Should private parties be allowed to rent out public spaces?

[Amethyst Autumn]

I went to a lake with a beach last Monday. I was stopped from using the beach or swimming in the lake by the head of a private religious camp group. She told me they were renting it out. She said that no other people were allowed to use it but the campers.

I think public spaces should remain that way -- open to the ALL the public. A private group IMO should NEVER be allowed to close off a PUBLIC space for their private usage.

Even if it's legal I don't feel it's moral.

[Lissa]

When some friends of mine were getting married, they wanted to do so on a stone footbridge in our public park. When they called about booking it, they were told that as a public place, access to the bridge by the public could not be blocked. If someone wanted to walk right through the ceremony, they would have to be allowed.

The camp leader may have told you that, but I think that a beach offical would have told you differently.

[Amethyst Autumn]

The bathrooms were locked when we got there. A life gard was on duty and he agreed with the camp leader when I went over and asked him. A park official told me that official policy was to rent out the beach on Mondays when the beach was closed to everyone else.

I'm still mad about it. It was hot that day and this particular lake is the only public lake within a half hour's drive from my house.

[Lissa]

Originally posted by Amethyst Autumn
A park official told me that official policy was to rent out the beach on Mondays when the beach was closed to everyone else.

Well, if it would have been closed to the public on a Monday anyway, I don't necessarily see a problem. You wouldn't have been able to swim even if no one was there.

[Amethyst Autumn]

Well, if it would have been closed to the public on a Monday anyway, I don't necessarily see a problem. You wouldn't have been able to swim even if no one was there.

True.

But park officials set it up so that it was open to one group of people on that day and closed to everyone else. Either let everyone use the beach or don't let anyone use it.

[Eonwe]

See, I don't see that it's a problem. We have a community center in town that can be rented out. Just because something is public property doesn't mean anyone should be able to enter and do whatever they want when they want.

Should I be able to enter any school, and beyond that, classroom whenever I want just because it's a public building?

[Amethyst Autumn]

Originally posted by Eonwe
See, I don't see that it's a problem. We have a community center in town that can be rented out. Just because something is public property doesn't mean anyone should be able to enter and do whatever they want when they want.

Community Centers offer many services that often duplicated by other providers.

OTOH, this was the only place where you could swim in a lake basically in the entire neighborhood. Why should we allow a community resource in very short supply to get monopolized by a small segment of people?

I wasn't the only one turned away that day. There were other people there with children. Why should some kids be allowed access to the beach and others denied it?

What if you really wanted to use the public library because you had a project due the next day but you couldn't use it because it was rented out to a private group? Would you consider it fair?

Should I be able to enter any school, and beyond that, classroom whenever I want just because it's a public building?

The schools are there for one purpose: to educate children. If you aren't a child, a parent or an employee you have no business being there in the first place.

Unlike the school building or the classroom, the beach is meant for public use by everyone.

[Suse]

Unlike the school building or the classroom, the beach is meant for public use by everyone.

Except on Mondays, when it is closed to everyone equally unless they have made arrangments to pay for the privilege of using it that day.

You use that beach for free; the private group was paying. Had they gotten exclusive use of the beach for free, then you'd have a legitimate beef. Had they allowed the group to use the beach exclusively on a day they are open to the public, then you'd also have a legitimate beef.

What if you really wanted to use the public library because you had a project due the next day but you couldn't use it because it was rented out to a private group? Would you consider it fair?

The public library, like the beach, has certain hours or days it is closed. If the rental occurred during those hours or on a day it is closed and therefore you would have no reasonable expectation of being allowed to use the library at those times, then there's nothing wrong with library use being restricted to that private group.

[j666]

I feel for you, but I think the town policy is reasonable; and I think it is a good way to pay for the up-keep of the beach.

Prehaps you were angered by the unpleasant surprise.

[gex gex]

I really don't think there's anything wrong with the situation described in the OP. As long as the private group pays a reasonable price* for the privilege of securing public land for a limited amount of time,* I feel that it is entirely reasonable.

(*two important ifs)

That's the world of capitalism, and although it's far from perfect, it's probably the best system we've devised.

[TeaElle]

I have to agree with the consensus -- if this occurred on a day when the beach wouldn't have been available to you anyway, then no harm no foul. You were not turned away by the presence of the camp group, they are irrelevant in the story, you were turned away by the regulation which stated that the beach was closed to you as a member of the general public on that day.

I'm not sure I understand the argument. You're upset because some people paid for a special event that in no way interefered with your inability to get something for free?

[Amethyst Autumn]

I have to agree with the consensus -- if this occurred on a day when the beach wouldn't have been available to you anyway, then no harm no foul. You were not turned away by the presence of the camp group, they are irrelevant in the story, you were turned away by the regulation which stated that the beach was closed to you as a member of the general public on that day.

