Dropbox vs. Kids

[ElDiabeto]

http://techcrunch.com/2014/10/16/soccer-dropbox-airbnb/

 

"A week after a video of an argument between a handful of local teenagers and Dropbox and Airbnb employees went viral, hundreds of demonstrators protested at San Francisco City Hall, asking for the city’s parks to be freely open to the public. The city’s parks and recreation general manager acquiesced, dropping the reservation requirement at night for that specific park in the Mission District.

For background, a handful of local teenagers were playing a pick-up soccer game a few months ago, when a group of men in Dropbox shirts asked them to leave because they had paid to reserve the field for a league game. For years, when the Mission Playground used to be covered in cement, local kids would play seven-on-seven pick-up games and it was always free for drop-ins, unlike other city parks that required reservations.

In 2012, the park underwent a $7.5 million renovation and the city’s parks and recreation department instituted a new set of rules. As part of that, there was a new reservation system on certain nights of the week for a $27 permit. Parks and recreation general manager Phil Ginsburg said that his department made that decision after notifying 700 community leaders and all residents within a quarter-mile of the park in English and Spanish and holding three community meetings back in 2009. He said that the new system left the park open for drop-in play 96 percent of the time.

But that left the neighborhood children feeling slighted, because those evening hours were prime slots. They made this video recording after several conflicts like this had already happened over many months.

"This divide has been fueled by bad choices by the parks and recreation department,” said city supervisor David Campos, who is running to represent San Francisco in the state assembly in next month’s elections. “They created different expectations with folks in the community, who thought that they could reserve this field. We collectively on both sides want a policy that works for all San Franciscans. We cannot be a city where you have to have money to access public space.""

 

Watch the video here. 

In the Bay Area, there has been a lot of talk about this. In San Francisco, there have been blocked tech buses going to take people to Silicon Valley, people have vandalized Google's buses, and many other protests. Because of the people moving into the area to work for the tech companies in Silicon Valley, the price of housing has risen all over the Bay Area, especially in San Francisco. "The average rent in San Francisco shot up 11.9 percent -- to $3,096 per month -- in the third quarter of this year from the same period last year. In Oakland, the average rental price is $2,124, up 10.3 percent from last year, according to RealFacts, while San Jose's average rent rose 9.2 percent, to $2,015." (http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_24813197/bay-area-protests-tech-worker-buses-highlights-pay) This video is just another example of something that has been affected by the booming tech industry. Personally, I like having all of the tech companies in the Bay Area. It's fun to drive the highway and pass Amazon, Google, NASA, Intel and many other of the biggest tech companies in the world.

 

 

[EthanMcL]

Honestly, I would be on Dropbox's side for this one.  They reserved it, they should get what they paid for.

[WolfDeville]

Fucking idiots... "I've been here for 20 years" oh so that means their reservation means nothing and you are free to just drop in and start shit? Get fucked.

[Electrostatik]

Tough to be a kid sometimes

[ElDiabeto]

Fucking idiots... "I've been here for 20 years" oh so that means their reservation means nothing and you are free to just drop in and start shit? Get fucked.

 

 

Honestly, I would be on Dropbox's side for this one.  They reserved it, they should get what they paid for.

One thing that has been brought up is that you use a smartphone app to reserve fields and a lot of the kids in the Mission (where this happened) dont have internet access.

[Pomfinator]

The youtube comments are trash...anyway...

 

I'm with the Dropbox guys, they rented the field for a league game for an hour, what they got was a bunch of attitude. "Oh but they could have played with the kids", and to that I say he freakin booked the park for a reason, and that was to play a match between Dropbox and AirBnB guys.  

[connorpiper]

"Over a year" *puts his hands up*

 

[Trik'Stari]

Fucking idiots... "I've been here for 20 years" oh so that means their reservation means nothing and you are free to just drop in and start shit? Get fucked.

You can't reserve public space, that makes it non public.

 

Especially if you have to pay to reserve it, then it's private, paid for space, but in this case it's just owned by the government which technically speaking is supposed to mean EVERYONE, hence the word, public.

