City to charge Boot Camps for park use?

[polishavenger]

This commercial activity is nothing along the lines of what festivals do. Firstly, festivals monopolize space by putting up fencing, and charging for admission. Boot camps dont do this, or have any preferential access to any location within the park.

I think the litmus test on this one is if you took out the money, but left everything else the same, would the city have any issues with it? The answer is no, up to the point the groups stay small and are not too numerous. If anyone set up a running training group that charged for admission, would you go and charge them for using the pathways?

There is always a certain degree of free ridership involved in anything provided through the public domain, trying to squeeze every penny out of everyone is not only too difficult to effectively do, it would actually defeat the point altogether.

Originally Posted by freeweed

I'm honestly baffled at the responses to this thread. This issue is nothing to do with:

a) charging large groups of people
b) turning parks into "pay parks"
c) setting up admissions gates
d) anything whatsoever that a private citizen will do

Commercial activity, in damn near every form, is treated differently than personal use. Of public resources, in taxation, in law...

You guys REALLY don't see this? I can't think of a single commercial activity that would be allowed in a public park without some government licensing/regulation going on. Does the Folk Festival get off scott-free for using Prince's Island? After all, they're just "using the park as intended".

PS: I can't double-check the URL at work, but it's either chicksinstretchpants.com or girlsinstretchpants.com that y'all are wanting to check out right now.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by Jimby

Buying hardwood in a park is a separate issue!

Originally Posted by freeweed

But creating wood in a park is exactly what this thread is about... or something.

Lululemon Hur hur.

My thread has reached a good level of lol's. I am pleased.

[bigcanuck]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

I think the litmus test on this one is if you took out the money, but left everything else the same, would the city have any issues with it? The answer is no, up to the point the groups stay small and are not too numerous.

Using your litmus test, how do you justify charging for renting soccer fields or baseball diamonds or family picnic areas? I would hope they are essentially left in the same condition as they were initially found.

[polishavenger]

Originally Posted by bigcanuck

Using your litmus test, how do you justify charging for renting soccer fields or baseball diamonds or family picnic areas? I would hope they are essentially left in the same condition as they were initially found.

Simple, teams that wish to book a specific time to use fields/diamonds, or families that want to reserve are asking for preferential treatment, and want to exclude others. To get that treatment, you need to pay. the same fields, baseball diamonds, and picnic areas can be used by anyone so long as they have not been pre-booked.

There is one particular area of PI (SE corner of the bridge over the bow) where these boot camps tend to go. If they wanted to ensure they had access to that spot at a given time, I could see a pay for use system.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by bigcanuck

Using your litmus test, how do you justify charging for renting soccer fields or baseball diamonds or family picnic areas? I would hope they are essentially left in the same condition as they were initially found.

The picnic one is pretty much where my head is on this. We charge for picnics - from what I've seen and heard, boot camps can be a lot more intrusive (at least temporarily) to the public space than a few people sitting on a table.

Hell, don't sidewalk hot dog carts require a license to operate? They're on purely public property, when they leave they don't make a permanent change. Why isn't there an outcry over this?

It just seems like a complete non-story to me, but it's the latest fad so I guess it has to get talked about.

[SubwayRev]

I have to say I have trouble with the they're operating a business and should therefore pay theory. What about a nanny who takes her children to a park. Does they need to pay a fee? What about a business meeting taking place on a park bench?

How about if a running club uses a sidewalk or pathway? Do they need to pay to use these services, because they are operating a business? Should a delivery truck have to pay to use public roads, and only personal vehicles, on personal trips, be allowed to use public roads free of charge? (other than taxes of course! )

In the case of a boot camp, their use of the facility requires no extra effort or administraion on the part of the City, and the revenue would be so inconsequencial, it doesn't seem worth it. Not to mention, I don't think we want to have "roving patrols" as one poster suggested, hasseling everybody in the park to see if they have and/or require a permit to use a park space.

A others have mentioned, booking a space is one thing (wedding photos), or if you require security or fencing (festival or concert), or you require extra administration (food vendors). In my mind, this is simply a cash grab.

[mersar]

I think pretty much everyone here, and in the media, is missing the main reason the city is using in their justification as to why they are exploring this (and why they already are charging for a minimal permit anyways, something that most of these groups doesn't have a problem with from what I've heard): to prevent conflicts between users who want to use the same space at the same time. They don't sound like they are looking down this road as a means to make money (though that of course is always possible), especially from the 'well they arent paying anything so we might as well charge them' viewpoint a few people have expressed.

I'd imagine that administering collection of these fees probably costs more then the fees would bring in anyways.

[polishavenger]

I think the point that is being missed is that the boot camp use at this point is indistinguisable from the non commercial version, so why would they differ in how they are treated? Again, if it gets to the point where you have massive mobs of boot campers swarming all over the place and conflicting with other users, then regulation may be required. What if we had large groups of tai chi practitioners getting together just for fun? Should we charge them?