I think it's one thing to find out you can't use a beach because a it's closed but another scenerio entirely to find out that it's only closed to certain members of the public.

The beach was open that day -- but only to one group of the public. They wouldn't even let me use the restrooms!

I'm not sure I understand the argument. You're upset because some people paid for a special event that in no way interefered with your inability to get something for free?

The beach isn't free. Upkeep is paid for by steep property taxes in my county. I was upset that the county decided to allow usage for one group of individuals that day and not for everyone else.

Keep it open or close it to everyone.

I really don't think there's anything wrong with the situation described in the OP. As long as the private group pays a reasonable price* for the privilege of securing public land for a limited amount of time,* I feel that it is entirely reasonable.

Except on Mondays, when it is closed to everyone equally unless they have made arrangments to pay for the privilege of using it that day.

What would be a reasonable price?

I think some things simply shouldn't be for sale. The privilege of using a public beach on a hot summer day is one of them.

You use that beach for free; the private group was paying. Had they gotten exclusive use of the beach for free, then you'd have a legitimate beef. Had they allowed the group to use the beach exclusively on a day they are open to the public, then you'd also have a legitimate beef.

I don't get use for free. The property taxes in my state and county are very high. And even if I'd had to pay directly I'd still have a problem with closing off a public resource to certain members of the public.

The public library, like the beach, has certain hours or days it is closed. If the rental occurred during those hours or on a day it is closed and therefore you would have no reasonable expectation of being allowed to use the library at those times, then there's nothing wrong with library use being restricted to that private group.

I would still have a problem with the library being privately. That's not what it's there for. It's not a private space.

My essential point remains. There are certain public spaces that should remain public.

It disheartens me to see people writing that they see nothing wrong with allowing one group to retain usage of a public space for their own private usage on a day when others are denied access. The campers could have gone to another beach that day. They could have gone to private pool club that day.

Instead they chose to give the children under their care the message that it's okay to take over a public space for your private needs just as long as you pay for it.

And I just think that's very sad.

Some things should not be for sale.

[Lissa]

Originally posted by Amethyst Autumn
It disheartens me to see people writing that they see nothing wrong with allowing one group to retain usage of a public space for their own private usage on a day when others are denied access.

Even though your taxes are high, the beach doesn't get all of that money. Like most public programs, they probably have touble making ends meet on their budgets. If it wasn't for the private party income, they might have to keep the beach closed more often in order to cut their costs.

The campers could have gone to another beach that day. They could have gone to private pool club that day.

How would this have made one whit of difference in your situation? You still wouldn't have been able to swim.

Instead they chose to give the children under their care the message that it's okay to take over a public space for your private needs just as long as you pay for it.

Personally, I feel it's better than the message: "If I can't have it, no one can!"

It's not as if their act was immoral, after all. No one was harmed or even inconvenienced by the fact that the kids were there.

And I just think that's very sad.

Some things should not be for sale.

Why should free beach access at all times be an entitlement? Yes, you pay high taxes, but likely, you'd be paying the same even if the beach wasn't there. You're getting other things besides a beach for that money, like schools, roads and ambulance services.

The city sees no benefit from this beach, revenue-wise. The beach is nothing but a drain on resources. It would be better, fiscally, to it off to a for-profit company to run, or even to a private land owner (who might fence it off) and get the tax revenue for the land. Instead, they chose to keep it open and free for the public. That's pretty nice of them, in my opinion. Would you begrudge them a chance to try to get a little revenue for its upkeep?

[drachillix]

Originally posted by Amethyst Autumn
But park officials set it up so that it was open to one group of people on that day and closed to everyone else. Either let everyone use the beach or don't let anyone use it. [/b]

It costs money to run and maintain that public place. IF a private party is willing to cover those costs for a specific non-budgeted for time frame why should they have to share it with you, you only pay for tue-sun with your tax dollars.

[Amethyst Autumn]

Originally posted by Lissa
[/b]Even though your taxes are high, the beach doesn't get all of that money. Like most public programs, they probably have touble making ends meet on their budgets. If it wasn't for the private party income, they might have to keep the beach closed more often in order to cut their costs. [/b]

I don't know the beach's budget but I don't think this is the case at all. It's a fairly affluent community and it's not a big beach. I doubt they'd have to close the only beach in the immediate neighborhood if they couldn't rent it out to private parties.

I think the case is against this situation is even stronger in poor neighborhoods. Why should a scarce community resource be reserved for a small few just because they could pay for it?

How would this have made one whit of difference in your situation? You still wouldn't have been able to swim. Personally, I feel it's better than the message: "If I can't have it, no one can!"

