California skate park now requires fingerprints to enter

reply to post by ANOMALY502


I'm sorry maybe I missed the reason but why is this happening??? it seems bloody stupid to me, just another way to sue someone or protect the owners from litigation

reply to post by ZuluChaka

I am actually all for freedom. Personally, I dont think the government even has a right to build a skate park or a swimmng pool or any other thing that competes with private business, because it is unfair competition.

Parks and recreation are not a business. People have had a long history of enjoyment of public lands since time immemorial, and business does not have the right to override this right in order to do business. I am all for free markets, but not at all for fascism. Free markets means the governments stay out of the business sector and that the business sector stays out of government. Private amusement parks are fine, but Griffith Park in Los Angeles is not in anyway competing with Disneyland.

It is ok for them to have parks to protect the land and create greeen space because it is good for the environment and the community and it a park doesnt realy compete with private business, because it would be hard to turn a profit with a park, but I bet someone has.

A skateboard park does not interfere with the free market. If skateboard parks were profitable they would exist ad nauseum and there would be no need to create a public one. The need for a public one was no doubt created by the need to remove skateboarders from business centers where skateboarders were abusing the rights of others. It was a prudent and understandable move, and made to acknowledge the right to skateboard, and the right for business to build structures that very well may serve as excellent ramps and structures for skateboarders, but were not built for that purpose.

However, parks shouldnt be allowed to build BMX tracks and stuff like that because their are private companies out their doing that and how can you compete with a goverment that can just bleed money and raise taxes when their business plan sucks.

There are private golf clubs, and public golf courses. The private golf clubs discriminate and this is their right to do so, but people have the right to play golf, and should not have to suffer discrimination in order to enjoy that right, thus public golf courses exist. Public swimming pools exist for the same reason. These public parks are not competing with private businesses, they are facilitating the rights of the people. Business is not about facilitation any other right than that of supply and demand. Almost anything private is preferable to that of public, and when one can afford such private luxury most will take advantage of that luxury. Those who cannot take advantage of the public institutions made available to the public.

The purpose of creating public facilities is to acknowledge the fundamental right people have to either skateboard, ride their BMX's, or play golf, but they are creating these facilities with the reasonable expectation that reasonable people will use the facilities to enjoy their fundamental rights instead of using other public areas which could create a controversy of rights. This is why governments exist to ensure domestic tranquility, among other reasons.

I am all for super compressing governement down to the bare minimum so we can regain our freedoms. So I bet we think a lot alike.

You are correct that when it comes to limited government we do think alike. However, a limited government is best created by actually limiting that government, not by denying to the public means to enjoy recreational activities, but by denying government the authority to implement fingerprinting devices in public parks, among many other things. Limiting governments ability to tax is the best and surest way to limit government. By limiting a governments ability to tax, your concerns about unnecessary parks becomes moot.

OMG... I am so sorry. I just assumed you were a woman, because I have an Aunt named Jean. Around here usually spelling it like Jean is generally for women and spelliing it Gene is usually for men. I guess it is different in different parts of the country.

Jean Paul Zodeaux is an invention created years ago by myself and a friend while in college. The name is supposed to be French, because we were sure that by making him French our college professors would be more inclined to believe in his "reality". Our assumption was correct, and if you care to you can learn more about the story of Jean Paul Zodeaux here

reply to post by ZuluChaka

Skateboarding is wherever on the planet you want is not a right. In most cities you cannot just skateboard up and down the sidewalks of the main business district.

Sidewalks are called sidewalks for a reason. They are not called Skateboarding pathways, they are called sidewalks, and if skateboarding obstructs the free passage of other people who need to use the sidewalk to actually walk somewhere, then this is an abrogation and derogation of that right. I keep explaining this to you, but you are stubbornly ignoring it in order to declare what is and what is not a right.

Skateboarding is a right, and no government can come along and declare it otherwise. Government does not have the right or authority to decide what is or what is not a right. If it is a right, it is an activity that is not causing any harm to others. Skateboarders not obstructing the free passage of others are doing so by right.

Just because they build a park just for skateboarding doesnt mean they cannot set rules and stipulations for use of the park.

They can set reasonable hours and days and even seasons depending upon the park of when the public has access. The establishment of hours and days in which the park is open to the public is not an abrogation nor derogation of right, and is merely the reasonable time in which park employees are available to the public. Fingerprinting is not reasonable and is an intrusion upon ones privacy. There is a clear difference between establishing rules such as hours of access, and fingerprinting in order to gain access during those times established.

Where I live they charge you for a sticker to go to the parks in the area. That is not unconstitutional. Just a pain in the ass.

The charging of a sticker in order to enter a park is a tax, and it may or may not be Constitutional. It is getting late and I do not care to research the Constitutionality of taxing for the enjoyment of a right. Clearly it is a public park and as such tax dollars are necessary for its upkeep. Charging admission as a tax is not unreasonable then in order to ensure the park is maintained. Denying people access to that park by insisting they must surrender their right to privacy is undeniably unconstitutional. Charging admission is not a denial of right. Nothing is free, all things come with cost.

