9 ms·

>> City officials were aghast at large numbers of individuals playing Pokemon Go who visited parks, littered, trampled grass and flowers, and stayed past park h

>> City officials were aghast at large numbers of individuals playing Pokemon Go who visited parks, littered, trampled grass and flowers, and stayed past park hours. This seems like a legitimate issue though. How do you propose it be solved?

dragonwriter 9y ago
By enforcing rules against littering, using parks after hours, etc.
- Sleeep 9y ago
  They were complaining the enforcement was what was expensive... "It cost the city tens of thousands of dollars in additional law enforcement."
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    Government doesn't have a right to cheap enforcement that trumps rights held by the people, like those protected by the First Amendment.
    - Sleeep 9y ago
      Yeah, I totally agree with you. I was just pointing out that "enforcing rules against littering, using parks after hours, etc." isn't the solution to them, they see it as the problem.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - barsonme 9y ago
    I don't quite understand the issue. It's the government's job to keep up public infrastructure regardless of how heavily it's used—that's something the left _and_ right can agree on.
    - minikites 9y ago
      The right does their best to cut government revenue via lower taxes, so how do you propose maintaining infrastructure with less income?
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        A common method supported by the right (especially the libertarian right) is to sell off the (non-defense, non-law-enforcement) infrastructure, so that it is no longer a public thing that government needs to maintain.
      - syshum 9y ago
        Make people that use the resources pay for them. the national parks are almost fully funded by the people that visit them. I do not use any of the Local Parks, I do not pay Pokemon Go, I do not have a use for either People that use the parks should pay for them, then if there is an increase in activity from something like Pokemon Go that means Revenue also increases to pay for the increased costs to maintain the asset.
        ecnahc515 9y ago
        Unfortunately, if parks were mostly paid by the people using them, we would have no parks. Most people won't pay to use a park, and would instead just no go. Additionally, it's often extremely difficult to force people to pay to use your park. It's different with national parks which people travel to for the sole purpose of going to the park, but local parks, lakes, etc will have a much more difficult time making people pay for it.
        tostitos1979 9y ago
        You should check out the parks/beaches in some towns in Westchester and CT (e.g. around Greenwich). It is a disgrace that they have people sitting there enforcing access (e.g. residency).
        syshum 9y ago
- jauer 9y ago
  selectively enforcing laws against Pokemon players... E.g. enforcing parking hours including threatening to immediately tow cars except they'd ignore cars in the same lot that looked like they would belong to patrons of the restaurant frequented by the area elites.
jmcdiesel 9y ago
Staying past park hours for the most part is dumb... as far as being a big deal, its not. People walking around trying to play a game after hours is no something that needs policing in the first place... Is the game responsible for people littering? Or tramping grass (seriously, its grass... lets get over ourselves) or flowers... Is the game responsible for that, or are the people who do the wrong thing responsible? This points at the overall shifting of blame for everything that is becoming so common in our culture... put the blame on the person who does the wrong thing.
- wfunction 9y ago
  >> This seems like a legitimate issue though. How do you propose it be solved? > Is the game responsible for people littering? I feel like you didn't answer my question? Edit, to clarify: I'm asking what the actual solution is: expecting the city to pay for skyrocketing enforcement? Or letting the park get trashed and then blaming the citizens? Or just closing the park and blaming people for it happening? etc.
  - nemo44x 9y ago
    I think they did: > put the blame on the person who does the wrong thing.
    - LoonyBalloony 9y ago
      While I agree, I think the problem is affording blaming the person who does the wrong thing. Perhaps more permanent solution to the problem is in order such as fencing around the flowers getting trampled. End the drug war if you want to save money elsewhere for this.
    - wfunction 9y ago
      How does that answer the question? I'm asking how to solve problem, the response is who needs to receive the blame? Edit: See edit above. The question isn't whom to blame, the question is how to resolve the issue. Blaming people doesn't generally resolve an issue, but enforcing it or putting in place mechanisms for preventing it or some other tangible action might.
PeterisP 9y ago
Large numbers of people visiting part sounds like a success - the only purpose why the park exists in the first place is so that the residents can go there and visit, so if they're doing it more than before then the park is achieving it's goal and it's great! It would be reasonable to expect that the job of these city officials should be to (a) encourage the people to visit parks even more; and (b) maintain the parks adequately to their usage - if people use the parks more then it obviously costs more to maintain, but it also obviously means that people are getting more benefit from the parks and they want them to be maintained more. Enforcing the rules about littering and trampling flowers is part of maintaining the park; but if people are routinely staying past park hours (the whole concept of park hours is a bit strange to me, I'd expect parks to simply be unserviced but otherwise available 24/7), then likely that's a sign that these hours should be extended - the purpose of littering restrictions is obvious but the only legitimate purpose of restricted hours is that the population wants the hours to be restricted for safety reasons or whatever; if now it turns out that the population doesn't want that restriction anymore, then it shouldn't exist.
- wfunction 9y ago
  I agree with you entirely about the success but I don't think that implies a lack of a failure. Yes, the entire point of a park is for people to visit, and I love that people are doing that, but "visiting" a public place is not the same as trashing it. Especially given that there are rare flora there -- the point is for people to be able to enjoy them, not destroy them. How do you respond to that? Do you just think "who cares about rare plants, just plant grass or everyday flowers or something", or do you think there's value to having something less commonplace? Obviously these all need care, and fining people doesn't really fix the problem of letting the plants grow, since when the crowd is large there's always going to be someone messing something up, even if it's a small percentage of the people.
- ajmurmann 9y ago
  They weren't there though to enjoy there park they were there because of the game. Not even because the park is a great environment to play there have but because the game encouraged to be in that place. If the game had put all the rare Pokemon in a parking lot that's probably were people would have gone. Were people there to enjoy nature? I doubt it.

dragonwriter 9y ago

By enforcing rules against littering, using parks after hours, etc.