I think it's one thing to be barred from swimming somewhere because the beach is closed that day. It's quite another to get barred from it because others are reserving it for their private use.

It's not as if their act was immoral, after all. No one was harmed or even inconvenienced by the fact that the kids were there.

Several of us were inconvenienced. There's no other public lake or beach nearby. IMO it IS immoral to reserve a very rare public space for your own use. It's immoral to teach children that if you have enough money it's okay do anything with it. It's immoral to teach them that it's fine to turn away other children from a public beach on a hot day because you want it for yourself.

Why should free beach access at all times be an entitlement? Yes, you pay high taxes, but likely, you'd be paying the same even if the beach wasn't there. You're getting other things besides a beach for that money, like schools, roads and ambulance services. The city sees no benefit from this beach, revenue-wise. The beach is nothing but a drain on resources.

The beach isn't there to generate income anymore than a school or ambulance is there to generate income. It's there to serve the needs of the public. That's the benefit the city sees. I live in a highly populated Northeastern state. Green space and public lakes are not a drain on resouces. They are huge resources in themselves.

It would be better, fiscally, to it off to a for-profit company to run, or even to a private land owner (who might fence it off) and get the tax revenue for the land.

So you'd have no problem with taking one of the few swimmable lakes available to the residents of my community and auctioning it off to the highest bidder? Is tax revenue really more important that having a safe place where children can cool off in the summer?

Instead, they chose to keep it open and free for the public. That's pretty nice of them, in my opinion. Would you begrudge them a chance to try to get a little revenue for its upkeep?

The "they" you are referring to is my community and my elected officials. They don't own the beach and they aren't doing any "favors" for the public. They are serving it. Frankly the community I live in is very affluent so I doubt they need the money. But even if they did I hope they'd come up with far better solutions than renting out the only local beach to private group on a hot summer day.

[Amethyst Autumn]

Originally posted by drachillix
[bIt costs money to run and maintain that public place. IF a private party is willing to cover those costs for a specific non-budgeted for time frame why should they have to share it with you, you only pay for tue-sun with your tax dollars. [/b]

The space is maintained by the public FOR the public. A private party shouldn't have the right to override that trust. What's to prevent the private party from deciding they want to use it tue-sun as well? If they offered more money than the community presently pays would it then be okay to block off the beach for the rest of the week? Where does the public's inherent right to access to green space begin and end?

[Lissa]

Originally posted by Amethyst Autumn

I don't know the beach's budget but I don't think this is the case at all. It's a fairly affluent community and it's not a big beach. I doubt they'd have to close the only beach in the immediate neighborhood if they couldn't rent it out to private parties. [/quote] [/b]

Big or small, it costs money to staff the beach, keep it clean, and keep the bathrooms maintained. Recently, tax revenue has been down and state-funded agencies are scrambling to try to do the same job with less. It matters little how affluent your community is if they're only getting a tiny percentage of the tax revenue.

I think the case is against this situation is even stronger in poor neighborhoods. Why should a scarce community resource be reserved for a small few just because they could pay for it?

I think it's one thing to be barred from swimming somewhere because the beach is closed that day. It's quite another to get barred from it because others are reserving it for their private use.

You said yourself it would have been closed anyway! You would have gone home as dry as a bone even if the kids had not been there.

Several of us were inconvenienced.

No more than you would have been if the beach had been empty. You were inconvenienced because you didn't check the hours of operation before setting out.

There's no other public lake or beach nearby. IMO it IS immoral to reserve a very rare public space for your own use.

So, it's better for it to sit vacant, doing no one any good?

It's immoral to teach children that if you have enough money it's okay do anything with it. It's immoral to teach them that it's fine to turn away other children from a public beach on a hot day because you want it for yourself.

Again, the children are not being told it's okay to "keep the beach for themselves." IT WOULD HAVE BEEN CLOSED TO YOU ANYWAY.
There is nothing, nothing, wrong with renting a closed facility.

There might have even been no money involved. The public facility in which I work often lets organizations whose funds are tight book the facility for free. Perhaps these were poorer children from outside the community who would have never been able to travel to the beach unless the church group was able to rent the beach and transport them there. Do you know for sure?

Even if they did pay to rent the beach, what of it? Frankly, having money to pay for things does give you certain advantages over those who don't. Those that can't afford things don't get them. It's a hard, cruel, fact of life. Life is not, nor ever has been, nor ever will be completely fair to everyone. Anyone who expects it to be is living in a dream world.

The beach isn't there to generate income anymore than a school or ambulance is there to generate income. It's there to serve the needs of the public. That's the benefit the city sees. I live in a highly populated Northeastern state. Green space and public lakes are not a drain on resouces. They are huge resources in themselves.

