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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
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?
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.
**
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.
**
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!”
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.
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?
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.
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]
**
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.
**
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.
**
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?
**
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.
**
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.
**
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.
**
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.
**
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.
**
**
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.)
**
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, 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.
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?”