Opinionator

City seizing chairs in Ohlone Park is nanny state run amok

By Albert Sukoff

Albert Sukoff is a longtime Berkeley resident and a frequent user of Ohlone Dog Park with his trusty Springer Spaniel, Day-Z.

The Ohlone Dog Park sits atop the BART tracks along Hearst Street at Grant. It is about an acre of land fenced off to allow a free run for Berkeley’s canine community. Dog owners – sorry, guardians – get to sit in the park and chat while the pooches run and play and sniff and scratch. Some run and play; others sniff and scratch. This is a putative city-run facility but the users do most of the clean-up and maintenance.

Needless to say, the City has no money for proper seating at the Ohlone Dog Park. There are a couple aging picnic benches with attached seating. When one approached total disintegration due to age and exposure to the weather, one of the regular park users, not the City, provided a new one.

There was still too little seating, but occasionally someone would drop off an old patio chair and, after a while, some eight or ten chairs accumulated.  Seeking a more permanent solution, the Ohlone Dog Park Association, an organization of a couple dozen park regulars, recently bought ten sturdy metal chairs for the park. With little help, but no interference from the City, the seating problem at the park was addressed over time by the users themselves  — at least until recently.

A few weeks ago, Parks Superintendent Susan Ferrera informed the Association that loose chairs were not allowed and had to go. Under threat of forced confiscation of the chairs by the City, the Association removed the metal chairs. The City apparently confiscated the remaining plastic chairs as they too are now gone.

Sympathetic to the problem, Ms. Ferrera e-mailed that a design process to begin in the fall would address the seating issue. Now literally left standing, the park users will likely have to wait a year to sit down again. At that time, the City will provide some undetermined quantity of seating, firmly anchored to the ground because, supposedly, it is safer that way.

I have lived in Berkeley for almost 50 years and have frequented the Ohlone Dog Park regularly since getting a dog about four years ago. I have seen some pretty silly stuff in Berkeley over the years, but the removal of chairs from the dog park is way up there on the list. The park users are perfectly capable of individually making a decision, without the guidance of City bureaucrats, as to which outdoor furniture they feel provides a reasonable level of personal safety. They do not need or desire City guidance in this matter.

The only real issue is liability and it is at least debatable that heavy furniture firmly bolted to the ground is safer than lightweight, loose plastic chairs. I would rather the dogs run into and knock over the lightweight chairs than do real harm crashing into fixed benches. Likewise for tripping humans. The supposed greater liability is presumptive and the risk assumable at little or no cost.

This silliness is the nanny-state at its worst. The City cannot, or will not, provide chairs at a park where people routinely spend an hour or more and, when the park users dealt with this dearth of seating by buying  their own, the all-knowing, all wise bureaucrats literally confiscated the seating leaving park users, many old and some infirm, literally standing around.

The park without chairs is about half as useful as with them. The insufficient seating which remains cannot be oriented to gain or avoid direct sunlight; users cannot join a group discussion by pulling up a chair; nor can one isolate oneself away from others to read a book without distraction.

All the users of the park seemed quite happy with things as they were. I, for one, wish the City of Berkeley would expend their nanny-state energies somewhere else. We do not need their help and guidance in this situation.

Berkeleyside welcomes submissions of op-ed articles of 500 to 800 words. We ask that we are given first refusal to publish. Topics should be Berkeley-related and local authors are preferred. Please email submissions to us. Berkeleyside will publish op-ed pieces at its discretion.

Print Friendly
  • The Sharkey

    To play Devil’s Advocate for a moment, what if someone sits on one of those plastic chairs in the park which has become brittle with weather exposure and takes a tumble onto their tush and decides to sue the City for “pain and suffering?”

    When the City gets sued just for trying to build new libraries, it doesn’t seem too far fetched to imagine that someone might sue the City for falling down in a dog park.

  • PragmaticProgressive

    Are there any countercases you can point to?  For example, the seating outside the dining hall at Tuolomne — a city run operation — is movable.  Why is it OK at that facility and not in this one?  Perhaps you can find some other example closer to, uh, home.

  • Biker 94703

    Stencil a explicit waiver/disclaimer on the corpus-receiving portion of the chair?  But I suspect the problem may be more one of “give an inch, take a mile”: you like your plastic chair, but probably will not greatly enjoy my ratty old lay-zee-boy recliner.

