no more parks in ghettos?

[cogy]

i thought you could sue when you got hurt because the swing set in the city park broke and injured you.

if you get shot standing in a park thats hardly anyones fault but the shooters.

it would be a huge legal stretch, but if you wanted to sue the city you would have to show you had a reasonable expectation of safety standing outside, in the city park, and that it was not met because of massive police negligence or malfeasance.

im not taking a side here, simply highlighting.

spooky: what responsibility should be taken from whom? the kids from parents? not going to take the lib bait though. just wondering.

[Noahfingway]

Originally Posted by spooky

i know that parks are said to have beneficial effects to neighborhoods, but are they worth the risk to our kids? would we be better off eliminating public gathering spots in high crime areas, giving police the ability to use gatherings of suspicious people as a reason for questioning/detainment? maybe we could move the parks directly adjoining police stations, to ensure that only kids are using them as the are intended.....


any thoughts?

Well this very topic has been in the news lately here in california. I think it was the City of West Sacramento that recently passed an ordinance banning gang members and sex offenders from loitering in public places. Not just parks but vacant lots...out front of the corner store etc. All of this hinging I guess on recent court rulings. The supreme court however has ruled against similar laws in the past.

Cities are not foregoing parks completely but more strictly enforcing the rules they already have.

I think it can work but there needs to be a real balance between the rights of ordinary law abiding citizens and Gang members. That assumes that just because you "Look like a gang member" does not mean you are one.

I would really have no problem busting up every gathering of KNOWN gang members....

[spooky]

Originally Posted by cogy

if you get shot standing in a park thats hardly anyones fault but the shooters.

it would be a huge legal stretch, but if you wanted to sue the city you would have to show you had a reasonable expectation of safety standing outside, in the city park, and that it was not met because of massive police negligence or malfeasance.

im not taking a side here, simply highlighting.

well, if a city put a park on the edge of a cliff, the city wouldnt be responsible if some 4 year old fell to his death? if the city built a park next to a freeway, no problems when a kid gets run down? what about putting a park right beside an alligator farm, with just a 4 foot chain link fence between them? right beside a raging river? theres lots of places you cant put a playground and expect the kids to be safe, in my opinion. and the owner of the park would be at least partially responsible in all these circumstances. even if you had a cop stationed at the park. you knowingly built it in an unsafe place.

if you built a park in some inner city places, theres a reasonable expectation that it will give some criminals oppertunity to rape/murder/rob. so when that happens, the enablers of that crime should be at least partially responsible.

Originally Posted by cogy

spooky: what responsibility should be taken from whom? the kids from parents? not going to take the lib bait though. just wondering.

the responsibility of looking out for your own kids safety in public parks, if they arent a safe place to be, not allow kids to be there at all, by removing the parks completely. id probably set up a system of fines for owners of vacant lots as well, to cover added police patrolling them to further eliminate unsavory gatherings. and if the fines arent paid, the city can repossess the lots and sell them to developers or develop them on its own.

Originally Posted by Noahfingway

I think it can work but there needs to be a real balance between the rights of ordinary law abiding citizens and Gang members. That assumes that just because you "Look like a gang member" does not mean you are one.

I would really have no problem busting up every gathering of KNOWN gang members....

why cant you get hasseled for just looking like a gang member? should you get hasseled for wearing a ski mask in a bank? what if it becomes fashonable? just because you look like a bank robber doesnt mean you are one, right? fashon isnt an excuse, in my opinion. what if you only look like a drunk driver, stumbling out of a bar with a cop in plain sight, climbing behind the wheel of a car, but your driving doesnt seem obviously impared. can cops stop you for just looking drunk, even though youre not driving suspiciously? maybe someone might just be partially retarded thats just getting off work from the bar, i grant that, but do you want cops to not stop anyone, just because you might possibly not be guilty? when you dress like a thug, isnt there a reasonable expectation that people will view you as one? if you dress like a cop, isnt there a reasonable expectation that people will view you as one?

local authorities should have the choice to make and enforce laws about looking like gang members, giving them the right to at least stop you on the street, question you on the spot, and rummage through your possesions. id riot before id let it happen on a federal level, or even a state level, but i would march for it on a local level if the local community voted for it to happen.


doesnt it make you sick that taking the parks away from kids almost sounds reasonable? deciding whats more valuable, parks for all the kids to enjoy at the cost of a few of their lives, or taking it all away, maybe less people die, but now theres no parks for the kids to play in.

[Annie]

Originally Posted by DanClass

my roomate and i ...

We've seen a picture. Those curtains... that carpet.
You don't have to say "roomate" anymore. We know it's your gramma.

[DanClass]

Originally Posted by spooky

doesnt it make you sick that taking the parks away from kids almost sounds reasonable? .

yes

[cogy]

of course, spooky, if you take the concept to its extreme, things become much simpler. it wouldnt be safe to build a park on military shelling grounds or nuclear dump sites either because those are inherently unsafe environments.

you can argue all you want that ghettos fall under that label. im not certain either way. i do think, however, that putting a park in a ghetto can be, in theory, a good way to improve the neighborhood. you will never get anywhere by taking everything away that a criminal could use, especially things that benefit kids and families and community events.

there was a lot of talk about putting bright lighting in parks at night. they said it was a good deterrent. i wonder though. if you know nyc, you probably know union sq has a ton of cop cars there all night, and it isnt a big park, yet i still intercepted a rape there. i could see the cars parked there, hear the crying from a block away, but besides that it was like a ghost town.

anyshit, i think if you take out the parks you concede to criminals your quality of life and that of everyone else in the neighborhood. fuck with their quality of life instead.