Sleeep 9y ago
They were complaining the enforcement was what was expensive... "It cost the city tens of thousands of dollars in additional law enforcement."
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  Government doesn't have a right to cheap enforcement that trumps rights held by the people, like those protected by the First Amendment.
  - Sleeep 9y ago
    Yeah, I totally agree with you. I was just pointing out that "enforcing rules against littering, using parks after hours, etc." isn't the solution to them, they see it as the problem.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- barsonme 9y ago
  I don't quite understand the issue. It's the government's job to keep up public infrastructure regardless of how heavily it's used—that's something the left _and_ right can agree on.
  - minikites 9y ago
    The right does their best to cut government revenue via lower taxes, so how do you propose maintaining infrastructure with less income?
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      A common method supported by the right (especially the libertarian right) is to sell off the (non-defense, non-law-enforcement) infrastructure, so that it is no longer a public thing that government needs to maintain.
    - syshum 9y ago
      Make people that use the resources pay for them. the national parks are almost fully funded by the people that visit them. I do not use any of the Local Parks, I do not pay Pokemon Go, I do not have a use for either People that use the parks should pay for them, then if there is an increase in activity from something like Pokemon Go that means Revenue also increases to pay for the increased costs to maintain the asset.
      - ecnahc515 9y ago
        Unfortunately, if parks were mostly paid by the people using them, we would have no parks. Most people won't pay to use a park, and would instead just no go. Additionally, it's often extremely difficult to force people to pay to use your park. It's different with national parks which people travel to for the sole purpose of going to the park, but local parks, lakes, etc will have a much more difficult time making people pay for it.
        tostitos1979 9y ago
        You should check out the parks/beaches in some towns in Westchester and CT (e.g. around Greenwich). It is a disgrace that they have people sitting there enforcing access (e.g. residency).
        syshum 9y ago
jauer 9y ago
selectively enforcing laws against Pokemon players... E.g. enforcing parking hours including threatening to immediately tow cars except they'd ignore cars in the same lot that looked like they would belong to patrons of the restaurant frequented by the area elites.

jmcdiesel 9y ago

Staying past park hours for the most part is dumb... as far as being a big deal, its not. People walking around trying to play a game after hours is no something that needs policing in the first place... Is the game responsible for people littering? Or tramping grass (seriously, its grass... lets get over ourselves) or flowers... Is the game responsible for that, or are the people who do the wrong thing responsible? This points at the overall shifting of blame for everything that is becoming so common in our culture... put the blame on the person who does the wrong thing.

wfunction 9y ago
>> This seems like a legitimate issue though. How do you propose it be solved? > Is the game responsible for people littering? I feel like you didn't answer my question? Edit, to clarify: I'm asking what the actual solution is: expecting the city to pay for skyrocketing enforcement? Or letting the park get trashed and then blaming the citizens? Or just closing the park and blaming people for it happening? etc.
- nemo44x 9y ago
  I think they did: > put the blame on the person who does the wrong thing.
  - LoonyBalloony 9y ago
    While I agree, I think the problem is affording blaming the person who does the wrong thing. Perhaps more permanent solution to the problem is in order such as fencing around the flowers getting trampled. End the drug war if you want to save money elsewhere for this.
  - wfunction 9y ago
    How does that answer the question? I'm asking how to solve problem, the response is who needs to receive the blame? Edit: See edit above. The question isn't whom to blame, the question is how to resolve the issue. Blaming people doesn't generally resolve an issue, but enforcing it or putting in place mechanisms for preventing it or some other tangible action might.

PeterisP 9y ago

Large numbers of people visiting part sounds like a success - the only purpose why the park exists in the first place is so that the residents can go there and visit, so if they're doing it more than before then the park is achieving it's goal and it's great! It would be reasonable to expect that the job of these city officials should be to (a) encourage the people to visit parks even more; and (b) maintain the parks adequately to their usage - if people use the parks more then it obviously costs more to maintain, but it also obviously means that people are getting more benefit from the parks and they want them to be maintained more. Enforcing the rules about littering and trampling flowers is part of maintaining the park; but if people are routinely staying past park hours (the whole concept of park hours is a bit strange to me, I'd expect parks to simply be unserviced but otherwise available 24/7), then likely that's a sign that these hours should be extended - the purpose of littering restrictions is obvious but the only legitimate purpose of restricted hours is that the population wants the hours to be restricted for safety reasons or whatever; if now it turns out that the population doesn't want that restriction anymore, then it shouldn't exist.

wfunction 9y ago
I agree with you entirely about the success but I don't think that implies a lack of a failure. Yes, the entire point of a park is for people to visit, and I love that people are doing that, but "visiting" a public place is not the same as trashing it. Especially given that there are rare flora there -- the point is for people to be able to enjoy them, not destroy them. How do you respond to that? Do you just think "who cares about rare plants, just plant grass or everyday flowers or something", or do you think there's value to having something less commonplace? Obviously these all need care, and fining people doesn't really fix the problem of letting the plants grow, since when the crowd is large there's always going to be someone messing something up, even if it's a small percentage of the people.
ajmurmann 9y ago
They weren't there though to enjoy there park they were there because of the game. Not even because the park is a great environment to play there have but because the game encouraged to be in that place. If the game had put all the rare Pokemon in a parking lot that's probably were people would have gone. Were people there to enjoy nature? I doubt it.