Weather Makes Evanston a Generous Neighbor,” Chicago Tribune, July 12, 1931.

[15] “Beach Crowds Decrease; High Lake to Blame?” Chicago Tribune, September 15, 1929.

[16] “Shore Suburbs Open Beaches – To Home Folk,” Chicago Tribune, June 28, 1931.

[17] “City Passes Beach Ordinance,” Evanston News Index, July 9, 1931.

[18] “City Passes Beach Ordinance,” Evanston News Index, July 9, 1931.

[19] “City Passes Beach Ordinance,” Evanston News Index, July 9, 1931.

[20] “City Passes Beach Ordinance,” Evanston News Index, July 9, 1931.

[21] “City Passes Beach Ordinance,” Evanston News Index, July 9, 1931.

[22] “City Passes Beach Ordinance,” Evanston News Index, July 9, 1931.

[23] “Beach Fences in Evanston to Rise this Week,” Chicago Tribune, July 12, 1931.

[24] “City Workers Begin Erection of Fences at Four Beaches,” Evanston News Index, July 9, 1931.

[25] “City Workers Begin Erection of Fences at Four Beaches,” Evanston News Index, July 9, 1931.

[26] “Evanston Beaches Attract Record Crowd This Year,” Chicago Tribune, August 24, 1941.

[27] “Continue Rush for Evanston Beach Tickets,” Evanston News-Index, July 18, 1931.

[28] “Continue Rush for Evanston Beach Tickets,” Evanston News-Index, July 18, 1931.

[29] “Continue Rush for Evanston Beach Tickets,” Evanston News-Index, July 18, 1931.

[30] “This Bather Objects to N.U. Beach Tokens,” Daily Northwestern, August 1, 1935.

[31] “Parking Ban at Lakefront Will Become Effective Tomorrow,” Evanston News Index, July 9, 1931.

[32] “Parking Ban is in Effect at Lake Front,” Evanston News Index, July 10, 1931.

[33] “Fees Cut Beach Attendance,” Evanston News Index, July 20, 1931.

[34] “Fees Cut Beach Attendance,” Evanston News Index, July 20, 1931.

[35] “Fee Plan Crowds Free City Beaches,” Evanston News Index, July 27, 1931.

[36] “Foster St. Beach for NU Only,” Daily Northwestern, July 8, 1941.

[37] ‘ ‘Sun Bathing’ Charges Bring 7 Into Court,” Evanston News-Index, July 27, 1931.

[38] “Beach Fences in Evanston to Rise this Week,” Chicago Tribune, July 12, 1931.

[39] “Oil Fails to Calm Evanston Bathing Beach Troubles,” Times Herald, July 17, 1931.

[40] “Dean Wigmore Attacks City’s Beach Fee Plan,” Evanston News-Index, July 2, 1931.

[41] “Dean Wigmore Attacks City’s Beach Fee Plan,” Evanston News-Index, July 2, 1931.

[42] “Dean Wigmore Attacks City’s Beach Fee Plan,” Evanston News-Index, July 2, 1931.

[43] “Cooler Weather Makes Evanston a Generous Neighbor,” Chicago Tribune, July 12, 1931.

[44] “Good Beaches in Evanston Fenced Off from Workers,” Daily Worker, July 3, 1933.

[45] (E[dwin] B. Jourdain, Jr. to W.E.B. Du Bois, February 17, 1939, W. E. B. Du Bois Papers (MS 312) Special Collections and University Archives, University of Massachusetts Amherst Libraries, http://credo.library.umass.edu/view/full/mums312-b088-i365.

[46] “Evanston Wants Jim Crow; Fights For It,” Chicago Defender, February 16, 1935.

[47] Shorefront Legacy Center, Conversation with Spencer Jourdain, 2018.

[48] “State-Wide Battle on Illinois Jim Crow,” The Crisis, February 1937, 43.

[49] “State-Wide Battle on Illinois Jim Crow,” The Crisis, February 1937, 43.

[50] “Wins Point in Northwestern Jim Crow Suit,” Indianapolis Recorder, December 5, 1936.

[51] “State-Wide Battle on Illinois Jim Crow,” ​The Crisis,​ February 1937, 43; ​See also Jenny Thompson, The Takeover 1968: Student Protest, Campus Politics, and Black Student Activism at Northwestern University (Evanston: Evanston History Center Press, 2019),​ 35-36.

[52] “Wins Point in Northwestern Jim Crow Suit,” Indianapolis Recorder, December 5, 1936.

[53] “Northwestern Loses Point in Lawsuit for Discrimination,” Chicago Defender, December 5, 1936.

[54] “Services Set for A. Foster, Business Man,” Chicago Tribune, May 31, 1968.

[55] A.L. Foster, Letter to the Editor, Chicago Bee, August 2, 1942.

[56] National Urban League. Dept. of Research and Community Projects., and Evanston Council of Social Agencies, Economic and Cultural Problems in Evanston, Illinois, As They Relate To The Colored Population: A Study (Evanston, Illinois: The Council, 1945), 78. In 1932, it was reported that only one of Evanston’s five beaches was free. Charles E. Reed, Charges and Fees for Community Recreation Facilities and Activities of Public Park, Recreation and School Systems (New York: National Recreation Association, 1932), 40.

[57] “Summer Play for Evanston’s Youths at Hand,” Chicago Tribune, June 20, 1948. By 1953, all but one of Evanston’s six public bathing beaches were restricted. “A beach at Greenwood St, included with the Dempster Street beach for planning purposes, is free while the others are on a fee basis; However, all are restricted to residents and their guests,” reported the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Illinois Shore Beach Erosion Control Study, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1953, 110.

[58] “Legal Aid Charges Evanston, Others Unfair in Beach Rates,” Chicago Tribune, September 15, 1968.

[59] Steve Bogira, “A Law Abiding Judge,” Chicago Reader, March 4, 2005.

[60] lana Arougheti, “Evanston to Offer Three Free Weekly Beach Days After Advocacy Against Token Sales,” Daily Northwestern, May 25, 2021.

 

Leave a comment

The RoundTable will try to post comments within a few hours, but there may be a longer delay at times. Comments containing mean-spirited, libelous or ad hominem attacks will not be posted. Your full name and email is required. We do not post anonymous comments. Your e-mail will not be posted.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *