3 ms·

I have nothing against parks. Parks are great. But I'm not sure what problem they supposedly solve. If I were living in an apartment, then a park would be bett

I have nothing against parks. Parks are great. But I'm not sure what problem they supposedly solve. If I were living in an apartment, then a park would be better than nothing. But I can't grow a vegetable garden in a park. I can't enjoy the park while I have stuff inside my house that I need to check on in 15 minutes. You can't let a 5 year-old go to the park alone but, if your backyard is relatively secured and you can see them out of your window, then you can let them play in the backyard. I can't let my dog out to run to the park in order to "do its business" etc. I don't have the same level of privacy and solitude at a park as I do in my backyard. While there are certain things I would prioritize over a backyard (like having a garage to set up a "makers shop" in), there's not much I would trade a backyard for ... least of all a park. Beyond the "yard solution" I also have a very hard time living in even medium-sized cities, let alone large ones. I don't like noise, traffic (street or pedestrian) or crowds. Public transportation is a nightmare for me and grocery delivery services have actually saved my life so I don't need or want a grocery store within walking distance (I find shopping to be one of the most stressful activities in life). Rural living is for me.

seanmcdirmid 4y ago
> But I can't grow a vegetable garden in a park. Zurich has community gardens because of that. Of course, demand is high, you’ll need to get on a list for a plot. But it sounds like you really need rural living, but just a heavy socialized municipality.
- notch898a 4y ago
  In the US it is an arrestable offense for your kids to go play in the park on their own, so I pretty much see it as a waste to fund children's playgrounds. Average parent is worked to death just keeping the household afloat with no time to have to accompany their kid the whole time. Rather have a private one where the police at least need a warrant to enter the secured curtilage.
  - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
    > In the US it is an arrestable offense for your kids to go play in the park on their own No, that is definitely just an urban legend. First, the law would depend on the state, and second, most states don’t have restrictions for kids once they are 7-8 years old, which I consider way too young to be by themselves but I wouldn’t get arrested over it.
    - notch898a 4y ago
      OK as long as you say you won't be arrested I'm sure you won't. The news stories simply from googling "arrested child park" were all fake.
      - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
        It does depend on your state, but whenever it happens, it’s a news story simply because it doesn’t happen often. Nuance is important: > Phillips, Debra Harrell’s attorney, confirmed there is no age at which a child can be left on his or her own specified in South Carolina law. The challenge for the prosecutor will be to prove that this child’s needs and care were not adequately arranged before she was left at the park, he said. There is no law against it (in South Carolina at least). The law they are using for the charge is reckless endangerment. And usually at the end of it, prosecutors drop all charges due to lack of evidence.
        notch898a 4y ago
        Have you ever been subject of a criminal complaint? Not long ago I was detained on some absurd hearsay. I was cuffed, I was fingerprinted, I was strip searched. Tossed in a cell. Made to perform bodily functions in front of officers. You don't know who is going to take care of your pets, your child(ren). You don't know if you'll be fired from your job. You don't know when you'll be released. In the case of something involving a child, it will be used as prejudicial information in the DCS case and the followup investigation. You quite likely will be put on a civil list of child abusers, which makes it difficult to work with children or adopt. All these things make public playgrounds just extremely inconvenient. It's such a treacherous hazard I can't in good conscious consider it as anything close to a substitute.
scythe 4y ago
>But I can't grow a vegetable garden in a park. It's funny how common things like vegetable gardens are in Internet rhetoric and how comparatively rare they are in the world I actually walk around in. This is a thread about development policy. If you actually want to raise a vegetable garden, you're in a small minority. Nobody is forcing you to live anywhere, and there is certainly no need to prevent the growth of cities or preserve low-density neighborhoods in the inner region of a major metropolitan area to ensure there will be space for the small fraction of us who want to grow their own tomatoes. In fact the opposite is true: allowing dense development to take place ensures that there will be more unspoilt land available on the outskirts for those of us with a green thumb.
- alisonatwork 4y ago
  I agree with all of this, while also noting I have had several friends and colleagues who grow herbs and vegetables in apartments, on balconies, in sun rooms and so on. Anything short of a tree appears completely viable even without an expansive back yard.
- gspencley 4y ago
  I don't understand your point. I was replying to people who were talking about how parks solve certain problems for those without yards, and I was wondering what problems they solve. The fact that most people don't grow vegetable gardens is cherry-picking one example I gave of something you can do in a backyard but that you can't do in a park. Why did you zero in on that and go off on a rant about how most people don't grow vegetable gardens and those who do can not live in cities? That has literally nothing to do with my comment.
  - scythe 4y ago
    >I don't understand your point. My point is simple: you are not being forced to live in a city. >Why did you zero in on that It helped highlight the irrelevance and myopia of your post. >That has literally nothing to do with my comment. Your concluding sentence was "Rural living is for me". Do you see the connection now? This is a thread about how some people make life more expensive for everyone because the world around them is changing and they want to use the government to stop it. This is a thread about development policy. Development policy does not make your backyard disappear. It is a question about whether you should ban other people from living in ways you don't personally enjoy. >I was wondering what problems they solve. The fact that most people don't grow vegetable gardens is cherry-picking one example I gave of something you can do in a backyard but that you can't do in a park. Why did you cherry-pick one example the poster gave about what he enjoys about living in a city and go off on a rant about all of the things you can do in a backyard but not in a park? See how silly that sounds?
JAlexoid 4y ago
> Rural living is for me. Yes. You know where you should be. I'm very adaptive and can do both(to a degree), and a lot of people are like you, me and city dwelling socialites(that pay $5000 for a shoebox apartment in the middle of Manhattan). The issue arises, is when people with your mindset also want to be close to big social life. Then they may, and NIMBYs do, stifle natural city growth. << That is the problem here I'm 100% sure that there is a way to negotiate better outcomes for everyone.