Yes, they are a drain on resources. Somebody has to pay for them, after all. "Serving the needs of the public" is all fine and dandy, but it doesn't pay the bills. Revenue MUST come from somewhere, and if the tax money they're recieving isn't enough, then charging private groups for access when the beach is closed anyway is a very smart move.

So you'd have no problem with taking one of the few swimmable lakes available to the residents of my community and auctioning it off to the highest bidder?

I didn't say that. I'm saying that from a fiscal standpoint it would be smarter for the state to generate some revenue from that land. Instead, out of the goodness of their little hearts, they pay out of the city budget so that people can use it for free six days a week. On the seventh, if you want to use it, you must pay the fee. I see that as perfectly reasonable.

Is tax revenue really more important that having a safe place where children can cool off in the summer?

I sure would like such a place in my community. Unfortunately, we don't have a free public beach, or even a free public pool. The only public pool in my city is operated by the YMCA, and you have to pay two dollars to use it. The nearest lake beach is privately owned, and you have to pay four dollars to use that. (If you can't afford it, you don't get to swim. Another example of life's inherent unfainress, I suppose.)

Apparently, my city does feel the tax revenue should go to more important things, because they haven't made any moves toward building a pool or buying the lake so people can swim for free. You should feel lucky and grateful for a free, well-maintained beach instead of carping that you can't use it on one day a week unless you pay for it.

The "they" you are referring to is my community and my elected officials.

Sounds like you need to talk to them, then. Go to the next city council meeting and demand they stop letting private individuals rent the beach when it is closed. Tell them, firmly, that when the beach is closed it must remain empty.

They don't own the beach and they aren't doing any "favors" for the public. They are serving it.

Oh? Who owns it then, pray tell? Is it owned by a private individual? Is it owned by the state?

Frankly the community I live in is very affluent so I doubt they need the money. But even if they did I hope they'd come up with far better solutions than renting out the only local beach to private group on a hot summer day.

I'm sure the city council would be very happy to hear your solutions. First of all, though, I think you might want to actually look at their budget numbers before you assume they're rolling in the dough. I think you might be surprised.

The space is maintained by the public FOR the public. A private party shouldn't have the right to override that trust. What's to prevent the private party from deciding they want to use it tue-sun as well?

Probably the city's determination to keep it open for free public use. After all, they're already losing money on the deal. However, they've decided to do it, and most likely, they'll stick by it unless budget problems force them to close it. (Denying them the Monday revenue is a good way to ensure that.)

If they offered more money than the community presently pays would it then be okay to block off the beach for the rest of the week? Where does the public's inherent right to access to green space begin and end?

Look, you don't have a Constitutional right to a free beach. You do not have any inherent right to "access green space." Your city chooses to pay for you to have six-days-a-week access to a free beach. If they find can't afford it one of these days, it will be closed, or sold, and you won't have any access.

[Amethyst Autumn]

Originally posted by Lissa
Big or small, it costs money to staff the beach, keep it clean, and keep the bathrooms maintained. Recently, tax revenue has been down and state-funded agencies are scrambling to try to do the same job with less. It matters little how affluent your community is if they're only getting a tiny percentage of the tax revenue.

I really doubt the local beach is huge drain on tax revenues.

You said yourself it would have been closed anyway! You would have gone home as dry as a bone even if the kids had not been there.

They also could have reserved PART of the beach for themselves. Instead they used the entire beach.

No more than you would have been if the beach had been empty. You were inconvenienced because you didn't check the hours of operation before setting out. So, it's better for it to sit vacant, doing no one any good?

What good is the message that a public space is for rent only if you have enough money?

Again, the children are not being told it's okay to "keep the beach for themselves." IT WOULD HAVE BEEN CLOSED TO YOU ANYWAY. There is nothing, nothing, wrong with renting a closed facility.

They most certainly WERE given that message. We were literally shooed off the beach by the camp director. There was nobody else on the beach but that group.

The children are being told they can circumvent rules if they have enough money. Nobody else can use the beach on Mondays but them. There is something wrong about telling children that rules are good for other people but do not apply if you have enough money.

There might have even been no money involved. The public facility in which I work often lets organizations whose funds are tight book the facility for free. Perhaps these were poorer children from outside the community who would have never been able to travel to the beach unless the church group was able to rent the beach and transport them there. Do you know for sure?

I saw the buses the children used. They were from a local religious camp used by quite a few affluent parents.

And even if the children were from a poor camp a more appropriate day for that trip would have been a day when the rest of the public was using the beach.

Even if they did pay to rent the beach, what of it? Frankly, having money to pay for things does give you certain advantages over those who don't. Those that can't afford things don't get them. It's a hard, cruel, fact of life. Life is not, nor ever has been, nor ever will be completely fair to everyone. Anyone who expects it to be is living in a dream world.

