Adults on a children's playground

[bcla]

Took the kid to San Francisco on Saturday and it was odd because it looked like there was some massive scavenger hunt of some kind. It was strange too, as all the contestants were wearing what looked like race numbers held by safety pins, but with the name of the contest organizer. So we're going to the Exploratorium where I have a membership when my kid sees this playground and asks to go. I figure it's OK and my MUNI transfer won't expire for a few hours.

So we're there and a couple of groups from this contest come into this clearly marked fenced-in playground, and a group of maybe 6/7 more or less climbs on this toddler play structure that's supposed to look somewhat like a ship. A bunch of us are wondering what's going on, have a better look at the name. There are posted signs on this playground that adults aren't allowed unless accompanying children, along with a citation of the city park code. Obviously there are worries about predators, although it's probably because children might be hesitant to use the equipment if there are groups of adults dominating them. I have heard of issues where groups of teenagers have taken over playground structures and younger kids just don't feel comfortable about using them, but whether that's a violation of the rules is a judgement call.

I find the organizer's contact info, as I have my iPad with me and there's good WiFi in the area that I can access. I did get a response, but it was that there was no way they had directed anyone to use a children's playground. They provide clues, and people are supposed to follow them. This one was apparently about getting behind the wheel of a ship and taking a photo of that. Well it turns out this playground structure looks like a pirate ship and it has something that approximates a steering wheel.

The guy from the organizer is more or less "What can we do about idiots who don't know what they're doing?" It would have been interesting if maybe a city park ranger stopped by with a citation book. One group seemed to we wary that they tread lightly around kids, but the other one was just rude. They basically took over the top deck of the structure and then went down the slide. As they exited, they didn't even bother to properly close the gate.

 

[Mizzoufan]

I wouldn't have complained.

 

[Dawnlight]

I would not have complained and frankly I think it's ridiculous that adults or teens are restricted from public areas. Adults pay taxes for these structures, if they want to swing and slide, why not let them?

 

[verleniahall]

the dh and i go and play on playground equipment in the summer - also, when we lived on base, there was a playground across the street from our house, and when I would get aggrivated, I would go swing for awhile - nothing wrong with it at all - I aggree with a pp - adults and teens should not be turned away form a public area that we help pay to build and maintain

 

[bcla]

You just had to be there to see how they were acting. How do you suppose a 3 year old reacts when a loud group of 7 adults in their 20s/30s basically takes over the top of a play structure designed for toddlers? Or if some adult thought of maybe climbing on a rope dome structure and falls on a small child?

They weren't heading for the swings. They were on the structure designed for the smallest kids, who were avoiding using the thing while they had it all to themselves. Even if they weren't pervs, the parents/grandparents were kind of looking that direction to make sure that they didn't inadvertently hurt their kids.

 

[3Gsandme]

I wouldn't have complained either. I would assume they were there to have fun (sounds like they were) that they'd watch the kids as best as they could unless they were total donkeys and that if my kids weren't comfortable playing, we'd have moved on to our planned activity and tried it later.

 

[Kayabee]

Were they there just to take the picture for the scavenger hunt? I wouldn't have complained. The irony is that the older kids (10+) are the ones I worry the most about at playgrounds hurting the little ones. Just once I'd like to see a sign to keep them out LOL.

 

[phorsenuf]

Much ado about nothing.

 

[bcla]

However, they were violating the law. I wasn't the only one there wondering what business they had being there. And after being in contact with someone from the event organizer, they must have been totally clueless as to what they were being asked.

 

[Kayabee]

However, they were violating the law. I wasn't the only one there wondering what business they had being there. And after being in contact with someone from the event organizer, they must have been totally clueless as to what they were being asked.

I see people violate the law every day, I even do it myself. I'd be exhausted if I called to complain about everyone who did. Nobody got hurt, no harm done other than some little ones had to wait to play, its not the end of the world.

 

[3Gsandme]

How smart they were or were not is irrelevant. I'm pretty sure the idea of "no adults without a child" probably isn't enforceable.

 

[bcla]

How smart they were or were not is irrelevant. I'm pretty sure the idea of "no adults without a child" probably isn't enforceable.

