Fun and games with Rule No. 6
We blogged last week about the Portland parks bureau "rules of conduct" for the new Director Park, a greenless downtown plaza also known as "Portland's carport." An alert reader has pointed out that one of the new rules is extremely broad. Here it is:
No person shall possess any graffiti instrument in Director Park with the intent that the instrument be used to tamper with, mar or deface property therein, or knowing that another person intends to so use it, or when a reasonable person would know that the instrument is likely to be so used. For purposes of this subsection, "graffiti" means the unauthorized spraying or marking of paint, chalk, dye or any other substance to any building, structure or surface. For purposes of this Subsection, “graffiti instrument” means any can of paint or other marking substance under pressure, which can be used to spray surfaces with the paint or other marking substance, or any ink, chalk, dye or other instrument or article adapted or designed for spraying or marking surfaces.Wow. A "graffiti instrument" includes "any ink... instrument... designed for... marking surfaces." Like a ballpoint pen?
And you're not allowed to possess such things in the park "when a reasonable person would know... that another person intends to use it... to... deface property." I guess that if you have a magic marker on you, you had better take a good look at that person you're with. If a reasonable person would know that your companion wants to tag something on the property, you've just broken the rules. Cue Officer Humphreys.
The saddest part is that the parks bureau is being run by the only lawyer on the City Council. And this is what they're churning out?
| Posted at 11:28 AM | Permalink |
|
Comments (18)
And chalk!? Brings up visions of Bert in Mary Poppins. Doesn't it rain in Portland? Killjoys.
Posted by Bernadette | December 10, 2009 12:15 PM
On many levels, that is painful to read.
Posted by David E Gilmore | December 10, 2009 12:33 PM
Maybe I missed something. Are the "rules of conduct" for Director Park different from other parks in the city?
Posted by Garage Wine | December 10, 2009 12:58 PM
Painful indeed... We paid someone to come up with this verbal spew. Did anyone pause to think that graffiti is already against the law? Oh God! It's just so awful...
Posted by Dean | December 10, 2009 1:04 PM
Are the "rules of conduct" for Director Park different from other parks in the city?
Yes.
Posted by ecohuman | December 10, 2009 1:06 PM
not to worry , that is such a cold souless place I will never go there. It makes the permanent construction pit next door look inviting. Gotta love the glass roof that is so high that rain will soak everything under it.
Posted by billb | December 10, 2009 3:15 PM
Presumably the rules there are different because virtually 100% of the park contains surfaces that could be tagged, as opposed to parks that have things like trees and grass and bushes. That being said, the "any reasonable person" section is a loophole big enough to drive a truck through.
Posted by Dave J. | December 10, 2009 3:17 PM
Oh, look, a loophole.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, graffito is "a method of decoration in which designs are produced by scratches through a superficial layer of plaster, glazing, etc., revealing a ground of different color."
Get out your chisels and icepicks ...
Posted by Garage Wine | December 10, 2009 3:49 PM
Jack -
Of course it comes from the only Bureau run by a lawyer.
Have you read anything in the OAR or Federal Register or CFR lately? Especially in 26 CFR....
It lawyer language writ large
Posted by Nonny Mouse | December 10, 2009 4:35 PM
Director Park is great. There are not many trees in Pioneer square either and--lo and behold--people sometimes go there. In fact, as I remember, there are probably more trees in Director, it's just they're young and small. Wait til they grow up. DP has lots of good places to sit, a cafe (coming), and cover from the rain. Cool.
Posted by Phil P | December 10, 2009 5:13 PM
Director Park is great. There are not many trees in Pioneer square either and--lo and behold--people sometimes go there.
Pioneer square's not a park, and has different rules. And, there are about six trees in Director "Park", which are of the short, small canopy variety. Remember what they're planted on top of?
DP has lots of good places to sit, a cafe (coming), and cover from the rain.
Sorry, but most of that space under the canopy will be filled by businesses (first the cafe, then carts). The rest is an oversized water feature (with limited seating, and dry in winter) and a half rectangle of bench surrounding a large checkerboard. Unless you crowd under the canopy between the cafe and other buildings, seating will be limited.
Let's be honest. It's not a park, it's a fantastically expensive parking garage cover. If you want to compare it to something, compare it to another nearby "park", which is often filled with the homeless, with drug deals, with late night fights and skateboarders, and a variety of other interesting activities. This one will be different--at first--because it'll be brightly lit, frequently patrolled, and monitored by security cameras--in other words, it'll be a carefully controlled experience that everyone is paying dearly for.
Why should I be asked to pay for a cover for a parking garage that's going to line the pockets of one person?
Posted by ecohuman | December 10, 2009 5:55 PM
No hop-scotch in your parks.
Posted by Grady Foster | December 10, 2009 7:21 PM
That sounds like an invitation to bring all your small children to the 'park' with their colored sidewalk chalks.
I want to see burly cops tazing pre-school children in the city center. Maybe we'll get to see a knee-drop on a toddler...because she was kicking and screaming about her chalks being confiscated.
Cafe?
In the middle of downtown Portland, they need to put a cafe on public land? Aren't there already cafes in the vicinity?
This is one of that sleazeball Grimwad's ventures, isn't it? He likes to install commercial ventures in public parks.
Next up, a street toilet!
Posted by godfry | December 10, 2009 8:01 PM
It is against the law not to clean up after one's dog defecates in a city park, but is it also against the law to enter a city park with the intention of not cleaning up after one's dog defecates? That is, is there a discernible and demonstrable difference between not cleaning up one's dog's feces out of ignorance of one's dog having defecated and not doing so out of an intention not to do so?
And why is it against the law not to clean up after one's canine defecates in a city park but not, apparently, against the law not to clean up one's cat's feces?
Posted by Gardiner Menefree | December 10, 2009 8:20 PM
Pioneer Square PARK is so a park. Replete with their own Pinkerton-men. Did you know that Portland Parks contracts-out their 'security'? Did you know those contract, ahem, 'officers', carry a side-arm? Can you tell the difference between them and actual cops? No? Uh-huh.
Posted by Vance Longwell | December 11, 2009 6:52 AM
Wonder if Jordan Schnitzer wrote these rules in order to "enhance" and "protect" the family image.
Posted by yeahright | December 11, 2009 11:36 PM
Gee, Jack, it is as if you never heard of anyone being caught with burglar's tools. Of course, they are hard to find at the hardware store because they look so much like the regular tools. You have to look very carefully to see their intent.
Posted by niceoldguy | December 12, 2009 8:40 PM
Have surveillance cameras been installed in Director Park to provide documentation of presumed crimes of intention? Will arrests be made or tickets sent via USPS? Is there room enough in the jails to hold the miscreants?
Posted by Gardiner Menefree | December 14, 2009 1:31 PM