Life may not be fair. But my government should not be in the business of making it less fair. There are places where money should not be the only language spoken. I will take that particular dream world over a world in which public beaches are for sale.

Yes, they are a drain on resources. Somebody has to pay for them, after all. "Serving the needs of the public" is all fine and dandy, but it doesn't pay the bills. Revenue MUST come from somewhere, and if the tax money they're recieving isn't enough, then charging private groups for access when the beach is closed anyway is a very smart move.

What exactly would you use taxes for then? Maintance of common green spaces like public beaches and parks are precisely the sort of areas most people prefer to have their tax dollars finance.

Furthermore I doubt they were getting a lot of money that day. And even if they were it's not a smart move to tell some taxpayers they can't use the beach because others have rented it out.

I didn't say that. I'm saying that from a fiscal standpoint it would be smarter for the state to generate some revenue from that land. Instead, out of the goodness of their little hearts, they pay out of the city budget so that people can use it for free six days a week. On the seventh, if you want to use it, you must pay the fee. I see that as perfectly reasonable.

But a fiscal standpoint is not the only standpoint government must represent. How is smarter to restrict all land use in an area to private usage? Do you believe in any public parks at all?

Park officials are servants of the public. They don't magnanimously grant people anything out the goodness of their hearts. And besides you couldn't pay the fee because the beach wasn't open that day to everyone. If they wanted to charge a fee one day a week I would have no problem with it. But let everyone pay the fee and not just a small group of people.

I sure would like such a place in my community. Unfortunately, we don't have a free public beach, or even a free public pool. The only public pool in my city is operated by the YMCA, and you have to pay two dollars to use it. The nearest lake beach is privately owned, and you have to pay four dollars to use that. (If you can't afford it, you don't get to swim. Another example of life's inherent unfainress, I suppose.)

Then you really should move here. :wink I also think you're misunderstanding my point in this thread. I'm not arguing against user fees. I'm arguing against making a scarce community resource completely off limits to the public. My problem stems from renting the ENTIRE beach to a small group and then denying access to everyone else. If the YMCA wants to charge a fee to use the public pool fine. But I don't think the YMCA (if they are operating on a public contract) should be allowed to allow some people to pay the fee and not others.

Apparently, my city does feel the tax revenue should go to more important things, because they haven't made any moves toward building a pool or buying the lake so people can swim for free. You should feel lucky and grateful for a free, well-maintained beach instead of carping that you can't use it on one day a week unless you pay for it.

I rather feel sorry for your city then. And again, you completely fail to understand my point in this thread. I have no problem with a small fee. I have a large problem with completely closing off the entire beach to the public because a small group paid for it.

I would have gladly paid the fee that day. I wasn't allowed to. Hell I wasn't even allowed to use a public restroom. That's a terrible message to send to children.

Sounds like you need to talk to them, then. Go to the next city council meeting and demand they stop letting private individuals rent the beach when it is closed. Tell them, firmly, that when the beach is closed it must remain empty. Oh? Who owns it then, pray tell? Is it owned by a private individual? Is it owned by the state? I'm sure the city council would be very happy to hear your solutions. First of all, though, I think you might want to actually look at their budget numbers before you assume they're rolling in the dough. I think you might be surprised.


I sincerely doubt loss of a small fee will mean the closing of the entire beach. A public beach should not be for sale. The beach is owned by the citizens of my state and administered for our benefit. We ARE the public.

Probably the city's determination to keep it open for free public use. After all, they're already losing money on the deal. However, they've decided to do it, and most likely, they'll stick by it unless budget problems force them to close it. (Denying them the Monday revenue is a good way to ensure that.)

Again a) I doubt the camp was paying a lot of money and b) believe me my local community isn't losing huge amounts of money administering the beach. There are basically four workers there: two lifeguards and two people in the food court. Considering the over inflated prices of the food served there I'd be surprised if the city wasn't actually making a small profit.

Look, you don't have a Constitutional right to a free beach. You do not have any inherent right to "access green space." Your city chooses to pay for you to have six-days-a-week access to a free beach. If they find can't afford it one of these days, it will be closed, or sold, and you won't have any access.

The right to get access to public beaches is currently being fought over. It's certainly not as clear cut as you're making it out to be.
http://www.cga.state.ct.us/ps99/rpt/.../99-R-1150.htm
http://www.texasopenbeaches.org/
http://newsobserver.com/news/story/2...-2519431c.html
And again I doubt my community is going to have to sell the beach unless they get to hand it over to a private group once a week.

The issue is not about the beach being free. It's about usage being restricted to one group and not allowed to others.

