The idea of parks having opening hours is so completely alien to me that I don't even know where to begin...

If you leave parks open at night you have to provide quite a bit extra policing. Otherwise they get taken over by hookers and junkies, and normal people won't go there. That kind of policing is the first thing that gets cut when cities run out of money, at least in my area, so they close the parks at night.

And if you close it, then you either need a big impenetrable fence around the whole thing, or you still need to police it.

You do, but not as many.

In my city they close the small parks (1-10 blocks, surrounded by cast iron railings) but can't do anything about the huge park that covers several square kilometres and has important roads running through it. There are some hookers and junkies and doggers there at night, but they have to go somewhere and they don't bother the "normal people" who are, after all, tucked up in bed at that time.

All this suggests that locking parks overnight is more about every government's burning desire to "think of the children" and control everything possible than any legitimate concern for public safety.

If parks did not have hours enforced, they would become permanent homeless tent encampments.

Thats a bad argument... There are plenty of places that rules in place to prevent "homeless tent encampments" from being a thing. The same laws that prevent you from camping in city parks. Thats a bad example...

Obviously you haven't been to Portland lately. Any plot of land that doesn't have an overnight closure turns into a homeless camp.

Lets look at an open park that can't be easily locked up.

How much easier is it to enforce no one in the park past $10 than no camping in the park.

>> 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.

I think they did:

> put the blame on the person who does the wrong thing.

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.

Enforce existing laws on the people who are to blame. Fine them for littering.

As far as flower-trampling, just shrug and wait for the fad to pass. It's not a big deal.

A city may cite a citizen for mischief or perhaps vandalism for flower-trampling.

Great, sounds like a solution to me!

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.