3 ms·

> Hard to imagine how "free riding" a public park would work Parks require upkeep. Parking lots and trails must be maintained. Litter must be picked up. Police

by ggreer 6y ago

> Hard to imagine how "free riding" a public park would work Parks require upkeep. Parking lots and trails must be maintained. Litter must be picked up. Police are needed to evict anyone camping (you'd be surprised how often this happens in California). If you're a resident, your taxes pay for that upkeep. If you're a non-resident, you're free riding. Banning non-residents is a dick move, but it's unclear how it's unconstitutional. Honestly, I think usage fees would benefit both sides. Non-residents could enjoy the park, and the city wouldn't have to worry about a potential burden on their budget.

favorited 6y ago
> your taxes pay for that upkeep. If you're a non-resident, you're free riding How about the woman who owns the stationary shop mentioned in the article? Her business pays taxes to Palo Alto, but she can't use the park because she doesn't live there.
- ggreer 6y ago
  Sadly that's true of business owners pretty much everywhere. Corporations can have many different ownership structures, so it's very difficult to determine who qualifies as an "owner" or not. To use a ridiculous example: I own stock in Berkshire Hathaway. I'm sure there's a GEICO office or some other Berkshire Hathaway property in Palo Alto. Does that mean I should have access to the park under the current rules? Probably not. It's hard to draw a bright line when it comes to admitting people based on business ownership. Even in the case that the business is a sole proprietorship, how does one prove both ownership and the business address? You'd need to bring a ream of documents. Residency is easier to check and simpler to judge, since it just requires showing ID. Here's another example: Non-resident immigrants can found companies in the US and pay taxes to the US government, but many of them can't even enter the country. Again, I think this law is stupid and I'd love to see the city of Palo Alto change it. But I don't see how it's unconstitutional. As history has shown us, the US Constitution allows legislators to pass many, many stupid laws.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    You don't need a "ream of documents" to prove you own a business as a sole proprietor. Off the top of my head, a copy of the lease for the property, or the title record if they own the property, along with a copy of their business license and some form of personal identification should be enough. Unless commercial leases are now routinely multiple hundreds of pages, that looks to me like it should come in at well under 20 pages, and possibly less than 5. All of these documents should be easily, if not instantly accessible to any business owner.
GaryNumanVevo 6y ago
Surely having a full time guard and ID checkpoints would make it more expensive for everyone involved. If they don’t like paying the additional taxes they can vote or move.

by ggreer 6y ago

favorited 6y ago

> your taxes pay for that upkeep. If you're a non-resident, you're free riding How about the woman who owns the stationary shop mentioned in the article? Her business pays taxes to Palo Alto, but she can't use the park because she doesn't live there.

ggreer 6y ago
Sadly that's true of business owners pretty much everywhere. Corporations can have many different ownership structures, so it's very difficult to determine who qualifies as an "owner" or not. To use a ridiculous example: I own stock in Berkshire Hathaway. I'm sure there's a GEICO office or some other Berkshire Hathaway property in Palo Alto. Does that mean I should have access to the park under the current rules? Probably not. It's hard to draw a bright line when it comes to admitting people based on business ownership. Even in the case that the business is a sole proprietorship, how does one prove both ownership and the business address? You'd need to bring a ream of documents. Residency is easier to check and simpler to judge, since it just requires showing ID. Here's another example: Non-resident immigrants can found companies in the US and pay taxes to the US government, but many of them can't even enter the country. Again, I think this law is stupid and I'd love to see the city of Palo Alto change it. But I don't see how it's unconstitutional. As history has shown us, the US Constitution allows legislators to pass many, many stupid laws.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  You don't need a "ream of documents" to prove you own a business as a sole proprietor. Off the top of my head, a copy of the lease for the property, or the title record if they own the property, along with a copy of their business license and some form of personal identification should be enough. Unless commercial leases are now routinely multiple hundreds of pages, that looks to me like it should come in at well under 20 pages, and possibly less than 5. All of these documents should be easily, if not instantly accessible to any business owner.

GaryNumanVevo 6y ago

Surely having a full time guard and ID checkpoints would make it more expensive for everyone involved. If they don’t like paying the additional taxes they can vote or move.