[Waenara]

Amethyst Autumn, I really don't see how you can logically have a problem with this situation. You say that your problem is about "usage being restricted to one group and not allowed to others" - but as you've admitted, in this particular situation the beach is closed to EVERYONE on Mondays. If the church group hadn't been there, you still wouldn't have been allowed to use the beach on that day.

I have a similar example - I wonder if you'd find this "immoral" as well. A swimming pool in my community (run by the city - a public pool). There is a "public swim" time on Saturday afternoons (no admission fee) from 2pm to 6pm. The pool is available for private rentals after 6:30pm. If no one chooses to rent the pool on any given Saturday evening, the pool is still closed to EVERYONE. So if you showed up to swim at 7pm you might be turned away because the pool is closed. OR you might be turned away because a private group is renting the pool. Would you say that these people who are renting the pool are "immoral"? After all, according to you they'd be "teach[ing] children that if you have enough money it's okay do anything with it... that it's fine to turn away other children from a public beach on a hot day because you want it for yourself."

Honestly, I don't see how you have a leg to stand on in this "debate."

Having free 24-7 access to a beach is not a constitutional right. You might have a right to complain if the beach is normally open to all on Mondays, but you were turned away because a private group was renting it. But since it normally would have been closed on that day anyways.

I can understand how it would be a bummer, a disappointment, and an inconvenience to find that the beach is closed on a hot day. But really, you have no one but yourself to blame if you neglected to check the beach's schedule to see if it was going to be open.

[Guinastasia]

Amethyst Autumn-how old are you? Just curious.

Seriously, in this world, if you have enough money, you CAN buy things that other people cannot. I would love dearly to own an authentic Faberge egg. I can't afford it. Some people can. Is that "fair?"

[Amethyst Autumn]

Originally posted by Waenara
I really don't see how you can logically have a problem with this situation. You say that your problem is about "usage being restricted to one group and not allowed to others" - but as you've admitted, in this particular situation the beach is closed to EVERYONE on Mondays. If the church group hadn't been there, you still wouldn't have been allowed to use the beach on that day.

But it wasn't closed to EVERYONE. It was open to that group and closed to everyone else. The rules governing public space should apply to EVERYONE. That wasn't the case here.

I have a similar example - I wonder if you'd find this "immoral" as well. A swimming pool in my community (run by the city - a public pool). There is a "public swim" time on Saturday afternoons (no admission fee) from 2pm to 6pm. The pool is available for private rentals after 6:30pm. If no one chooses to rent the pool on any given Saturday evening, the pool is still closed to EVERYONE. So if you showed up to swim at 7pm you might be turned away because the pool is closed. OR you might be turned away because a private group is renting the pool. Would you say that these people who are renting the pool are "immoral"? After all, according to you they'd be "teach[ing] children that if you have enough money it's okay do anything with it... that it's fine to turn away other children from a public beach on a hot day because you want it for yourself."

Ye I would. I don't think public spaces should be rented out to private groups. Ever. A public space BY DEFINITION is by open to the public. Public spaces should not be rented out. What's to prevent the private group from deciding they want to rent it out during the week? Would that be okay?

A swimming pool is a scarce community resource. There are other places you can hold a party.

Honestly, I don't see how you have a leg to stand on in this "debate."

And I honestly don't understand why people have no problem with a group of people renting out an entire public beach on a hot summer day solely for their own use. I honestly don't understand why people are not disturbed by the fact that I was refused access to a public restroom. I honestly don't understand why the group couldn't have rented out a SMALL SECTION of the beach without taking the entire place beach for themselves.

Having free 24-7 access to a beach is not a constitutional right. You might have a right to complain if the beach is normally open to all on Mondays, but you were turned away because a private group was renting it. But since it normally would have been closed on that day anyways.

So it's wrong for the private group to rent it out when the public normally has access to it . . . but just fine as long as the beach is theoretically closed? Public space should be just that -- public. Closed should mean closed to everyone. If they want to charge a small fee on that day I have no problem with it. But I think it's totally inappropriate to rent out an entire public beach to a private group. That's a misuse of public space.

Closed or not a private group should NEVER be allowed to reserve the use of a beach for their own sole usage. I would have been disturbed by this policy any day of the week.

I can understand how it would be a bummer, a disappointment, and an inconvenience to find that the beach is closed on a hot day. But really, you have no one but yourself to blame if you neglected to check the beach's schedule to see if it was going to be open.

I just moved here recently and it truly never occured to me that a public beach would be closed any day during the summer. This is actually the first community I've ever come across where the beach was closed. Every other public park I've ever been to is open from dawn to dusk.

I still stand by my point. A public beach should be open to all or closed to all. The rules shouldn't be bent because you have the money to override them.

