6 ms·

While I agree with the idea that parks shouldn't be restricted in spirit, what's the difference (other than scale) between this park and other resources such as

While I agree with the idea that parks shouldn't be restricted in spirit, what's the difference (other than scale) between this park and other resources such as libraries or pools that require you to be a member of the jurisdiction that pays for them?

fortran77 6y ago
Most public libraries allow everyone to come in and browse. Checkouts are restricted to residents, but even then there are usually inter-library loans available.
- newsclues 6y ago
  Talk to librarians, who like hackers have a dedication to freedom of information, about the need to restrict access to libraries for all as society has allowed the general public mental health to crumble and make libraries unsafe without banning some.
  - tptacek 6y ago
    I have talked to librarians about this issue, in the Chicago area, and none of them said that libraries should be restricted.
    - dbt00 6y ago
      CPL is awesome. They recently dropped late fines, too, which I greatly appreciate. I miss dropping in on the Harold Washington branch after work when I worked in the loop.
- sieabahlpark 6y ago
  Wouldn't that be discriminating then, which is what the article is claiming no one should do?
ebg13 6y ago
You don't need to be a local resident to enter and enjoy a public library, only to remove things from one.
- bhupy 6y ago
  It depends on the library. I guess the real questions is: is it unconstitutional for there to be a public library that only allows entry top library card holders?
  - twblalock 6y ago
    What part of the constitution would make that illegal?
    - bhupy 6y ago
      The same part of the constitution that the ACLU thinks makes public parks for residents-only illegal.
  - ebg13 6y ago
    I've personally never met a public library that denied entry to non-residents. Got any references?
    - bhupy 6y ago
      That's not the question, though — we're talking about what the theoretical bounds of the Constitution are. The ACLU appears to be arguing that a local government restricting access to some municipal/public property on the basis of residency is a violation of the Federal constitution (which part of it?). If that's the case, then what's the limiting principle?
      - rmk 6y ago
        The complaint is here. You can read it to understand the basis of the filing: https://www.aclunc.org/sites/default/files/Final_Complaint_for_filing_0.pdf https://www.aclunc.org/sites/default/files/Final_Complaint_f... In a nutshell, the basis is: - Restricts right of travel, which is considered a fundamental right that has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the Supreme Courts of both the state and the country. - Restricts free speech: people are being barred from exercising political speech (or speech of any kind) inside the park. - Restricts freedom of assembly: Peaceful gatherings in the park to discuss these things are barred. Basically, the beef is with the ordinances that fine and enforcement that harasses people who will enter the park anyway. EDIT: There is another interesting basis: One of the plaintiffs is a black store owner (store located in Palo Alto), who pays taxes to the city (that presumably contribute to the upkeep of the park), but still can't enter the park, because she lives in Menlo Park, a neighboring town. So what is the basis for excluding her from the park? It seems to me that 'residents pay taxes but others do not' is not a valid argument for barring access to nonresidents, if you consider the plaintiff's complaint.
paxys 6y ago
There is a big difference between specific buildings/facilities and open land in general. This park is 1400 acres. A city-enforced "residents-only" neighborhood, for example, would be 100% illegal. The city pays to maintain streets as well but doesn't get do dictate who can use them.
- dan_quixote 6y ago
  Does this still apply if you put a fence around said open land?
- tidepod12 6y ago
  >A city-enforced "residents-only" neighborhood, for example, would be 100% illegal. Where? AFAIK gated neighborhoods are common all across the US, and in many cases (though not all) the roads within such neighborhoods are still owned by the city.
  - karpierz 6y ago
    Can you point to a concrete example of a gated community with roads that are owned by the city?
    - tidepod12 6y ago
      The gated community where my parents live has streets owned by the city. I'm not going to link the specific one, because I don't want to dox myself, but it does certainly happen. I specifically remember it because there was a tiff in the neighborhood over it when the city installed new stop signs within the community against the wishes of residents, but there wasn't anything the residents could do because the streets were owned by the city and thus had to abide by city traffic laws. edit: after looking into it, it appears that one common scenario is for an HOA to enter an agreement with the city where the city continues to provide street services on the community streets even though the streets are owned by the HOA. I'm not sure if that was the situation with my parents hood, but it certainly muddles the water a bit.
braythwayt 6y ago
I have a feeling that as a Canadian, I really cannot cross the chasm between our society and America's, but I'll try. Here in Toronto, the libraries are open to the public. Borrowing material or using their online facilities requires membership, still known as "having a library card," and for that you need to live, work, or study in Toronto. (Update, courtesy xatt: There are also paid memberships available for those who don't qualify for free membership, approximately CAD10/month: https://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/using-the-library/your-library-card/ https://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/using-the-library/your-l.... But physical access to the library is free to everyone.) I also think there are other allowances, such as if you care for a relative who lives there, but the gist is: 1. Anybody can walk in and use the physical library, and; 2. There are additional resources for those who have a connection to the jurisdiction. There are similar things around community centres. During public swim, everybody can swim. During certain programs, you may need to be a member of the facility. I am aware that some physical parks have special programs, and you may need to register with the city and be a resident to use them. But the park itself is public, and anybody can go there. You just may not be able to drop into an outdoor yoga program. So clearly, we have a two-tier system, and the broadest tier is literally "everyone." The second tier is the size of a municipality. In a certain very generous sense, Toronto's libraries, community centres, and park programs are similar to "gated" parks for a neighbourhood, as they have some features/programs that require membership and/or some connection to the municipality. But in another, they are manifestly different. Neighbourhood parks are usually set up to exclude "the wrong people." They're about constructing gated communities, with all the classist and racist implications associated with these structures. Whereas, public libraries are exactly what they say on the tin: They're for the public. Rich, poor, from near, or far.
- 0xffff2 6y ago
  Not sure the chasm is as big as you think. This is exactly how things operate for the most part in the US as well.
- dan_quixote 6y ago
  That sounds identical to anywhere I've ever lived in the US
- 6y ago
heavyset_go 6y ago
I've always been able to buy memberships at libraries in jurisdictions that I don't reside in. This goes for large cities and towns with a few thousand residents in them.
labcomputer 6y ago
My experience with public libraries (and university libraries, for that matter) has been that they allow anyone to come in and browse the stacks. True, usually only local residents are eligible for library cards, but outside residents can usually request books via inter-library loan.
Rebelgecko 6y ago
If you live in California, you can use any library in California. I think that's fairly reasonable