seanmcdirmid 4y ago

> But I can't grow a vegetable garden in a park. Zurich has community gardens because of that. Of course, demand is high, you’ll need to get on a list for a plot. But it sounds like you really need rural living, but just a heavy socialized municipality.

notch898a 4y ago
In the US it is an arrestable offense for your kids to go play in the park on their own, so I pretty much see it as a waste to fund children's playgrounds. Average parent is worked to death just keeping the household afloat with no time to have to accompany their kid the whole time. Rather have a private one where the police at least need a warrant to enter the secured curtilage.
- seanmcdirmid 4y ago
  > In the US it is an arrestable offense for your kids to go play in the park on their own No, that is definitely just an urban legend. First, the law would depend on the state, and second, most states don’t have restrictions for kids once they are 7-8 years old, which I consider way too young to be by themselves but I wouldn’t get arrested over it.
  - notch898a 4y ago
    OK as long as you say you won't be arrested I'm sure you won't. The news stories simply from googling "arrested child park" were all fake.
    - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
      It does depend on your state, but whenever it happens, it’s a news story simply because it doesn’t happen often. Nuance is important: > Phillips, Debra Harrell’s attorney, confirmed there is no age at which a child can be left on his or her own specified in South Carolina law. The challenge for the prosecutor will be to prove that this child’s needs and care were not adequately arranged before she was left at the park, he said. There is no law against it (in South Carolina at least). The law they are using for the charge is reckless endangerment. And usually at the end of it, prosecutors drop all charges due to lack of evidence.
      - notch898a 4y ago
        Have you ever been subject of a criminal complaint? Not long ago I was detained on some absurd hearsay. I was cuffed, I was fingerprinted, I was strip searched. Tossed in a cell. Made to perform bodily functions in front of officers. You don't know who is going to take care of your pets, your child(ren). You don't know if you'll be fired from your job. You don't know when you'll be released. In the case of something involving a child, it will be used as prejudicial information in the DCS case and the followup investigation. You quite likely will be put on a civil list of child abusers, which makes it difficult to work with children or adopt. All these things make public playgrounds just extremely inconvenient. It's such a treacherous hazard I can't in good conscious consider it as anything close to a substitute.

scythe 4y ago

>But I can't grow a vegetable garden in a park. It's funny how common things like vegetable gardens are in Internet rhetoric and how comparatively rare they are in the world I actually walk around in. This is a thread about development policy. If you actually want to raise a vegetable garden, you're in a small minority. Nobody is forcing you to live anywhere, and there is certainly no need to prevent the growth of cities or preserve low-density neighborhoods in the inner region of a major metropolitan area to ensure there will be space for the small fraction of us who want to grow their own tomatoes. In fact the opposite is true: allowing dense development to take place ensures that there will be more unspoilt land available on the outskirts for those of us with a green thumb.

alisonatwork 4y ago
I agree with all of this, while also noting I have had several friends and colleagues who grow herbs and vegetables in apartments, on balconies, in sun rooms and so on. Anything short of a tree appears completely viable even without an expansive back yard.
gspencley 4y ago
I don't understand your point. I was replying to people who were talking about how parks solve certain problems for those without yards, and I was wondering what problems they solve. The fact that most people don't grow vegetable gardens is cherry-picking one example I gave of something you can do in a backyard but that you can't do in a park. Why did you zero in on that and go off on a rant about how most people don't grow vegetable gardens and those who do can not live in cities? That has literally nothing to do with my comment.
- scythe 4y ago
  >I don't understand your point. My point is simple: you are not being forced to live in a city. >Why did you zero in on that It helped highlight the irrelevance and myopia of your post. >That has literally nothing to do with my comment. Your concluding sentence was "Rural living is for me". Do you see the connection now? This is a thread about how some people make life more expensive for everyone because the world around them is changing and they want to use the government to stop it. This is a thread about development policy. Development policy does not make your backyard disappear. It is a question about whether you should ban other people from living in ways you don't personally enjoy. >I was wondering what problems they solve. The fact that most people don't grow vegetable gardens is cherry-picking one example I gave of something you can do in a backyard but that you can't do in a park. Why did you cherry-pick one example the poster gave about what he enjoys about living in a city and go off on a rant about all of the things you can do in a backyard but not in a park? See how silly that sounds?

JAlexoid 4y ago

> Rural living is for me. Yes. You know where you should be. I'm very adaptive and can do both(to a degree), and a lot of people are like you, me and city dwelling socialites(that pay $5000 for a shoebox apartment in the middle of Manhattan). The issue arises, is when people with your mindset also want to be close to big social life. Then they may, and NIMBYs do, stifle natural city growth. << That is the problem here I'm 100% sure that there is a way to negotiate better outcomes for everyone.