I'm also still in shock that the camp leaders wouldn't even let me use a public bathroom. What kind of rocks do you crawl under to find people with minds like that?

[Amethyst Autumn]

Originally posted by Guinastasia
Seriously, in this world, if you have enough money, you CAN buy things that other people cannot. I would love dearly to own an authentic Faberge egg. I can't afford it. Some people can. Is that "fair?"

But should some things be for sale? Does everything always have a price?

Like most people, I have no expectation of owning a Faberge egg. I do have an expectation that I will be able to use a public beach. I certainly never thought I would be refused access to a public restroom. Is that "fair"?

[Monty]

What exactly is it about the laws or ordinances governing the use of publicly-owned facilities, Amethyst? You are routinely refused admittance to that public beach on Mondays. You told us that yourself. That facility is therefore made available for private use on that day of the week. The monies generated presumably go to paying for the additional maintenance and staffing required.

You are also routinely refused admittance to the public government buildings after hours. You are routinely refused services therein after the posted working horus.

In short, you have nothing to complain about.

[Waenara]

Originally posted by Amethyst Autumn
I don't think public spaces should be rented out to private groups. Ever. A public space BY DEFINITION is by open to the public. Public spaces should not be rented out. What's to prevent the private group from deciding they want to rent it out during the week? Would that be okay?

I see several problems with this statement:

1) Public spaces may be, generally, open to the public. But they are not ALWAYS open. They must be closed at some time. There are very few public spaces that are open (and staffed) 24-7. Therefore, if a private group wishes to use a public space during a time when it would normally be closed - then what's the issue? As long as they're paying for the added expense of keeping the facility open at a time outside of it's regular hours, they're not just sponging off the system.

2) I think you're seeing a "slippery slope" that, frankly, doesn't exist. Nearly all public facilities in my city (city owned and operated) can be available for private rental under certain circumstances. However, this does not mean that the city is going to convert them to fully private facilities. In fact, occasionally renting out space is an excellent source of revenue to ensure that the public space stays public for the majority of the time.

3) (This isn't directly related to the above quote, but...) I'm wondering why you posted this in Great Debates. I don't see that you're interested in listening to any debate here. You just brush off everyone else's points with "well, I don't think it's right." And that's fine. But maybe this would have been better off in IMHO - if you wanted a poll to see what other people's opinions on the topic are.


I would like to add, that I think that it was unkind that the people renting the beach didn't allow you to use the bathroom facilities. Many public beaches/parks have very few bathrooms, with no nearby buildings or businesses with bathrooms to use. Although they might not have been "required" to let you use the bathroom, it would have been the right thing to do.

[SunTzu2U]

Our city has several public golf courses which are closed on mondays. Still, they can be rented out for tournaments on mondays and are quite often. The course gets extra dollars to maintain the facilities and a group of people get to use the course in exchange.

It is a public space BUT no one plays there on monday EXCEPT in this situation. The same reasoning should be held with the lake issue. Come back on Tuesday and enjoy the beach. Today (Monday) we are closed.

If you have a problem with this then go talk to your local representative about changing the policy. I don't think you are going to get anywhere with them though because opening the park 7 days a week runs up the operating costs while only opening it up for paying parties covers the cost and maybe makes a little too.

Hey here's a thought; rent it out yourself some monday!

[TeaElle]

Is there an argument here other than "I don't think it's right" or are we working in circles?

[doreen]

Ye I would. I don't think public spaces should be rented out to private groups. Ever. A public space BY DEFINITION is by open to the public. Public spaces should not be rented out. What's to prevent the private group from deciding they want to rent it out during the week? Would that be okay?

What prevents the private group from deciding they want to rent it out during the week are the rules that no doubt limit the rentals to Mondays. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that the reason the beach is closed on Mondays is to allow rentals to groups.

But about no rentals of public space, ever - really? No rentals pf baseball fields , hockey rinks , football fields , golf courses , tracks etc? Find a place that doesn't rent these, ever and it will either be a place that has no organized sports or a place where every Little League is wealthy enough to own it's own baseball fields.

[Amethyst Autumn]

But maybe this would have been better off in IMHO - if you wanted a poll to see what other people's opinions on the topic are.

Got it.

I have attempted to talk to my community leaders but they're all vacation right now.

And I've also learned which camp my child will not be attending so the day was useful for something.

[msmith537]

Originally posted by Amethyst Autumn
And I've also learned which camp my child will not be attending so the day was useful for something. [/b]

Yeah that will show them


Look..there's nothing wrong with the town renting out public spaces one day a week. The only issue here is that you feel some kind of Al Bundy-esq rage over being told that you can't use it that day.