    A better solution might be a small shed attached to a neighbor’s yard into which chairs can be put away.  There is no issue with bringing chairs into the park, just leaving them there.  If there are no chairs left out (impeding mowing, etc) the city has nothing to complain about.

  • The Sharkey

    Good points, Biker!

    I thought maybe everyone could just bring their own portable chairs. The local San Francisco company Alite makes a portable chair that’s only 21 ounces, and REI has a whole bunch of other options.

    http://www.alitedesigns.com/monarch-chair.html

    Now that I’ve thought about it some more, I wonder we’re being a bit quick to judgement in blaming the City. Usually when something like this happens, a whining NIMBY neighbor is to blame. Did the City really do this of their own accord, or was it done after complaints from a grumpy neighbor?

  • TizziLish

    I am reflecting on the strident calls for less government — such calls are, at least in my mind, typically made about the federal government. For decades, well, ever since the New Deal I think, conservatives have been trying to undo the social safety nets like Social Security and pushing back on the idea of using government to take care of one another . . . . I don’t want to debate the whole ‘shrink the beast of government’ dynamic . .. . . but I can’t help reflecting on the ongoing public discourse about shrinking government, the ongoing calls for increasingly local food/culture/economics . . . and then a small community of dog lovers solves a commons’ issue, a group of folks take care of the ‘whole’ with a ‘free’ solution . .  and government takes it away.

    Maybe instead of eliminating chairs that might invite lame law suits, maybe society should carefully write some new laws limiting liability for something as simple of sitting on a free chair freely placed on the publicly owned and shared commons.

    Another tragedy of the commons. Sigh.

    I love the idea of those dog lovers providing chairs, solving a commons need at no cost to the tax base . . . and I hate the idea of our tax-funded city staffers eliminating that citizen=based solution. Sigh.

  • TizziLish

    In a large culture, with wide anonymity — or relative anonymity — there is a need to provide for the wellbeing of others .  but, geez, chairs risking lawsuits?  How sad.

  • TizziLish

    A friend of mine, Stephen Silha, published a story in Yes magazine several years ago about something happening in Portland.  People just started making welcoming community spaces at their corners .  . . building benches, creating spaces to circulate books. . . . .I don’t know if old Yes articles are easily available online but it is a great story about very local, neighborhood-based efforts to do things on the public commons — in Portland, as in many towns and cities, most corners have small patches of land — four patches at a four-way intersection — that just sits there with grass. . . but in Portland, folks began turning such spaces in warm, inviting and very intensely local (like on that block) creative shared space. If they can do it in Portland, why not here? And if they do it in Portland, it is unlikely law suits are an issue.

    Here is a link to the story about Portland street corners: http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/what-is-the-good-life/998

  • Alan_Tobey

    On other “contentious” issues – simple marijuana possession comes to mind — our courageous council has taken a “lowest priority enforcement” approach that would help here. A “sit at your own risk” disclaimer sign would also help with liability concerns.

    The park is at the boundary of Maio’s and Arreguin’s districts — have you asked them for help?

    If this makes it to the council our representatives should be made to stand while discussing it.

  • FiatSlug

    This isn’t nanny-state actions run amok.  This is a reaction by the City to a litigious society and the simultaneous desire to limit risk and liability.

    The best two suggestions I’ve seen thus far are: 
    (1) a small shed attached to a neighbor’s yard where chairs could be stored (h/t Biker 94703) and 
    (2) use portable chairs (h/t to The Sharkey)

    I’m finding it difficult to be upset at the City: Ohlone Park is City property with public access. It’s the City’s responsibility to remove unnecessary hazards from their parks.

  • joshua a

    A nanny state is where the government makes you put your stuff away at your house, not at public parks. It sounds like the city did a number of things right including, talking to the stakeholders before taking action and offering a solution that will hopefully meet everyone’s needs (the design process). I do agree that seating is important in dog parks and I am glad that it appears there will be a solution eventually. 

  • Anonymous

    Get some perspective man. Talk about rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic…

  • Dogone it

    Many of  the users have been going to the Ohlone Dog Park since its inception over 25 years ago. That means we are now also 25 years older.  When we go to the park with our dogs we can’t just stand for an hour  and, frankly, we could far more easily be knocked down while standing by large dogs running and playing than while sitting.

