Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not surprised you missed the point of the article ...
... which is that municipalities and residents aren't happy with the fact that trainers are operating their businesses in public parks without paying for the privilege.
So what's your comment on the actual topic of the article?
First, I have a relative who uses public parks for a youth athletic program. But he works with Parks and Rec to arrange it. So obviously I'm in favor of this kind of use, commercial or not. The only valid complaint as I see it is wear and tear on facilities. The city, though, commits to parks for just that civic purpose--and heavy use of it. That's the kind of community life it envisions, that its people will come out and enjoy a communal space.
Now, I wouldn't advocate any kind of commercial activity. But for fitness and exercise, sure. Environmental safety is the compromise these businesses are making and having to sell. For rigorous activity, especially for children, there are requirements to be met like access to water and basic liability insurance. The clientele has to accept this and weigh the value of the service.
I'd just have Parks and Rec make the requirements clear about commercial physical training, not ban the practice. Of course, city governments always monetize their requirements and that's the catch when dealing with permits.
Why not solve the dilemma by making the fitness instructors part-time or contracted employees of the city, and having folks taking the classes pay directly to the city? It would increase revenue as well.
Of course, the fitness instructors probably don't want to work for the city; they want to be independent contractors so they can charge what they want and keep it all. No rent to pay, either. Nice work, if you can get it!
The picture in the Atlantic Cities articles shows a large number of people doing yoga, keeping others who don't want to do yoga but do want to be in that general area from using a pubic park.
I wonder if people could just join in on the yoga action and not pay. They could argue that they were using public space and therefore have every right to be there even without money.
I'm not surprised you missed the point of the article ...
... which is that municipalities and residents aren't happy with the fact that trainers are operating their businesses in public parks without paying for the privilege.
So what's your comment on the actual topic of the article?
No, you missed the point, entirely. The fact is residents ARE using the parks. Other residents want a some sort of exclusive on it, but parks are a public shared resource and if people enjoy them by walking on their own or in a class makes no difference. And if someone makes a buck off providng a popular service that people wanr ...ZOMG alert the authorities....wouldn't want to have commerce in our cities.
I happen to live a few blocks for a public park that is used every day for:
Fencing tournaments
Chess games
Feeding ducks
Eating ice cream
Yoga
Exercise classes
Performance artists
Musicians practicing
Boxing drills
Biking
Picnics
Horseplay
Photography and film making
At least half or more of those uses involve some kind of commerce. And it's a perfect and wonderful use of shared public space to do all those things and more. It's insane to think these shared public resources can be used for only items deemed acceptable by the CAVE people.
The park is a public space not a private one and since it is public the city or whoever owns/cares for it should have a say in what goes on in it. An excercise class in a park isn’t a problem but dozens of them a day is. People don’t mind use of the park but over use of the park or use of the park for profit is another story. The city provides services such as cleaning, landscaping, care of the grass (both cutting and replacing damaged portions), security in the form of police and police patrols these cost tax payers. The park itself has limited space i.e. you can’t do everything in there at once (i.e. Why should say someone who wants to sit on the bench or barbeque be blocked every time by a for profit excise class? The potenial bench sitter does not get to use the space his taxes paid for and the excercise class is getting by without paying rent!). What if three large wedding parties show up to get married by the fountain? In my city, Buckingham Fountain is a popular spot to get married.There are regulations on parks and the use of said space for good reason.
Where I live parks are used for family reunions but if 50 people or more are expected you need to purchase a permit. You also need a permit if you are doing exercise classes, selling or disturbing food, playing amplified music (i.e. using a speaker) using tents, inflatables, Stages, have liquor or doing any sort of fund raising, walk/run events and so on.
The point, aptly mentioned in the article, is use 'for profit' within a public park, and the varying scale and frequency of use by groups. How much of the 'activity' being conducted is impacting others to utilize the same 'public park' space?
This is why many cities have licenses and permit processes based on the scale of an activity as mentioned by prior comments. I see good reason for cities to place some element of restriction (within reason) for large groups or at least programming the space (for least inconvenience to others) and disseminating that information publicly in today's tech savvy world.
A large group descending on a public space and saturating the usable area for a designated activity would annoy me (if I normally used the public space /area) if they could do so arbitrarily, and no method of formal or scheduled communication was used to enable other citizens to be aware.
For example, even the large (18,000 plus acre) metropolitan park near where I live, has pavilions and picnic areas, that depending on events and expected capacity, users need to get permits. Also when corporate events are held in the park local news will usually report on the event prior - to make citizens aware (whether it is to attend, the traffic, or to encourage visitors /brand recognition awareness).
I think it is simply practicing good citizenship and consideration of the whole user community.
I wonder if people could just join in on the yoga action and not pay. They could argue that they were using public space and therefore have every right to be there even without money.
I think the problem is solved right there. If you aren't paying for a private space, you aren't paying for a private space.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
