City to charge Boot Camps for park use?

[danofkent]

I really don't understand why this is even a debate. The park users have already paid for the right to use the park through their taxes. It makes no difference to you, me or the council whether a group of people spontaneously start exercising in a park, or whether they come together and pay someone to show them how to exercise in a park.

As others have said, things only change when a group wants to have exclusive use of specific facility at a specific time, to the express exclusion of any others. It seems perfectly reasonable to charge a booking fee in such circumstances.

[kw5150]

Its the cost of doing business. The 30.00 fee is very small and amounts to $2.50 per month.

Maybe some city councillor was in a park trying to relax one day and all of the sudden 30 people showed up and intimidated him/her.

This is a tricky issue and I hope the resolution is civil. We should be encouraging excercise and the use of our parks.........but we should also be letting people enjoy their quiet time..........tough one.....

I do have to admit that when there are 20+ people meeting on the eau claire stairway and (viewing platform) it is kind of annoying for the average couple trying to enjoy Calgary's park facilities.......

Maybe we just need more park infratructure to meet these growing bootcamp needs??

Maybe the $30 gets reinvested into park improvements?

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by danofkent

I really don't understand why this is even a debate. The park users have already paid for the right to use the park through their taxes. It makes no difference to you, me or the council whether a group of people spontaneously start exercising in a park, or whether they come together and pay someone to show them how to exercise in a park.

As others have said, things only change when a group wants to have exclusive use of specific facility at a specific time, to the express exclusion of any others. It seems perfectly reasonable to charge a booking fee in such circumstances.

Our right to public space is pretty clearly limited to non-commercial activities. That said, I would have little issue with the boot camps if everyone was actually free to join in. As I understand it, they attempt to be exclusive only to those paying. This goes beyond simply providing individual interaction to those paying for the service. As others have noted, I cannot see the reaction being positive if other park users were to show up and follow along even though it is public space. This distinguishes them from something like street musicians. Dude on the corner with a guitar knows it isn't cool to force people to leave just because they haven't tossed some change into his hat.

[SubwayRev]

Although I don't really want to continue this, I must! A big difference between vendors and a boot camp or running club, is the vendor is soliciting business in the park. The boot camp is not soliciting park users to use its' service, as that part of their business has already been completed.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by SubwayRev

Although I don't really want to continue this, I must! A big difference between vendors and a boot camp or running club, is the vendor is soliciting business in the park. The boot camp is not soliciting park users to use its' service, as that part of their business has already been completed.

So vendors are different because they are exorcising their rights under section 2 of the Charter?

I think this really comes down an attempt to monopolize public space. If the boot camp has no problems with free loaders following along then they are not infringing on anyone else's enjoyment of the public space and I could care less about regulating them so long as they are not costing the public money.

[Me&You]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

So vendors are different because they are exorcising their rights under section 2 of the Charter?

I think this really comes down an attempt to monopolize public space. If the boot camp has no problems with free loaders following along then they are not infringing on anyone else's enjoyment of the public space and I could care less about regulating them so long as they are not costing the public money.

So you think any sort of reasonable fee will cover the costs of administering said fee? Ha!

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

I could care less about regulating them so long as they are not costing the public money.

This means you care at least somewhat about regulating them.

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

So vendors are different because they are exorcising their rights under section 2 of the Charter?

I think this really comes down an attempt to monopolize public space. If the boot camp has no problems with free loaders following along then they are not infringing on anyone else's enjoyment of the public space and I could care less about regulating them so long as they are not costing the public money.

And then the next location would be secret so that the freecamper would have to actually sign up and pay! Trainers are well worth the money for all of the tips and tricks they can give you!

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

Our right to public space is pretty clearly limited to non-commercial activities. That said, I would have little issue with the boot camps if everyone was actually free to join in. As I understand it, they attempt to be exclusive only to those paying. This goes beyond simply providing individual interaction to those paying for the service. As others have noted, I cannot see the reaction being positive if other park users were to show up and follow along even though it is public space. This distinguishes them from something like street musicians. Dude on the corner with a guitar knows it isn't cool to force people to leave just because they haven't tossed some change into his hat.

Musicians deserve the money. If you sit and listen because you like it......at least toss something in!

This is the same for trainers at bootcamps! They also deserve money. As long as the bootcamp selects a location that is agreed on, I dont think they should have to pay for anything except a business license.

Maybe there should even be an opportunity for the boot campers to build their own set of stairs. The 30 dollars goes to a new stairway to monopolize! The one at eau claire is only designed for a city of 500,000, or at least that is my opinion......

[SubwayRev]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

So vendors are different because they are exorcising their rights under section 2 of the Charter?

I don't follow you here. Do you mean freedom of peaceful assembly? Are you suggesting that requiring a vendor to have a license infringes on their rights under the Charter?

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by SubwayRev

I don't follow you here. Do you mean freedom of peaceful assembly? Are you suggesting that requiring a vendor to have a license infringes on their rights under the Charter?

No, I am saying that solicitation is protected by freedom of expression. This causes me to question your distinction between those soliciting on public space and those soliciting elsewhere for services offered on public space.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by Me&You

So you think any sort of reasonable fee will cover the costs of administering said fee? Ha!

No, that was just a caveat. I do not imagine that this use is causing appreciable damage to the parks so it was not my major concern but I did want to ensure that if it is occurring those groups are responsible for it. The main concern remains the seizure of public space by private groups for their exclusive use.

[kw5150]

The above legal jargon conversations are what we should be avoiding altogether....... people are just trying to be fit!

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by kw5150

people are just trying to be fit!

Which they can do for free in parks - that's what they're there for!

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Which they can do for free in parks - that's what they're there for!

Ok, have you been reading anything in the posts above?