    It seems to me that a community coming together and providing for a public facility should be applauded . It doesn’t happen all that often.

    The plastic chairs have been at the Ohlone Dog Park for years now without a problem. Of course they start to fall apart with weather and use. They then get thrown out. The new metal chairs would last longer, if we dared to bring them back, and were certainly heavy and hard to knock down.

    When it comes to permanently anchoring chairs, the article makes a good point about how the park is actually used. From one day to the next the chairs are never in the same place. Indeed they move around quite a bit while there for an hour as people gather together or sit apart and follow the sun or try to avoid the wind.

    Since there hasn’t been a problem with the chairs to date, why cause one now by insisting they be removed? In this time of economic stress, why spend city money to fix a problem that doesn’t exist and cause a public facility to be less functional than it was?

  • Albert Sukoff

    No, a nanny
    state is when the government dictates private behavior by force or threat of
    force, allegedly for your own good. Such mandates are not necessarilty
    home-based. If the government forced us all to wear bright orange when crossing a
    street, that would be an example of the nanny-state controlling private
    behavior on public property. It may be a good idea or a bad idea but either way, it is nanny-statism. 

     

  • Albert Sukoff

    The assumption underlying this comment to my piece is that the status quo ante was a significant liability in the first place.  While not dispositive, it should be noted that there have been no incidents or law suits involving the offending chairs in over 20 years. 

    The City’s position, however, is debatable on its face.  It is at least arguable that soft, loose outdoor furniture is actually safer than the very heavy benches the City prefers; benches which would be bolted firmly to the ground. When tripping humans or charging dogs encounter a obstacle, better it be light and giving than heavy and fixed. 
     
    Clearly the only issue is liability.  Some degree of liabilty automatically attaches to a dog park.  How much liability the City accepts is wholly a matter of choice.  The offending chairs posed little or no added liability.   As (I believe) the City is self insured, all it need do is accept the liability of the loose chairs.  This would just as likely diminish the City’s liability as increase it.  

  • Vohar

    It can’t be liability – the city encourages skateboarders behind city hall.

  • Guest

    aren’t you a lawyer?

  • hardlyaguest

    A Nanny state is bad enough, but our poor Nanny is schizophrenic!

    - Illegal fruit vendors operate freely, screwing up the traffic as their drive-by customers double park to browse their wares.

    - Traffic circle plantings grow so high you can’t see the kids crossing on the other side of the intersection.

    -Cheesboard pizza eaters sit undisturbed on the median strip, waiting for somebody’s “heart attack at the wheel” to strew them up and down Shattuck (image the teddy bears, flowers and candles memorial that will generate!)

    …and dozens more examples of selective enforcement masquerading as tolerance.

    If the road to Hell really is paved with good intentions…Berkeley is building a Super Highway.

  • TN

    I’m very late to the party on this issue.

    My conclusion is that this City policy has to do with Occupy Berkeley camping in the downtown park. All the city parks have recently been posted with signs saying:

    “PURPOSE

    The purpose of this rule is to prevent damage to City parks, including the turf areas, preserve the aesthetics of City parks, and balance competing uses of City parks in a fair manner.

    Policy

    PURSUANT TO BMC 6.32.030

    No person shall set up, place, or install any structure or large object in the outdoor area of City park without a City-issued permit. … (Continues)

    No person shall leave or store any unattended personal property in the outdoor area of City park, regardless of the size.”

    This makes clear that setting up camping gear (and related stuff like chairs) and leaving them in City parks is prohibited.  This policy is being applied to ALL city parks to make it non-discriminatory towards any one group.

  • Albert Sukoff

    Truly remarkable.  I have asked the City staff FOUR times in the last several weeks to cite any authority relative to the forced removal of the chairs from the Ohlone Dog Park.  It takes an interested citizen in a reply to an opinion piece in Berkeleyside to get the information I requested.  My thanks to TN for providing me with this information that the City could or would not provide..