That sign is typical in San Francisco. There are others:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/b...layground-signs-hollywood-20150107-story.html
http://www.nycgovparks.org/rules/section-1-05

Here's NYC's rules:

Areas within the parks designated by the Commissioner for exclusive use shall include:

1. Exclusive Childrens Playgrounds: Adults allowed in playground areas only when accompanied by a child under the age of twelve (12).
2. Exclusive Senior Citizens Areas: Certain areas of any park may be set aside for citizens aged sixty-five (65) and older, for their quiet enjoyment and safety.​

NYC even has an adult playground:​

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/nyregion/new-york-introduces-its-first-adult-playground.html?_r=0

Here's an industry trade publication article:

http://www.parksandrecreation.org/2...ound-Ban-on-Adults-Unaccompanied-by-Children/

If challenged, the issue is whether this type of ordinance will pass constitutional muster. While the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment guarantees the right to enter certain public places, including city parks, this right is not absolute. There is no constitutional right to use public parks under all conditions and at all times. Instead, the individual’s constitutional right to use parks made available to the general public is subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. Further, these restrictions must be narrowly tailored to advance a compelling governmental interest.

Accordingly, from a constitutional law perspective, the issue is whether the creation of such exclusive-use areas for playgrounds is a reasonable time, place and manner restriction based upon a rational governmental objective. Since the exclusion of unaccompanied adults does not involve a suspect class (i.e., a classification based on race, creed, color or natural origin), the courts will generally uphold such a rule given a reasonable connection between the regulation and a legitimate governmental objective. In constitutional law, this standard of judicial review for governmental actions is referred to as the rational-basis test.

In so doing, judicial review will apply a more deferential rational-basis test, which generally presumes constitutionality and does not second-guess the judgment and policies of lawmakers.

In Hollywood, Florida, the stated objective of the ordinance is to “maximize play area equipment available for children and minors for whom the city’s play equipment and play areas are specifically designed.” Accordingly, if and when challenged, a court would more than likely uphold the constitutionality of an ordinance banning adults unaccompanied by children from park playgrounds. In other words, while reasonable minds may differ, most would agree that there may be a rational connection between the ban on certain adults and maintaining an age-appropriate environment in public playgrounds for children.

In so doing, however, constitutional due process would require proper notice of the prohibited conduct. Thus, the placement and clarity of the playground signage message to the reasonable adult observer is a significant factor. Moreover, due process would also provide a procedure to appeal a violation of the ordinance.

Further, an ordinance that bans adults unaccompanied by a child from entering certain playgrounds may be viewed as a reasonable time, place and manner restriction when viewed within the context of myriad other park facilities routinely set aside for various exclusive uses (e.g., Little League ballfields, picnic areas and dog parks, etc.) wherein some adults are excluded and not others in certain places and at certain times.

 

[bcla]

How smart they were or were not is irrelevant. I'm pretty sure the idea of "no adults without a child" probably isn't enforceable.

Time, place, and manner. Can be legally enforceable if it doesn't otherwise discriminate against a protected class.

Granted, NYC kind of messed up because they had poorly defined children's play areas and some adults just hanging around chess tables got cited. The area we visited was fenced, although there are others in the city with less defined boundaries. You'd know if you were smack dab in the playground though.

Part of the reason for San Francisco having these specific rules was as a tool to fight drug use and homeless sleeping in children's play areas. They've had to deal with used needles and of course kids afraid to enter because some homeless guy is sleeping in a play structure.

 

[Mizzoufan]

OP you keep saying ti to prevent homeless from being there and drugs being sold there. None of that happened while you were there.

Also who gets to decide what age ends childhood? I'm sure some would say 13 old aren't kids others would say 18 ends childhood.

 

[bcla]

OP you keep saying ti to prevent homeless from being there and drugs being sold there. None of that happened while you were there.

Also who gets to decide what age ends childhood? I'm sure some would say 13 old aren't kids others would say 18 ends childhood.

I'm only saying that's the partial rationale behind passing the regs. And there were actually plenty of homeless in the park, but not in the playground area. And they're going to get in trouble if there's selective enforcement. However, there's generally more to it. Hollywood, Florida is more specific about their aims. They specifically say that anyone over 12 must be there with a child under 12. I suppose in San Francisco it's legally 18 as the cutoff point, which is the universal definition of adult in this country.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/b...layground-signs-hollywood-20150107-story.html

The new rule aims to protect both children and the equipment they play on.

Teens tend to gather in playgrounds designed for younger kids, Hollywood Parks Director Chuck Ellis said. In some cases, they have vandalized the equipment, he said. In others, they've used swings designed for smaller kids and wound up damaging the equipment.

Hollywood police officers and park rangers will use their discretion in determining who will be asked to leave a playground, the chief said.