fortran77 6y ago

Most public libraries allow everyone to come in and browse. Checkouts are restricted to residents, but even then there are usually inter-library loans available.

newsclues 6y ago
Talk to librarians, who like hackers have a dedication to freedom of information, about the need to restrict access to libraries for all as society has allowed the general public mental health to crumble and make libraries unsafe without banning some.
- tptacek 6y ago
  I have talked to librarians about this issue, in the Chicago area, and none of them said that libraries should be restricted.
  - dbt00 6y ago
    CPL is awesome. They recently dropped late fines, too, which I greatly appreciate. I miss dropping in on the Harold Washington branch after work when I worked in the loop.
sieabahlpark 6y ago
Wouldn't that be discriminating then, which is what the article is claiming no one should do?

ebg13 6y ago

You don't need to be a local resident to enter and enjoy a public library, only to remove things from one.

bhupy 6y ago
It depends on the library. I guess the real questions is: is it unconstitutional for there to be a public library that only allows entry top library card holders?
- twblalock 6y ago
  What part of the constitution would make that illegal?
  - bhupy 6y ago
    The same part of the constitution that the ACLU thinks makes public parks for residents-only illegal.
- ebg13 6y ago
  I've personally never met a public library that denied entry to non-residents. Got any references?
  - bhupy 6y ago
    That's not the question, though — we're talking about what the theoretical bounds of the Constitution are. The ACLU appears to be arguing that a local government restricting access to some municipal/public property on the basis of residency is a violation of the Federal constitution (which part of it?). If that's the case, then what's the limiting principle?
    - rmk 6y ago
      The complaint is here. You can read it to understand the basis of the filing: https://www.aclunc.org/sites/default/files/Final_Complaint_for_filing_0.pdf https://www.aclunc.org/sites/default/files/Final_Complaint_f... In a nutshell, the basis is: - Restricts right of travel, which is considered a fundamental right that has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the Supreme Courts of both the state and the country. - Restricts free speech: people are being barred from exercising political speech (or speech of any kind) inside the park. - Restricts freedom of assembly: Peaceful gatherings in the park to discuss these things are barred. Basically, the beef is with the ordinances that fine and enforcement that harasses people who will enter the park anyway. EDIT: There is another interesting basis: One of the plaintiffs is a black store owner (store located in Palo Alto), who pays taxes to the city (that presumably contribute to the upkeep of the park), but still can't enter the park, because she lives in Menlo Park, a neighboring town. So what is the basis for excluding her from the park? It seems to me that 'residents pay taxes but others do not' is not a valid argument for barring access to nonresidents, if you consider the plaintiff's complaint.

