Adults on a children's playground

[bcla]

I like the term rational basis. This is what I fear you are missing here. The intent of the law is rational. I am not trying to be offensive, but your interpretation in this instance, is irrational.

I meant a rational basis for the law or regulation to be constitutional. There was a comment that hinted that it wasn't.

Also (as a general comment), pretty much the entirety of the park was available to adults, including some who were just outside the fence. And with the good weather here, there were a lot of homeless in this park. Only this small, fenced in playground area was subject to this rule. The same goes for fenced in dog areas where the requirement is that a specific area is for people to take their dogs. There are some restricted bicycle-only trails in public parks around here. The rationale is to reduce conflicts with hikers and equestrians. Over in Yosemite there's a "horse only" trail where human foot travel isn't allowed. NYC has senior only areas in its parks. This is the "rational basis" where restrictions are allowed provided they serve a legitimate purpose, and where enforcement has to be even handed about excluding everyone equally rather than simply targeting the marginalized in society.

And anyways, the event organizer pretty much told me the participants were stupid if they thought the clue meant they needed to get a photo at a playground structure that looked like a ship.

 

[Dawnlight]

NYC has senior only areas in its parks.

This begs the question- had you been a senior in a "seniors only" designated area and saw a person there with a young grandchild, would you have called park authorities to report the lawbreakers?

 

[undertheradar]

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.

Why is it ok for you to climb on it, but not the group in the scavenger hunt? I hope someone reported you for possibly impacting the joy that younger playground users might have had.

 

[sam_gordon]

I meant a rational basis for the law or regulation to be constitutional. There was a comment that hinted that it wasn't.

Where?

 

[bcla]

Why is it ok for you to climb on it, but not the group in the scavenger hunt? I hope someone reported you for possibly impacting the joy that younger playground users might have had.

Well - because I was an adult accompanying a child, as spelled out in the law. And because I was cognizant about my impact on the other children who were attempting to use the play structure. The kids were avoiding the area while they were there. Same thing has happened when groups of teenagers have taken over playgrounds in the area, although they know what they're doing is inappropriate.

 

[bcla]

Where?

I'm pretty sure the idea of "no adults without a child" probably isn't enforceable.

It certainly has been enforced. I was reading about a dad who brought his kid to one of these playgrounds, and cops came by because he was sitting by himself while his kid was playing. He had to call his kid over to avoid getting a citation or at least being told to leave.

 

[tlens]

These are park by-laws. Not criminal laws. At most you could have called a bylaw officer, not the police. This really is rather crazy.

 

[bcla]

These are park by-laws. Not criminal laws. At most you could have called a bylaw officer, not the police. This really is rather crazy.

San Francisco Police have been known to enforce park regulations. In NYC cops have handed out citations. It was a mess in NYC because the playground areas had poorly defined boundaries.

http://uptownalmanac.com/2014/06/sfpd-again-hassling-dolores-park-picnickers-over-booze

 

[phorsenuf]

Well - because I was an adult accompanying a child, as spelled out in the law. And because I was cognizant about my impact on the other children who were attempting to use the play structure. The kids were avoiding the area while they were there. Same thing has happened when groups of teenagers have taken over playgrounds in the area, although they know what they're doing is inappropriate.

Isn't it possible though the older kids were playing on because no one else was, and if younger kids had gone over to play on it, they would have stopped and gotten off for the younger ones?

 

[Ceila]

I'll take "Things that would never in a million years bother normal people" for $400, Alex.

 

[tlens]

You are not allowed open liquor outside. That is a chargeable offense. You are nitpicking to try to prove some obscure, ridiculous point.

 

[undertheradar]

Well - because I was an adult accompanying a child, as spelled out in the law. And because I was cognizant about my impact on the other children who were attempting to use the play structure. The kids were avoiding the area while they were there. Same thing has happened when groups of teenagers have taken over playgrounds in the area, although they know what they're doing is inappropriate.

You should not have been on the equipment, either. Why is it you don't understand that? If you admit that you had been on the equipment, you have no standing to complain about others using the same equipment. As for calling and complaining, what a waste of time and resources.

 

[SMD]

I meant a rational basis for the law or regulation to be constitutional. There was a comment that hinted that it wasn't.

Where?

I'm pretty sure the idea of "no adults without a child" probably isn't enforceable.

It certainly has been enforced. I was reading about a dad who brought his kid to one of these playgrounds, and cops came by because he was sitting by himself while his kid was playing. He had to call his kid over to avoid getting a citation or at least being told to leave.

probably isn't enforceable ≠ not constitutional

 

[Dawnlight]

I'll take "Things that would never in a million years bother normal people" for $400, Alex.

 

[bcla]

You should not have been on the equipment, either. Why is it you don't understand that? If you admit that you had been on the equipment, you have no standing to complain about others using the same equipment. As for calling and complaining, what a waste of time and resources.

The rule isn't about adults being on the equipment when accompanying their children. It's about adults entering the playground area without children at all.

 

[verleniahall]

I'll take "Things that would never in a million years bother normal people" for $400, Alex.

Thats awesome -

 

[Dawnlight]

This begs the question- had you been a senior in a "seniors only" designated area and saw a person there with a young grandchild, would you have called park authorities to report the lawbreakers?

Well, bcla?

 

[bcla]

You are not allowed open liquor outside. That is a chargeable offense. You are nitpicking to try to prove some obscure, ridiculous point.

Not nitpicking. In San Francisco, alcohol is allowed (or not) in certain parks and spelled out in the city's park code as passed by the Board of Supervisors. It's not a state open container alcohol violation, but a city law. Most notably it isn't allowed in "neighborhood parks", which are spelled out by name in the park code. Beer and wine is actually allowed in Golden Gate Park, but not within 100 feet of a playground. Most of the time people are just told to pour out open containers and to not open any more. The city has dedicated park rangers, but they don't have law enforcement powers. I heard almost all of them have law enforcement credentials, and one of their leaders asked for law enforcement powers as well as the right to carry firearms. If they have any kind of serious problems, they always call SFPD, which also patrol the parks. Also - where I live, the regional park police are armed and have arrest powers, even though the bulk of their work is enforcing park regulations.

http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway....o-destination-name:'4.10']$x=Advanced#JD_4.10

I remember one time I did have an open container in a city park. It was in the parking lot and a cop came by and told me to pour it out. I later found out it was something in the park regulations about consuming alcohol within 50 feet of a road or parking lot.

 

[bcla]

Well, bcla?

I would have no reason to be there and would respect the laws and regulations. That being said, the rationale behind the law is to provide a quiet place for seniors, so it might be appropriate to ask someone to leave if they have a disruptive grandchild. Now having read the law, I think they might want to tweak it to allow for dedicated senior caregivers to accompany said seniors.

 

[Missy1961]

I'll take "Things that would never in a million years bother normal people" for $400, Alex.

Best line ever! Is it okay if I borrow it once or twice?