Re:Judge Rules Milwaukee Flouted U.S. Constitution in Respon...
by wfunction on Friday July 21, 2017 @06:51PM
(#14824317)
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.
Re:Judge Rules Milwaukee Flouted U.S. Constitution in Respon...
by ajmurmann on Saturday July 22, 2017 @01:53AM
(#14825642)
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.
Re:Judge Rules Milwaukee Flouted U.S. Constitution in Respon...
by PeterisP on Saturday July 22, 2017 @06:05AM
(#14826334)
They enjoyed the park because they were able to play the game in a nice park instead of on that parking lot. The park is there so that people can spend time in a nicer place, and it is "doing its job" no matter if they're just walking there, having a picnic, playing ball, sitting on a bench, jogging or playing a game.
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.