Originally posted by alaskan
The young kids that have no idea there's anything to worry about are going to grow up thinking about these systems like "Oh this is just like at the park, no big deal..."

You nailed it. It is to condition the young that this is somehow normal.

There was a meeting at my work a few years ago where they announced that they were going to introduce fingerprint scanners for us to clock on and off. A few people were upset about it, and when the boss asked me what I thought, I said it's not relevant to me because if they brought it in, I would leave.

It never happened though.

I completely feel the pain of the these skaters. As an adolescent I was a skater and I always felt portrayed by our government. I think that is one of the factors to me studying conspiracies. Now I see, FINGERPRINTS, Skaters cause no harm what so ever to society in any way. And if you think the other way on that situation than you are either a neo-con, unconstiutionalist, or a born again.

What about the gangs in san diego, why don't they get finger printed when they enter a night club? They cause more damage than skaters. They kill people over drugs. Skateboarders are just trying to have fun. But the gov't doesn't let them be, In practically almost every local municipality.

Sorry for jumping in this discussion late,

Thanks for posting this story.

I find the story crazy, its not right that you have to give your finger print to gain access to a free public park, which should be open to anyone. Its the same thing as any park, whether it be a green grass and trees with benches park, a kids playground, a walking park, dog park or skate park, if its a free public park you shouldn't have to give a finger print to use it. There is vandalism and misbehavior at any park, not just skate parks. The city is just stereotyping the people and athletes who use this park and trying to show they have power and say over who can use it and who cant.

I know at some city owned skate parks and most privately owned skate parks they do require you to show ID or at least log your name along with in case of emergency contact number in a book before use if they don't know you, mostly for safety issues if something should happen like you get badly hurt and need medical attention, but requiring you to register before use of this park with your finger print is one step over the line. Whats next the step to this, fencing off every park like a prison and finger print registration to use any city and state owned park?

Here is a link to the Poway Skate Park,
www.powayskate.com...

A new turnstile would unlock only after a scanner read and recognized the thumbprint of anyone who wanted to enter, said Poway Community Services Director Robert Clark of the city's plan to curb vandalism and misbehavior at the park. Use of the park would still be free.

The system already is employed in parking lots, gyms and other facilities, but this may be the first time it would be used at a skate park, Clark said.

"To our knowledge, no one has this," Clark said. "If this works, you'll see a lot of cities jumping on this fast."

The City Council heard the proposal Tuesday but delayed a decision to allow staffers time to answer technical questions raised at the meeting. Clark said he does not know when the item will return to the council. The preliminary cost of the turnstile and upgraded security cameras would be $50,000, according to the staff report. Clark said the renovations would help the city monitor who is using the park.

City Hall would maintain a database of the names, ages and fingerprints of people who register to use the park, he said. That information, with an upgraded camera system monitoring the park, will help keep skaters on their best behavior even when no one else is around, Clark said.

The thumbprint scanner could be used to bar people caught vandalizing or misbehaving at the park,

This is the only part of it that I agree with, if it went both ways.

and it also could be programmed to allow only skaters of certain ages to use the park at specific times, Clark said. Sometimes younger skaters who are intimidated by older skaters will use local shopping centers, parking lots of basketball courts instead, Clark said, adding that designated skating times could keep the youngsters off those sites and get them back in the park.

Having young kids or people of any age just learning the sport in a skate park can be very dangerous and frustrating at times, they are usually standing in the wrong place at the wrong time, I've seen a lot of people injured due to this. I think limiting certain skill levels not age would be the best thing for this part of it, age shouldn't be a factor, it should go by skill level.

Limiting skill levels at certain times/days: Yes

Requiring finger print registration to use a free public skatepark:
NO

Why do I get the sense that the same people who see this as no big deal also support the controversial AZ law...

Pre-crime is almost here.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

The purpose of creating public facilities is to acknowledge the fundamental right people have to either skateboard, ride their BMX's, or play golf, but they are creating these facilities with the reasonable expectation that reasonable people will use the facilities to enjoy their fundamental rights instead of using other public areas which could create a controversy of rights.

"The fundamental right people have to either skateboard, ride their BMX's, or play golf." LOL. None of those are fundamental rights. First of all none of these even existed 100's of years ago, so how can they be fundamental to the human experience.

There are tons of BMX, Skateboard, and golf facilities in this country that make money. Beyond that you wouldnt even have to make it a business. A group of people could get together and create any of these as a group and run it as a non profit. Hell my neighbor and I just built a skate board park in his backyard because his 8 yr old son is like a mini Tony Hawk.

If skateboarding is a fundamental right that the government must provide facilities for then certainly the government would then be forced to create feeding facilities for all, shelter for all, healthcare for all. For an extreme example. I know a lot of people who like to parachute and parachuting is every bit as much of a right as skateboarding (which neither are rights). So according to you the government must provide me unfettered access to a parachute, plane, and landing area.



[edit on 11-7-2010 by ZuluChaka]

[edit on 11-7-2010 by ZuluChaka]

reply to post by ZuluChaka

First of all none of these even existed 100's of years ago.