As for enforceability, a previous article I linked was written by a specialist in legal issues regarding parks and recreation.

http://cehd.gmu.edu/people/faculty/jkozlows/?template_id=16

This was the most relevant section of his article:

In Hollywood, Florida, the stated objective of the ordinance is to “maximize play area equipment available for children and minors for whom the city’s play equipment and play areas are specifically designed.” Accordingly, if and when challenged, a court would more than likely uphold the constitutionality of an ordinance banning adults unaccompanied by children from park playgrounds. In other words, while reasonable minds may differ, most would agree that there may be a rational connection between the ban on certain adults and maintaining an age-appropriate environment in public playgrounds for children.

In so doing, however, constitutional due process would require proper notice of the prohibited conduct. Thus, the placement and clarity of the playground signage message to the reasonable adult observer is a significant factor. Moreover, due process would also provide a procedure to appeal a violation of the ordinance.

Further, an ordinance that bans adults unaccompanied by a child from entering certain playgrounds may be viewed as a reasonable time, place and manner restriction when viewed within the context of myriad other park facilities routinely set aside for various exclusive uses (e.g., Little League ballfields, picnic areas and dog parks, etc.) wherein some adults are excluded and not others in certain places and at certain times.

 

[Jedana]

I'm only saying that's the partial rationale behind passing the regs. And there were actually plenty of homeless in the park, but not in the playground area. And they're going to get in trouble if there's selective enforcement. However, there's generally more to it. Hollywood, Florida is more specific about their aims. They specifically say that anyone over 12 must be there with a child under 12. I suppose in San Francisco it's legally 18 as the cutoff point, which is the universal definition of adult in this country.


As for enforceability, a previous article I linked was written by a specialist in legal issues regarding parks and recreation.

http://cehd.gmu.edu/people/faculty/jkozlows/?template_id=16

This was the most relevant section of his article:

In Hollywood, Florida, the stated objective of the ordinance is to “maximize play area equipment available for children and minors for whom the city’s play equipment and play areas are specifically designed.” Accordingly, if and when challenged, a court would more than likely uphold the constitutionality of an ordinance banning adults unaccompanied by children from park playgrounds. In other words, while reasonable minds may differ, most would agree that there may be a rational connection between the ban on certain adults and maintaining an age-appropriate environment in public playgrounds for children.

In so doing, however, constitutional due process would require proper notice of the prohibited conduct. Thus, the placement and clarity of the playground signage message to the reasonable adult observer is a significant factor. Moreover, due process would also provide a procedure to appeal a violation of the ordinance.

Further, an ordinance that bans adults unaccompanied by a child from entering certain playgrounds may be viewed as a reasonable time, place and manner restriction when viewed within the context of myriad other park facilities routinely set aside for various exclusive uses (e.g., Little League ballfields, picnic areas and dog parks, etc.) wherein some adults are excluded and not others in certain places and at certain times.

So why are you grousing about it here? did you not call the police to report this crime? What are we supposed to do about it?

 

[sam_gordon]

OP, I think you are WAY over thinking this. How long did this last? 10, maybe 15 minutes? I also think "much a do about nothing".

And really, you think the cops (or whoever) should come ticket these "hooligans" because your little one couldn't play on a toy ship for 15 minutes? Were the kids ever in any danger of getting as much as a scratch on them because the "adults" were on the playground?

Who cares what NYC or Hollywood, Fl have done regarding playgrounds? You're doing a lot of research for nothing IMO.

 

[bcla]

So why are you grousing about it here? did you not call the police to report this crime? What are we supposed to do about it?

This is just a discussion just like many where nothing can really be done simply via discussion. Disboards (and especially the Community Board) would come to a screeching halt if anything had to actually be solved via a discussion. And I did call up the city hotline as well as the event organizer. They said they'd try to send someone over, although I'm not sure what they could have done other than wait for someone to enter and tell them they weren't allowed in without a child. The answer I got was that they certainly weren't supposed to be doing what they were doing.

 

[bcla]

Who cares what NYC or Hollywood, Fl have done regarding playgrounds? You're doing a lot of research for nothing IMO.

Those are similar ordinances and these places have similar issues. I bring them up because several have question if such ordinances can be legally enforceable, which one legal expert believes is the case.

And yeah - they didn't seem to be concerned about what they were doing or how they were behaving around children. They seemed kind of oblivious to the presence of children. I suppose it was kind of amusing when I found out that several groups were hitting up this place when they were just wasting their time.

 

[Laura66]

Is this for real?