    We may be getting into angels on the head of a pin here, but the chairs in Ohlone Park do not really meet the definitions in BMC 6.32.030.  They are not structures nor are they large objects.  The were donoted to the park and therefore not anyone’s personal property.  The City chosed to make an issue out of a harmless practive serving many and harming no one.  They never cited the municipal code and in fact avoided doing so when asked.  They do have the power to dictate whether or not the chairs will be allowed to serve park users.  Why they would deny fully-grown adults the right to provide seating of their choice at their own expense is beyond me. 

    The real issue is liability, not chairs and if the City can accept the liability of tot parks with swings and jungle-jims and monkey bars, they could accept the liability of chairs in the Ohlone Dog Park.   We, the users of the park pay the tax bill and it is our comfort and conveniece that is at stack.  Given a choice — and allowing loose chairs or nor is a choice — why would the City Council side with the bureaucrats over their constituents?  If there is any leeway — and there is — why can’t they justallow the status quo ante which has prevailed for 20 years to continue.  They are self insured; all they have to do is back off!

  • TN

    I don’t think that the City thinks that the problem is liability due to people falling over the chairs. I think that the City (read: the City Attorney) thought that they needed to reinforce the City’s policy to ban all private placed “structures” from the parks to discourage people from literally camping out at Civic Center Park and taking over a large part of it. In order to have a policy that’s enforceable in court, they needed to apply the policy uniformly to everyone at all City parks except for those with permission to do otherwise.

    It isn’t a liability issue primarily. It is about maintaining control over a public asset.

  • Bruce Love

     

    the City (read: the City Attorney) thought that they
    needed to reinforce the City’s policy to ban all private placed
    “structures” from the parks to discourage people from [....]

    The bouncy castles that are a common feature of weekend family / children’s parties.

  • TN

    Yes, they are common. I don’t know if in Berkeley, city permits are required to set one up in a park. Permits are required in other cities. But I’ve never seen a bouncy castle left behind after the party.

  • Retorn

    I am really sad. I feel great community loss. The majority of the people that gathered and made this a special place are older and need a secured seat to be there for extended periods. There are only 5 tables of which most are too shady or completely without shade. I NEVER sat at one because while I have a dog I don’t want to be jumped on, licked etc. The picnic tables provide an agility course for giant dogs who are on top of them all the time. Little dogs are underneath wrestling. The plastic chairs were gone and the park association who actually does the maintenance and maintaining paid for some very nice metal chairs that were not too heavy, with arms, and mesh so they don’t hold water(urine). I was so happy. I felt like I was back in NYC or Paris…..and now I have gone back about 4 times since and I can’t stand for long due to medical reasons so I had to leave in 15 minutes. I miss my community meet ups and my dog suffers. Really sick waste of our time and honestly I can’t think about electing a single one of the people in charge again. They forgot who they serve and focused on something no broken and broke it. I see it becoming the next eyesore overnight due to lack of human presence.

  • Ringling

    The plastic chairs were gone months before this action. They took action after the community vetted and paid for high end metal bistro chairs. The same black ones with arms that you see all over the bay.

  • Retorn

    If I was to bet they wanted to move the homeless people out of the unpopulated ares of the park near peoples homes and used this park as an example to them. Great – now there are the same homeless people and less dog park users. Clearly they don’t know what makes a park a safe place and haven’t studied history. Read about Bryant Park in NYC. https://docs.google.com/viewer?

    a=v&q=cache:BtkW4HQ09_IJ:www.brvcorp.com/PDF/120%25202000%252010.12%2520NYC%2520parks%2520expert%2520offers%2520a%2520proven%2520growth%2520plan.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESimPBpT7syyTQfczcUQrr97QMTbe6KNcCaSzywry8ezoHIlA_ph8QsHYMIXVRXuo_S_Gx4fyxX1FyqSInTVfyrKuubOYm5NxlxyhJclwFCVsiYVQ4mxnup_4TomaX3dwwaQ2MSd&sig=AHIEtbTr0DEz16d20OdkNPgCwfgk4tl_QA&pli=1

  • Melody Cromer

    You go to the park to exercise and let the animals run wild from what I gather from your article. Get a blanket and sit on the ground if you can’t stand up for long periods or buy your own chunk of land and do as you please on it. You can always carry your own seating and remove it when you go. I suggest you simply stay home and MYOB!! lol