Adults on a children's playground

[bcla]

Is this for real?

Well yeah. Whether or not it was serious enough to merit a discussion here is a matter of opinion. However, I was there and rather ticked off that kids were avoiding using the equipment because a large group of unfamiliar adults decided it was for their exclusive use.

I'm just finding all the opinions interesting, even the interpretations that these ordinances may not be enforceable.

 

[Tozzie]

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.

Do you think the more you post that people are going to suddenly agree with you ? IT is stupid and petty and not something I would have wasted my time with.

 

[Mizzoufan]

Here is a website for a dumb laws. http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/south-dakota

 

[SMD]

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.

You don't want to have a discussion, you want validation of your position. A discussion solicits the opinions of others, not responding with a bunch of links that anyone who cared to know could have googled themselves.

 

[Hrhpd]

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.

If you were so bothered that they were breaking the law, why didn't you just call the police?

What in the world did you think the event producer could do?

And did you ask the group to leave, explaining politely that your children are trying to play?

I agree with the others, huge overreaction.

 

[bcla]

You don't want to have a discussion, you want validation of your position. A discussion solicits the opinions of others, not responding with a bunch of links that anyone who cared to know could have googled themselves.

I don't care if I sway anyone. I posted those links to counter the claims that these laws are unenforceable or possibly unconstitutional. There's a rational basis for the ordinances and I'm pretty sure they'd pass constitutional muster. I'd be curious as to who might have tested NYC's senior-only quiet area ordinances.

 

[bcla]

If you were so bothered that they were breaking the law, why didn't you just call the police?

What in the world did you think the event producer could do?

And did you ask the group to leave, explaining politely that your children are trying to play?

I agree with the others, huge overreaction.

I don't know if they could be reasoned with. They also heavily outnumbered me. And in a way I did call the cops. The fact was that the organizer was in constant contact with the participants via social media. I believe they were giving additional clues/hints while the contest was going on.

 

[Allison]

So not sometjing I would have worried about or spent time complaining about.

 

[Hrhpd]

I don't know if they could be reasoned with. They also heavily outnumbered me. And in a way I did call the cops. The fact was that the organizer was in constant contact with the participants via social media. I believe they were giving additional clues/hints while the contest was going on.

So, you didn't call the police and you didn't speak to the group asking them to leave. okey dokey

 

[Allison]

What do you mean in a way you did call the cops? You didn't from what you posted here.

How long were they there? If they were doing a scavenger hunt, I assume they took the picture and moved on.

 

[minnie mum]

Just how long did this invasion of the play ship last? Must have been for a pretty long while if you are still so disturbed that you actually felt compelled to stew over this and research legislation all over the country. All because a bunch of young adults took over a single play structure long enough to fulfill something on a scavenger hunt. They weren't perving on the kids. They weren't there to hurt the kids. They weren't dealing drugs. They weren't vagrants staking out territory.

Step back a minute. Consider the purpose and intent of this bylaw. Put it in perspective. You know- the old letter of the law vs spirit of the law. Seems to me you are clingng desperately to the first and completely ignoring the latter.

 

[bcla]

What do you mean in a way you did call the cops? You didn't from what you posted here.

How long were they there? If they were doing a scavenger hunt, I assume they took the picture and moved on.

I called the park and rec dept. They have a number to report issues, although I had to go through a lot of options before I got to that selection. They also have park rangers for code enforcement. Mostly they try to get the homeless to stop sleeping at night. When I noted what was happening, the employee I spoke to said this shouldn't have happened and asked for the name of the event organizer.

One group left quickly. The first one I saw kind of lingered there for a while. One guy went down the slide and a few others jumped off the structure.

We eventually left, but it seemed like these groups would continue to be coming in even though it wasn't helping them. They were supposed to get a photo of their group at the wheel of a real ship, according to the guy I was in contact with. There are several in the area, and he claimed that the clue clearly wasn't talking about a play structure.

 

[Magic Band Defender]

I wouldn't have called the cops, but I would've rolled my eyes.

I can't imagine those structures are designed for the height/weight of adults. There are a million things for 20-30 year olds to do in SF, leave the tot lot alone.

 

[bcla]

Step back a minute. Consider the purpose and intent of this bylaw. Put it in perspective. You know- the old letter of the law vs spirit of the law. Seems to me you are clingng desperately to the first and completely ignoring the latter.