This also covers the hot dog stand example. Nobody hangs out in parks with hot dog stands for fun and gives them out for free, its a purely commercial endeavor.

Originally Posted by mersar

I think pretty much everyone here, and in the media, is missing the main reason the city is using in their justification as to why they are exploring this (and why they already are charging for a minimal permit anyways, something that most of these groups doesn't have a problem with from what I've heard): to prevent conflicts between users who want to use the same space at the same time. They don't sound like they are looking down this road as a means to make money (though that of course is always possible), especially from the 'well they arent paying anything so we might as well charge them' viewpoint a few people have expressed.

I'd imagine that administering collection of these fees probably costs more then the fees would bring in anyways.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by mersar

I think pretty much everyone here, and in the media, is missing the main reason the city is using in their justification as to why they are exploring this (and why they already are charging for a minimal permit anyways, something that most of these groups doesn't have a problem with from what I've heard): to prevent conflicts between users who want to use the same space at the same time.

That has already happened, not over park space but street parking between them and the soccer parents.

[fusili]

I only see a point if the boot camps want to reserve space. Then you could make the point they are making the space excludable, and therefore, no longer a public good. As long as they are sharing the space, I am okay with it. I see these boot camps as a very positive thing for parks in our city. The whole point of providing parks is so that people use them. If some bootcamps want to reserve space, let them rent it out. But if they don't, we shouldn't charge them.

Anyways, all kinds of groups (buskers, tour buses, cycling and running clubs, even schools) use public space for commercial purposes, it is part of living in a city. Limiting all commercial activity to private property would take a lot of life out of the city. The same could be said for buskers. I, for one, welcome their deregulation.

Boot camp away my friends, boot camp away!

[93JC]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Does the Folk Festival get off scott-free for using Prince's Island? After all, they're just "using the park as intended".

Originally Posted by 93JC

... if the boot camps and other groups like yoga and tai chi started monopolizing space and/or destroying the park, sure, fine, charge them a fee.

The Folk Festival doesn't get off scott-free for using Prince's Island because they're monopolizing the space: they put up barriers and prevent the public at large from accessing the park. Boot camps don't erect fences and actively keep people out of the park. They don't 'reserve' space in the park.

Originally Posted by Cage

Enforcement is fairly simple. Roving park patrols (all ready occuring) can jsut ask the instructor for a copy of permit. Hit a couple of prime locations and the enforcement is simple and effective.

I can hear it now: "Papiere, bitte!"

Thanks but no thanks. The less the Parks & Rec department has in common with the East German Stasi, the better.

[187 Feet Tall]

Originally Posted by freeweed

I'm honestly baffled at the responses to this thread. This issue is nothing to do with:

a) charging large groups of people
b) turning parks into "pay parks"
c) setting up admissions gates
d) anything whatsoever that a private citizen will do

Commercial activity, in damn near every form, is treated differently than personal use. Of public resources, in taxation, in law...

You guys REALLY don't see this? I can't think of a single commercial activity that would be allowed in a public park without some government licensing/regulation going on. Does the Folk Festival get off scott-free for using Prince's Island? After all, they're just "using the park as intended".

You're comparing a large scale event that closes off a large portion of the park to the general public, to some people exercises without limiting the parks use to others. Very different.

Where do you draw the line?
-If a shrink meets a client in the park as a peaceful setting to talk about their issues, should they have to pay a fee?
-If I as a Realtor meet a client in a park to discuss housing options before going on tour, should I pay a fee?
-If I'm exercising with a 1 on 1 personal trainer, should they have to pay to use the park?
-If a hire a dog walker and they walk through the park, should they pay a fee?

I'm in agreement with the fee if the bootcamps are using up large amounts of space/resources to the detriment of others in the public (as with the folk fest)
but if it's a small enough group in a large enough park and it's in terms with standard use of the park; it seems like an excuse for tax money just cause they're running a business.

[Me&You]

Maybe that's a solution... Limiting the size of boot camps and other group activities to, say, 25 or something. That would be more than large enough to keep the camps viable while a group of 25 wouldn't monopolize any significant space. Any larger groups would require a permit.

I think the whole thing is stupid, but if the city is going to incur costs (that they'll never, ever recoup), while meddling in such insignificant issues, I hope they're reasonable. I think instead, they should be focusing on further encouraging fitness uses in parks. The population at large (pun intended) could use the exercise. Plus, anything to get more Lululemon in public is fine by me

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by 187 Feet Tall

Where do you draw the line?