The bathroom thing might be a legitimate complaint except that maybe the people who rented the park might not want to pay to have people coming in and out of their event to take a shit. Restaurant bathrooms are public too but they aren't generally opened to people right off the street.

[Lissa]

Originally posted by Amethyst Autumn
They also could have reserved PART of the beach for themselves. Instead they used the entire beach.

And left the rest of it vacant? What good would that have done?

What good is the message that a public space is for rent only if you have enough money?

It's an eminently reasonable message. There are many things in life that you can only do if you have enough money. Renting a facility when it is closed to the general public is one of them.

They most certainly WERE given that message. We were literally shooed off the beach by the camp director. There was nobody else on the beach but that group.

The children are being told they can circumvent rules if they have enough money. Nobody else can use the beach on Mondays but them. There is something wrong about telling children that rules are good for other people but do not apply if you have enough money.

Oh, for God's sake. . . . I assure you, the kids were having too much fun splashing around to philosphise about the privledges of having money. In sincerely doubt that any of them noticed you, or even if they did, gave it a second thought. After all, they weren't doing anything wrong. They weren't circumventing any rules. They were playing by them.

I saw the buses the children used. They were from a local religious camp used by quite a few affluent parents.

And even if the children were from a poor camp a more appropriate day for that trip would have been a day when the rest of the public was using the beach.

Some people have other opinions of what's "appropriate" and that's maybe why they needed to swim when the general public wasn't there.

I went to a Christian school, which occasionally booked the pool at the YMCA after hours so the kids could swim. The reason being that the kids wouldn't have to be around who might be acting in un-Christian ways. For a lot of these kids, their parents wouldn't let them go to the "Y" during normal business hours because of "what they might see." The only way they were able to swim was during one of these Christian events.

It's also easier to keep track of a large group of children on an empty beach. Parents trust that this day camp will keep their kids safe and ensure that they behave. It would be horribly easy to lose track of a child in a large crowd of people. This way, the counselors could keep an eye on the kids, and not have to worry about strangers. (Which is probably why you were forbidden use of the bathrooms.)

Life may not be fair. But my government should not be in the business of making it less fair.

I agree, but there's nothing unfair about the situation.

What exactly would you use taxes for then? Maintance of common green spaces like public beaches and parks are precisely the sort of areas most people prefer to have their tax dollars finance.

As do I, but unfortunately the money that each individual agency gets from my tax dollars isn't always enough. That's why I support the notion of using the facility to earn extra money when it won't inconvenience the public.

Furthermore I doubt they were getting a lot of money that day. And even if they were it's not a smart move to tell some taxpayers they can't use the beach because others have rented it out.

It's no different from telling them, "The beach is closed."

Even if they only earned $100 for the day (which I think is a very low estimate) it was more than they usually get per day.

But a fiscal standpoint is not the only standpoint government must represent. How is smarter to restrict all land use in an area to private usage? Do you believe in any public parks at all?

Of course I do. But I'm also willing to accept that just because something is public doesn't mean that it must always be available for my use.

[/b]Park officials are servants of the public. They don't magnanimously grant people anything out the goodness of their hearts.

[/b]

Again, you're missing the point.

If your city decided to, they could totally cut the budget for the beach, or sell it off to the highest bidder. They could do that if the budget became too tight to support it any longer.

Instead, they have decided to make room in the budget, juggling other parks, city services and projects in order to try to keep everything available. What these public servants do is try to nake everything work on increasingly tighter budgets. I assure you that sacrifices in other areas have had to be made in order to keep this beach open and free for the public.

Instead of the public being grateful for all of the hard work and dedication that goes into ensuring that these resources will be available to them, public servants get nothing but gripes and complaints.

And besides you couldn't pay the fee because the beach wasn't open that day to everyone. If they wanted to charge a fee one day a week I would have no problem with it. But let everyone pay the fee and not just a small group of people.

But what about those poor children you brought up earlier? How unfair it would be for them to be unable to use the beach because they don't have the money for it! Didn't you say, "A public beach should not be for sale?"

Again a) I doubt the camp was paying a lot of money and b) believe me my local community isn't losing huge amounts of money administering the beach. There are basically four workers there: two lifeguards and two people in the food court. Considering the over inflated prices of the food served there I'd be surprised if the city wasn't actually making a small profit.

If they are making a profit, good for them. It will help to pay for improvements, and for other park projects around the city.

However, I have my doubts that they are making a profit. There are myriad other costs involved other than just the payroll, after all.

I'm sorry, but I sthink your stance is unreasonable.

[Annie]

When in Beijing last year, I was refused entry to Chairman Mao's tomb as the facility was rented out for a private party.

It remains unreported if the Great Helmsman was spinning in his coffin at the thought.