Your continued and willful ignorance of the 9th Amendment is astoundingly jaw dropping. Why is it, do you think, that the Founders would enumerate unspecified rights reserved by the people? Could it possibly be that they had the wisdom and foresight you lack?

this makes me laugh. they build skate parks so the kids don't skate the streets and cause problems and destruction to property than make them go through hoops just to skate at the park. looks like kids are just going to go back to the streets and the entire park will be a waste because only a handful of kids will go through with it. skaters have a problem with "the man" and all his rules as it already stands. idk what makes them think that they will follow even more when the ones they already have in place get broken

[edit on 11-7-2010 by PApro]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Look if skateboarding in a skate park is a fundamental right then you must say that every activity, need, etc of a human being is a right. Therefore everything must be free because by making me pay for it you are impeding my access if I dont have money. So basically what you are saying is that the only way for us to get our rights (as you percieve them) is to create one massive, shared Marxist society. Are you a Progressive by any chance?

Do you believe the government is compelled by the constitution to give us free food and shelter if we cannot afford it?


[edit on 11-7-2010 by ZuluChaka]

reply to post by ZuluChaka

Look if skateboarding in a skate park is a fundamental right then you must say that every activity, need, etc of a human being is a right.

My friend, I have said it several times all ready, and I will keep saying it until it finally gets through that thick skull of yours. A right is any activity that causes no harm, with the sole exception of defense. Self defense is most certainly a right, and if causing another harm in order to defend ones own life, loved ones or property is necessary, then by God it is a right. Outside of self defense, no one has the right to harm another. Skateboarding in and of itself causes no harm and therefore is a right.

Therefore everything must be free because by making me pay for it you are impeding my access if I dont have money.

Your nonsensical logic is your downfall. Therefore is an inappropriate word following the logic you presented. You are making leaps of logic. The right to skateboard, or play golf, or ride a BMX does not impede you or anyone else. The right to public spaces, including parks and recreation is one of the reasons we the people have come together to form a more perfect union.

When a community is filled with kids who would like to play on their skateboards and ride their BMX's, the loving and smart parent will want their child to enjoy this right. Enjoying this right does not mean their children can ride their BMX's and skateboards all over town zooming in and out of the public at large, thus, (or therefore), public parks are created to facilitate their needs, while simultaneously facilitating the needs of the public. This is how domestic tranquility is achieved.

So basically what you are saying is that the only way for us to get our rights (as you percieve them) is to create one massive, shared Marxist society.

While I have said this before, I will now repeat myself again so that it might get through your thick skull. When debating the moment you rely on language that goes: "So basically, what you're saying is..." You are telling not only your opponent, but all who are paying attention that you don't have any sound argument of refutation, so instead what you will do is pretend your opponent said something that you can refute. Public parks is not a Marxist idea. Long before Marx was ever born public parks existed. Long before the industrial revolution, (and make no mistakes about it, Marx is a product of the industrial age, and much of why Marxist ideals do not work is that they were predicated on the longevity of industrialism which is close to being over, and a new age is upon us.), there were public parks.

Public does not equate to Marxism. Every civilization has a public, and if the market place could handle government it would all ready be on the market, (and I am not talking about the current corruption), but governments are not businesses, and businesses are not governments. If you want to open up a private skateboard park or BMX park then do so, you are free to do so, and the existence of public parks is not impeding you from doing so. Fed Ex is profitable, the U.S. Post Office is looser, and dying a slow and painful death. Get it? I doubt it.

Are you a Progressive by any chance?

Are you an ignoramus by any chance? I guarantee you that you are nowhere near as conservative as I am, and that assurance comes from understanding what a conservative actually is, and it sure as hell isn't a Republican, it is someone who seeks to conserve the Constitution, because if a conservative in the U.S. is not conserving the Constitution then what the hell are they conserving? You my friend, are no conservative.

Do you believe the government is compelled by the constitution to give us free food and shelter if we cannot afford it?

There are people in this site, some who agree with me, and others who vehemently disagree with me, and if any of them are reading this last remark of yours right now, I suspect they think you are being foolish and are now just blathering endlessly about that which you know nothing about. Defending the right to privacy is in no way a progressive attitude.

Indeed, the so called progressives who claim to believe in a right to privacy only believe this when it comes to a woman's choice to abort their child. I, on the other hand, am very skeptical that this is a right, to kill a fetus, but am an ardent believer in the right to privacy. A progressive will make all kinds of arguments why you or someone else can't do drugs, you will never catch me making that argument. Want to have sex with a hooker? That ain't any of my business, but a progressive would beg to differ. Want to play poker for real stakes every night? I say this is your right to do so, but a progressive would want to protect you from you.

Do you even know what a progressive is, or are you just a Republican shill who thinks "neo-con" actually has something to do with conservatism? Are you one of those woefully indoctrinated souls who thinks if it ain't listed by Constitution it ain't a right? God knows you have now ignored my reference of the 9th Amendment three times now. Why is that I wonder? No my friend, I don't think you have a clue what a progressive really is, and because you don't that would make you what Lenin used to refer to as a "useful idiot".