paxys 6y ago

There is a big difference between specific buildings/facilities and open land in general. This park is 1400 acres. A city-enforced "residents-only" neighborhood, for example, would be 100% illegal. The city pays to maintain streets as well but doesn't get do dictate who can use them.

dan_quixote 6y ago
Does this still apply if you put a fence around said open land?
tidepod12 6y ago
>A city-enforced "residents-only" neighborhood, for example, would be 100% illegal. Where? AFAIK gated neighborhoods are common all across the US, and in many cases (though not all) the roads within such neighborhoods are still owned by the city.
- karpierz 6y ago
  Can you point to a concrete example of a gated community with roads that are owned by the city?
  - tidepod12 6y ago
    The gated community where my parents live has streets owned by the city. I'm not going to link the specific one, because I don't want to dox myself, but it does certainly happen. I specifically remember it because there was a tiff in the neighborhood over it when the city installed new stop signs within the community against the wishes of residents, but there wasn't anything the residents could do because the streets were owned by the city and thus had to abide by city traffic laws. edit: after looking into it, it appears that one common scenario is for an HOA to enter an agreement with the city where the city continues to provide street services on the community streets even though the streets are owned by the HOA. I'm not sure if that was the situation with my parents hood, but it certainly muddles the water a bit.

braythwayt 6y ago

I have a feeling that as a Canadian, I really cannot cross the chasm between our society and America's, but I'll try. Here in Toronto, the libraries are open to the public. Borrowing material or using their online facilities requires membership, still known as "having a library card," and for that you need to live, work, or study in Toronto. (Update, courtesy xatt: There are also paid memberships available for those who don't qualify for free membership, approximately CAD10/month: https://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/using-the-library/your-library-card/ https://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/using-the-library/your-l.... But physical access to the library is free to everyone.) I also think there are other allowances, such as if you care for a relative who lives there, but the gist is: 1. Anybody can walk in and use the physical library, and; 2. There are additional resources for those who have a connection to the jurisdiction. There are similar things around community centres. During public swim, everybody can swim. During certain programs, you may need to be a member of the facility. I am aware that some physical parks have special programs, and you may need to register with the city and be a resident to use them. But the park itself is public, and anybody can go there. You just may not be able to drop into an outdoor yoga program. So clearly, we have a two-tier system, and the broadest tier is literally "everyone." The second tier is the size of a municipality. In a certain very generous sense, Toronto's libraries, community centres, and park programs are similar to "gated" parks for a neighbourhood, as they have some features/programs that require membership and/or some connection to the municipality. But in another, they are manifestly different. Neighbourhood parks are usually set up to exclude "the wrong people." They're about constructing gated communities, with all the classist and racist implications associated with these structures. Whereas, public libraries are exactly what they say on the tin: They're for the public. Rich, poor, from near, or far.

0xffff2 6y ago
Not sure the chasm is as big as you think. This is exactly how things operate for the most part in the US as well.
dan_quixote 6y ago
That sounds identical to anywhere I've ever lived in the US
6y ago

heavyset_go 6y ago

I've always been able to buy memberships at libraries in jurisdictions that I don't reside in. This goes for large cities and towns with a few thousand residents in them.

labcomputer 6y ago

My experience with public libraries (and university libraries, for that matter) has been that they allow anyone to come in and browse the stacks. True, usually only local residents are eligible for library cards, but outside residents can usually request books via inter-library loan.

Rebelgecko 6y ago

If you live in California, you can use any library in California. I think that's fairly reasonable