BACKGROUND: Recall, if you will, that this L.A. Times editorial kicked off a somewhat misguided firestorm of opposition to Mitch O’Farrell’s recent Council motion 16-1456 seeking to develop a legal tool for banning adults without children from playgrounds in parks in the City of Los Angeles.
The latest development is that the Los Feliz Neighborhood Council registered its opposition to this Kerry-Morrison-of-the-HPOA-inspired trainwreck of a motion with this eloquent statement:
A city ordinance banning adults from accessing a public playground/park area unless “accompanying a child” would unfairly penalize people by virtue of their age and deny them a public benefit afforded to others. The proposal, by its very nature, seems unduly discriminatory, and fraught with enforcement problems.
Instituting an overreaching policy by penalizing a vast majority of law‐abiding citizens in what is generally regarded as “park‐poor” city is counterintuitive. It seems to be motivated out of allaying a fear rather than ensuring a freedom. Nor does it currently contemplate the dozens of gray areas it will create regarding how it will be administered (playground boundaries, proof of age, proof‐of-guardianship, etc.), and the discord it will sow by awkward attempts to enforce it.
All good points.1 The big difference in tonight’s case is that one person actually voted against the motion to oppose,2 which means, I guess, that besides Kerry Morrison, at least one other resident of the City of Los Angeles stands with Mitch on this issue. Perhaps this will teach Mitch that it’s not always safe to do what she asks… but probably not.
Image of Griffith Park playground is a public record, having been made and published by the Recreation and Parks Department.
- Except for the fact that the motion is to direct the City Attorney to write a proposed ordinance, so it’s not really a surprise that it doesn’t address all the issues that the statement faults it for not addressing. However, as with all the opposition that we’ve seen so far to this nonsense of O’Farrell’s, the NC’s statement may miss any number of immediate technical points while being completely cognizant of the larger point and purpose, which is to limit free access to parks on the basis of fear and stupidity. The motion as it stands can’t technically be faulted for not addressing these points, but there’s no chance that the proposed ordinance that Mike Feuer comes up with, if it even gets that far, and I’m guessing that it will not because it’s just too reviled at this point, will address those points in anything approximating an acceptable way. No way would be acceptable.
- The tally was 11 in favor, 1 opposed, 3 absentions.