$1000 Fine For Sitting In A Park

[+kusanagi]

I have cached in many parks. Most often at night as I really don't care to cache under the scrutiny of others using the park. If It's during the day, I have my kids with me and they will usually find the cache for me.

 

I have seen signs that prohibit adults from entering a child's playground area of a park without a child. I have not at this time seen a sign that prohibits a adult from entering a park though. Why is it wrong to prohibit a adult from being in child's playground area ? If it's so important that an adult have a swing to swing couldn't they buy one, a child couldn't. My tax dollars may have been spent to build a children's playground and if so great, it doesn't mean that I should use it alone. It is after all a children's playground, meant for children to play on. The only time I have seen a sign stating that a adult must be accompanied by a child was near a playground, in a park that had many benches and seating areas through out the park. The sign was meant for the playground area alone, and through out the park were many adults lawfully enjoying it.

 

I have no idea why certain parks don't allow adults into child's playground area while others do. I don't know if there have been problems in those particular parks, or if it has to do with the size or location of the park. Would it be fair to remove the playground ? Are children not allowed to have a place meant just for them?

 

I don't know the circumstances under which the woman referred to in the article was cited. I do know however that sign or no sign, If I see a person near my children displaying behavior that I feel is inappropriate I will say something, and/or call the police. My children are just that, children. I don't expect them to have all the answers. I can appreciate that in some children's playground areas adults are not allowed without the accompaniment of a child, just as I can appreciate that my five year old is not allowed to leave his class room alone.

 

As to the media hype given to problems that effect children, It's sad but in no way will effect how I watch over my children. Life itself took care of that.

[+Alan2]

We often hear today people complaining that someone's "rights" are being violated by the law. Well, every law takes away someone's freedom, maybe everyone's. We inherently have the right to and can do anything we wish. That's where we start. Then the laws subsequently restrict us. If rights are not constitutionally violated by the law, then the law is OK even of it's a bad law. ("the law is an a**"). The park rule reminds me of highways that are restricted to motor vehicles. Bicycling on them is illegal. ("Well, that's not fair either. Hrummph")

 

I have a dog and often getted ticked that I can't use a park that restricts them to people only. I'm not happy about it. (Hrummph) But I understand it. The majority of people have spoken through their representatives and that's what democracy is about. It's all part of our social contract so we all can live together somehwat in relative peace without killing each other to get our way. Give a little, get a little.

 

Just an aside. I remember growing up in NYC and us kids as prubescent teenagers would hang around the playgrounds that were always near the schools, messing around on the swings, playing grab a**, etc and making a general nuisance of ourselves. Like teenagers everywhere. The little kids would stay away for their lives. Then a cop would come along and tell us to move on. The little kids would return. Maybe they wrote the law for teenagers.

Edited October 1, 2005 by Alan2

[+JohnnyVegas]

The majority of people have spoken through their representatives and that's what democracy is about.

 

Just because the majority of people may want something, it does not make it right.

What if the majority wanted to roll back the gains made by the civil rights movement.

 

If you want to give up your freedoms, that is up to you, but you do not have the right take away the freedoms of other people. I find it amazing how many people in the US are willilng to give up more of their freeedom each year in the name of national security, this has been a trend over the past 20 years. But the government says you cannot not do this or you cannot do that in the interest of sucurity. And the same jerks keep getting re-elected time and time again.

Edited October 1, 2005 by JohnnyVegas

[Clan Riffster]

Like pedifiles who stalk kids in parks designed exclusively for kids?

Sigh.....

 

What part of "any activity that does not endanger the public" did you not understand?

 

(post deleted to avoid arguing the same point over, and over, and over....)

[+Alan2]

Just because the majority of people may want something, it does not make it right.

What if the majority wanted to roll back the gains made by the civil rights movement.

 

You missed the part where I said it's legal as long as the law is constitutional. That's the purpose of the constitution - to protect the minority point of view. The majority does not need the constitution to protect what they believe - they get their way because they have the vote.

[+JohnnyVegas]

Just because the majority of people may want something, it does not make it right.

What if the majority wanted to roll back the gains made by the civil rights movement.

 

You missed the part where I said it's legal as long as the law is constitutional. That's the purpose of the constitution - to protect the minority point of view. The majority does not need the constitution to protect what they believe - they get their way because they have the vote.

The problem with that is that once congress passes bill and it is signed into law it could many years for it to be turned over as unconstitutional. In the mean time people rights are trampled by some law enforcement agancies, Federal, State and local. How many recall that after 911 in the name of security law enforcemant agencies were give the ability to enter and search some ones home without a search warrant if in the opinion of the agency there might be a terrorist activty going on in the home (That law has not been challenge) That law is unconstitional.