Well this is pretty much the crux of the issue, isn't it. Boot camps have finally become popular enough that they've crossed the line that the city uses when determining the difference between 1 or 2 people harmlessly using a park for 5 minutes, and a group of 10-20 monopolizing a space/equipment for a long stretch of time. Obviously the city will never try to ferret out every single possible commercial use of a park, but it's equally obvious that these boot camps are having a significant impact in many places. Hell, there are several anecdotes in this thread alone.

it seems like an excuse for tax money just cause they're running a business.

This is everyone's favourite argument against this fee; unless I've been reading this story wrong, the cost of the license is $30 per year. There's no way the city could be making anything close to a profit on that. The processing alone probably costs more (these ARE civil servants we're talking about).

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by 93JC

The Folk Festival doesn't get off scott-free for using Prince's Island because they're monopolizing the space: they put up barriers and prevent the public at large from accessing the park. Boot camps don't erect fences and actively keep people out of the park. They don't 'reserve' space in the park.

Hot dog carts don't monopolize much space, nor do they prevent the public from accessing parks, nor do they have fences. Yet the city requires licenses for them and attempts to impose control over their use of public spaces.

Yeesh, without me providing an exhaustive list of every single commercial activity and providing the specific reasons why THAT PARTICULAR one is considered worthy of licensing, I'm not sure if I can respond to some of you.

Clearly the city, as it has done in hundreds of other cases, sees commercial activity beyond the level of harmless fun by a couple of kids playing frisbee in a park. Any arguments to the effect of "it doesn't have a permanent impact" or "it doesn't monopolize space" or "I personally think this activity is harmless" are entirely irrelevant - because the city has already imposed licensing on activities that fall under every single one of those things. Precedent has long ago been set, these boot camps aren't anything special - other than the fact that they're the latest and greatest fad, so they're just coming onto the radar now.

Now, if we want to discuss how the city should get its nose out of a lot of commercial activities, then we can have a much more interesting thread.

[SubwayRev]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Hot dog carts don't monopolize much space, nor do they prevent the public from accessing parks, nor do they have fences. Yet the city requires licenses for them and attempts to impose control over their use of public spaces.

Hot dog vendors require a license because they are serving food. Food service is heavily regulated for health violations, etc. That is why they have to pay a fee, not because they are using the sidewalk.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by SubwayRev

Hot dog vendors require a license because they are serving food. Food service is heavily regulated for health violations, etc. That is why they have to pay a fee, not because they are using the sidewalk.

Could I set up a similar cart/truck selling non-food items without any city regulation? Serious question, maybe Calgary is different than other places I've been.

[SubwayRev]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Could I set up a similar cart/truck selling non-food items without any city regulation? Serious question, maybe Calgary is different than other places I've been.

Good question, I'm not sure. I'm thinking no... and would say the difference between say, a souvenir cart, and a boot camp is that the souvenir cart is using a specific location, and not using the park for its intended purpose.

But that's all just me spitballing, I don't really have any idea.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by SubwayRev

Good question, I'm not sure. I'm thinking no... and would say the difference between say, a souvenir cart, and a boot camp is that the souvenir cart is using a specific location, and not using the park for its intended purpose.

Not sure parks are set up with the intended purpose of boot camps. Exercise sure, as one purpose out of many. But not commercially.

Again, we can quibble over any specific word to try to twist things however we want (a souvenir cart can be moved every day or hour or 10 minutes if need be) but it doesn't materially change the issue. Commercial use of public space is very if not most often subject to a license, the only determining factor seems to be "how commercial". A kid's lemonade stand, no. A guy busking - well that depends on the city but I believe it's entirely unlicensed here (not sure though). A registered company with regular use of space/facilities - I can see the city making the argument that at least some boot camps are approaching this.

If Tony Hawk suddenly showed up at a skate park with a bunch of people who paid $50 to watch him skate, and rode his board for an hour, is that the "intended purpose" of the skate park?

Actually, that makes me wonder - what happens if I just show up next to one of these boot camps and start following along? Would they somehow try to "evict" me from their group because I'm not paying? If the claim is that it's entirely public space being used for its intended purpose, I'd have to think that me doing that should be completely acceptable to them.

[polishavenger]

Originally Posted by freeweed

If Tony Hawk suddenly showed up at a skate park with a bunch of people who paid $50 to watch him skate, and rode his board for an hour, is that the "intended purpose" of the skate park?

Actually, that makes me wonder - what happens if I just show up next to one of these boot camps and start following along? Would they somehow try to "evict" me from their group because I'm not paying? If the claim is that it's entirely public space being used for its intended purpose, I'd have to think that me doing that should be completely acceptable to them.

If Tony Hawk prevented others from using the skate park while he used it, then he would have to pay for its use. If other people could still use it and watch without paying, then there would be no grounds for not letting him use it.

And thats a great point about boot camps, you would have every right to follow along. They could ask you not to be part of their group, which every person has a right to (i could ask you to get lost if I was playing frisbee and you tried to join in), but if you backed up a few feet and followed along they couldnt ask you to leave or stop.