The spirit of the law is that it's limited resource that was specifically designed and sized for small children and perhaps a limited number of their caregivers. That was specific in the Hollywood, FL ordinance (“maximize play area equipment available for children and minors for whom the city’s play equipment and play areas are specifically designed.”). It's not like these rules are unique. Here's a playground in London named after Princess Diana, with a more impressive looking ship than the one I visited:

https://www.royalparks.org.uk/parks.../sports-and-leisure/diana-memorial-playground

To ensure safety and security of children, only adults supervising children up to the age of 12 will be admitted.

Children should not be allowed to enter or leave the playground without an adult carer.

Does look rather fun though. However, it sounds like they're able to enforce this at a gate.

I'm used to these kinds of restrictions. We used to have a membership at the Children's Fairyland park owned and operated by the City of Oakland. It's been brought up as one of the possible inspirations for Disneyland. Walt Disney hired their director to work at Disneyland. Their policy is no child without an adult and no adult without a child. There are quite a few children's museums where the policy is similar. One I found has a policy that a photo ID must be left for an unaccompanied adult. Another allows unaccompanied adults to tour the facility, but only with an employee.

 

[bcla]

I wouldn't have called the cops, but I would've rolled my eyes.

I can't imagine those structures are designed for the height/weight of adults. There are a million things for 20-30 year olds to do in SF, leave the tot lot alone.

That's kind of what I did since I wasn't comfortable about being confrontational. However, a lot of parents climb up these things (myself included) along with their kids but I've never seen more than one adult up there at one time. There's not a lot of room up there. And I remember there was a huge debate over whether or not to build this playground in the first place.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Battle-over-kids-playground-at-Sue-Bierman-Park-2324189.php

At this point it's just amusement for me to talk about it. At the time maybe I could have just told them it was a waste of their time and they would have moved on.

 

[SMD]

The spirit of the law is that it's limited resource that was specifically designed and sized for small children and perhaps a limited number of their caregivers. That was specific in the Hollywood, FL ordinance (“maximize play area equipment available for children and minors for whom the city’s play equipment and play areas are specifically designed.”). It's not like these rules are unique. Here's a playground in London named after Princess Diana, with a more impressive looking ship than the one I visited:

Does look rather fun though. However, it sounds like they're able to enforce this at a gate.

I'm used to these kinds of restrictions. We used to have a membership at the Children's Fairyland park owned and operated by the City of Oakland. It's been brought up as one of the possible inspirations for Disneyland. Walt Disney hired their director to work at Disneyland. Their policy is no child without an adult and no adult without a child. There are quite a few children's museums where the policy is similar. One I found has a policy that a photo ID must be left for an unaccompanied adult. Another allows unaccompanied adults to tour the facility, but only with an employee.

Why are you stealing some other site's pictures of some random play equipment and posting it here? If you have some relevant picture of your own, by all means, host it and post it. What's with all the hot linking and articles that anyone could Google themselves?

 

[bcla]

Why are you stealing some other site's pictures of some random play equipment and posting it here? If you have some relevant picture of your own, by all means, host it and post it. What's with all the hot linking and articles that anyone could Google themselves?

What random site? That photo was from the UK government website for the Royal Parks and is of a playground with similar rules about unaccompanied adults (citing safety concerns). I found the photo rather cool and as a UK government photo it's in the public domain. What more reason does one need to post a cool photo even if it's only tangentially related?

Whether or not anyone cares whether this was worth complaining about doesn't matter to me. However, I hear a bunch of comments that say these rules are somehow unenforceable (with hints that they're unconstitutional) and I'll spring to action.

 

[aprilgail]

Do you think the more you post that people are going to suddenly agree with you ? IT is stupid and petty and not something I would have wasted my time with.

I totally agree! How petty to call and tattle about such a minor thing-waste of time!

 

[sam_gordon]

I posted those links to counter the claims that these laws are unenforceable or possibly unconstitutional.

I hear a bunch of comments that say these rules are somehow unenforceable (with hints that they're unconstitutional)

Since you mentioned it twice, I went back and read the thread again. I see ONE comment that thinks the rules wouldn't be enforceable. No one says anything about unconstitutional. There are a couple people who said they don't think there should be rules against it, but that doesn't mean "unenforceable". Once again, you seem to be taking this to an extreme.

With all the links you've been posting, you've been very vague on what exact impact these adults had, and/or what threat they posed to the kids. Saying the organizer told you the clue ruled out the toy pirate ship really doesn't mean much to me since two independent GROUPS (so what, 10 adults?) thought the same thing.

 

[Dawnlight]

I'm glad the park across the street from my home does not have such a sign or limitations. I'm glad that my teens, with or without their younger siblings in tow, can still go out and release some energy there.