Adults without kids won't be allowed at Palm Beach County playgrounds
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 июл 2022
- In an effort to increase safety in Palm Beach County, commissioners unanimously approved an amended change to the county's parks and recreation ordinance.
I don't have kids but I PAY TAXES. You don't know why someone is there. They might not be able to have children, Lost a child, or missing a child that lives far away. I PAY TAXES
I pay hammers
This is a weird law. We all pay taxes to keep the parks working. Does this mean those who are not allowed to enter get a tax break?
Ordinance not a law that’s why it’s actually useless (literally no consequence for violating this)
I’m 55, so it’s now illegal for me to drive my van to a children’s park and hangout with a bag of candy?
Yeah, its a sad day for groomers.
🤣😂🤣
instead of banning taxpaying adults they should ban cell phones, This would make parents actually pay attention to their children. My child never left my sight when I took him to parks.
Kids were still be kidnapped and killed before cell phones. The issue is that opportunists exist.
@@anncokafor you missed the point!
Celephone
I don't have any kids, but I still live in my childhood neighborhood. My childhood elementary school is right down the street, and as a loner with severe depression, sometimes I go there to reminisce and rekindle old memories of my childhood. So, there's always a reason, and there are always exceptions.
lmao I get what your saying but find grown up hobbies
Such a waste of time considering being asked to leave is exactly what would already be happening in any instance of unwanted people at a park. Considering the many actual issues their government officials could have been addressing it’s definitely not anything anyone should be applauding. Very foolish for any parent to think it’s making parks any safer. IMO probably less safe due to false sense security. Reinforcing “bad men bogeymen” stereotypes doesn’t protect kids. Being present and attentive to your child is what’s needed.
Can someone explain how this isn’t discriminatory? It’s a public park, paid for by community members.
I completely understand the rationale for the rule. And I doubt that it will be strictly enforced. It gives people an easier reason to have “suspicious” people removed.
I agree! I don’t think much thought went into this, and was simply a “knee-jerk” response as to how to “protect the children”.
As you said, I understand the rationale but also feel as though it discriminates based on the assumption that all others who go to the parks are a danger, when in reality they are far from being such.
@Helen Bryent It’s the ones that aren’t ‘obvious’ about watching children, that you really need to be concerned about.
Just because someone is at the park, with a child, doesn’t mean that they aren’t a predator; yet people automatically assume that they need not worry about those individuals. You made reference to “a man watching children”... what about a women or an elderly couple? If you weren’t stereotyping, who you assume would be a predator, you would have simply commented “if you saw SOMEONE sitting on a bench watching children”. The fact of the matter is that, YES there are predators out there (however, there are more people who are not) but they are not always who you assume they will be and more than likely, they’ll be trying to be as inconspicuous as possible.
@Helen Bryent Can’t someone go to a park and read a book, take a phone call, or just sit and enjoy the sun? Tons of people work from home now. What about people who maybe just want to go for a walk and get out of the house? They aren’t allowed to sit on a particular bench because it’s in the “people with children only” area?
Sure I’d be concerned if a creepy dude was watching my kid. But being creepy isn’t a crime. And I have free Will to leave if I want, or to report the incident to law enforcement (even though without this they wouldn’t be able to do anything bc as I said before, being creepy isn’t a crime).
Firepiece
Slanted firepiece
So a lone 18-year-old can't be a predator?
what a stupid rule
got that right I'm 26 when we have the family reunion I play with the kids at the playgroun4 it shoudnt matter how old you are to visit a playground
I totally agree. When you take your kid to the park it's your responsibility to watch them at all times. And it's also your responsibility to teach them stranger danger
By their logic, WE should not have to pay taxes towards those children education. I mean I don't have a child in that school district. BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE CHILDREN I STILL PAY MORE TAXES THAN THEM.
What if you wanted to accompany a small 13 year old with developmental disabilities, are they not allowed in the park? And then shouldn’t kids be banned from the fitness section for their own safety? After all, who knows who could be lurking there…
Well that’s Fuxed up
It makes sense. Why would adults be at a playground (meant for children). It only makes sense for adults to be at the fitness zone, tennis court, or basketball court.
There are many, non-nefarious, reasons why an adult might be at or observing a child’s playground. Unfortunately, the few that may go to them for very wrong reasons have made people assume that that’s the only reason why an adult (without a child) might be there. I understand what the reasoning, for this rule, might have been but i don’t think much thought actually went into making it; if there had been, they would of realize the potential impact on other members of society.
@@MissPreciousLove Theres no reason for a grown adult to be using the monkey bars or children slides. NO EXCUSE. This new ruling is much safer for the children and the community.
@@sashal6593 You’re right, there really isn’t. However, i don’t think that was the reasoning for the new rule... As it is now, no one is allowed to enter the designated park area, unless they are accompanying a child under the age of 12, and just watch as children play and laugh (not referring to those who do so with evil thoughts). THOSE are the people I was referring to... excluding them does nothing to keep the children safe. As I said, I understand the thought behind the rule but not much thought truly went into.
@@MissPreciousLove This new rule makes perfect sense. Only children and adults with children should be near the jungle gym and swings. Why would an adult with no children need to be near child slides and swings?
There's no reason for any adult without kids to be near kids. You're logic is asinine. Whether a person seems evil or not doesn't negate the fact that no adult all alone should be near kids in a child park.
@@sashal6593 You do realize that just because someone is at the park, with a child, doesn’t mean that they aren’t potentially a predator as well? You do also realize that most predators aren’t blatantly obvious that they are watching children? It’s the predators that you don’t see watching your children, that are the biggest concern.
As for why “an adult” may be near the park, enjoying children laughing & playing, I can think of a few. For the elderly with no family (or family who can’t/don’t visit), or someone with dementia/Alzheimer’s, it’s amazing how therapeutic children can be. Then there are the people who may be non ambulatory (in a wheelchair), non verbal & possibly cognitively impaired, yet the children are a distraction. Are these extreme cases? Yes! But they are ones that I am personally familiar with and therefore the first that came to mind. The main point that I was trying to make is that this new rule does not truly keep children safer and will give parents/carers a false sense of security (in my opinion). The fact that people actually think that this rule will somehow protect the children, and help to identify predators, thus keeping them out of the parks, is not only naive & potentially dangerous, but also an example of what ‘asinine logic’ truly is.
🙌