Lets not forget, once the goverment ruins someones life, even if the person was not guilty of violating any law they have no recourse to being made whole again.

Because at the time the government was acting in good faith.

 

But most voters in this country do not care about their own rights because they believe it when the Goverment, being it Local, State or Federal tells them it is for their own good.

 

take your blinders off and see the garden you are in for what it is.

Edited October 2, 2005 by JohnnyVegas

[tossedsalad]

But most voters in this country do not care about their own rights because they believe it when the Goverment, being it Local, State or Federal tells them it is for their own good.

 

take your blinders off and see the garden you are in for what it is.

I don't agree with much of what you have said, or more accurately, I don't agree with why you feel it is significant. But the one point I think is worth debating is that you think people are not involved in changing governement because they *believe* or *believe in* the government. I think it is not that they think the government is right or even that the government tells them the truth. People don't get involved in changing the government because they have no *faith* that the government *can* be changed.

 

My hometown of Frederick, MD has a lot of people who do not care for the way the local government runs things. I constantly hear them finsih their complaint with things like "but what can you do" or "the other one is no better" or "isn't that the way it always goes?"

 

It can be hard to get them to vote, much less vote on the important issues or, God forbid, actually get involved themselves. Instead they choose who they vote for on who makes them "feel good".

 

Talk is cheap. We can complain about how the government does wrong things, but the *vast* majority (silent or not) don't care enough to actually get involved in changing it. Voting is the smallest way possible to get involved. There are much bigger ways.

[+budd-rdc]

I'm weary of "government this and that" complaints, and it seems they haven't led to any noticeable improvements in the past decade or two.

 

I'd replace the word "government" with "authority" since wheels of corruption are often turned by non-government authorities with lobbying power. As I've said on another thread, it's amusing but sad to see politicians get blamed for policy mistakes, while the lobbyists who pushed for them are profiting from it regardless.

 

Renegade Knight's comment about getting more involved is a viable alternative, since the mechanisms are already in place (voting, petitions, letters to the congressmen, civil disobedience, etc.) Our constitutional rights are not guaranteed through the private sector.

 

That being said, I hope this silly law stays local in NYC.

[+treedweller]

I can see it now.  Walking up to a street corner and approaching a kid standing on there..

"Hey kid, I'll give you a shiny new quarter if you help me find this geocache in the back of that park over there."

Or you could just not do the cache.

As a man who caches solo, I often take that approach. Assuming I do find a playground cache, how likely am I to want to trade for teh contents, anyway?

 

Here's the breakdown in that argument, though. I have been working for some time on Austin's "Monster" cache. It is a 40-leg multi. After investing hours and gallons of fuel into finding the first 25 legs or so, I come upon a cache that is not just near a playground, but actually in the playground. Not only that, it is written inside the roof of the plastic tunnel of a kid-sized slide. Not only that, there are public restrooms a few yards away. Setting aside the argument that it is grafitti, not a cache, this puts me in a very awkward position. I understand why the mommies felt uncomfortable seeing me there, milling around for an hour at a time or more (no, surely it's not inside the playground--that would be insane . . .), and I felt uncomfortable being there. Who wants to be suspected of pedophilia? But should I have to abandon the larger goal of a very long, difficult series just to ease our collective discomfort?

 

Frankly, I think this leg should never have been approved, but i am a relative newbie and don't see the point in arguing about that now. And I have stalled on the series for awhile now over frustration that legs are missing, causing me to drive well out of my way to an area with several legs, but return home in between legs to send an email to the non-maintaining leg owners. So that's my rant about "Monster."

 

But I return to my question: is it fair to say "just don't do it" when it means abandoning a goal into which I've invested significant time and energy? Just so some mommies can stay at the park a little longer? Why shouldn't they share, and leave for the day if they feel uncomfortable? Why do I have to be the one to give up my use of the park?

 

I see both sides of this argument to some degree, but I think the ultimate answer is to police the lawbreakers and leave the rest of us alone. Unfortunately, when a bad law is passed, that means you have to change the law before you can resume what you previously called legal activities.

 

treedweller

[+Alan2]

What's the expression - Tough cases make bad law.

 

I'm sure the law had good intentions originally - to keep pedophiles away from children. So they pass an ordinance (or someone in the Park's Dept creates a park regulation that may or may not be constitutional) with the best of intentions and then some cops who should be more savvy ticket a 47 year old woman sitting and relaxing waiting for the art fair to start.

 

On the other hand, if they only ticketed men they would be accused of "pro-filing".

 

You can't win!