[qwertywarrior]

You can't reserve public space, that makes it non public.

 

Especially if you have to pay to reserve it, then it's private, paid for space, but in this case it's just owned by the government which technically speaking is supposed to mean EVERYONE, hence the word, public.

i was looking for a sane comment and i stumbled on your post

+1 for sanity

[LAwLz]

I am with Dropbox on this. If the city has decided that you can rent the field certain hours then you have to play by the rules. It doesn't matter if you've lived there for 20 year, that doesn't put you above the law.

I don't think it's strange to have to pay for government owned things either. In Sweden the government owns quite a lot of museums but you still have to pay to enter. Our biggest cellphone carrier is partially (used to be fully) government owned as well but that doesn't mean everyone can use their network for free.

I am pretty sure some parking lots in the city are owned by the government as well but I still have to get a ticket to park there. In fact, my school has a football field where some teams play games. Just because it's owned by the school (and thus owned by the government) doesn't mean I can just run in on the field in the middle of a game and start kicking their ball. If they have reserved it then I am not allowed to be there. It's as simple as that.

Government owned does not mean "free to use for everyone, at any time".

 

The park is free for anyone to use 96% of the time, and the other 4% CAN be reserved against a 27 dollar fee.

 

Thumbs up to the Dropbox employee for saying calm. That other guy was a dick that laughed at him for only having lived there 1 year, as if that had any relevance at all.

[LifesCompanion]

But the DB employees paid for the space... 

 

I think the area should be renamed to Salt City since they seem so damn salty

[LePawel]

One thing that has been brought up is that you use a smartphone app to reserve fields and a lot of the kids in the Mission (where this happened) dont have internet access.

Especially the guy that uploaded this video to youtube.

Read up on the topic. It's a 2 hour time slot between 7 and 9 when you can get a permit.

Is it really that hard to work by the regulations displayed? Living next to it for a long time doesn't give you special treatment. Some guys had to organize their asses, come over, and wanted to play for an hour (oh gawd jesus!).

But a racism train arrived because they're brown kids vs white males that have t-shirts with big company logo on them

 

@LAwLz 100% agree. They don't have to put up with adults simply coming over and stick a nail through their ball if they don't remove their asses, it's a simple rule. Tradition or not, law is law.

[Trik'Stari]

Especially the guy that uploaded this video to youtube.

Read up on the topic. It's a 2 hour time slot between 7 and 9 when you can get a permit.

Is it really that hard to work by the regulations displayed? Living next to it for a long time doesn't give you special treatment. Some guys had to organize their asses, come over, and wanted to play for an hour (oh gawd jesus!).

But a racism train arrived because they're brown kids vs white males that have t-shirts with big company logo on them

 

@LAwLz 100% agree. They don't have to put up with adults simply coming over and stick a nail through their ball if they don't remove their asses, it's a simple rule. Tradition or not, law is law.

Again, public space, if you're paying for it and reserving it, that becomes private space.

 

 

 

Public property is property, which is dedicated to the use of the public. It is a subset of state property. The term may be used either to describe the use to which the property is put, or to describe the character of its ownership (owned collectively by the population of astate). This is in contrast to private property, owned by an individual person or artificial entities that represent the financial interests of persons, such as corporations.^[1] State ownership, also called public ownership, government ownership or state property, are property interests that are vested in the state, rather than an individual or communities.^[2]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_property

 

You cannot restrict or deny access to one group of people on public property, based on financial or arbitrary reasoning, then it's not public.

 

pub·lic

ˈpəblik/

adjective

 

1. 1.

   of or concerning the people as a whole.

   "public concern"

   synonyms: popular, general, common, communal, collective, shared, joint,universal, widespread

   "by public demand"

    
2. 2.

   done, perceived, or existing in open view.

   "he wanted a public apology in the Wall Street Journal"

   synonyms: known, published, publicized, in circulation, exposed, overt, plain,obvious

   "the news became public"

      
3. noun

1. 1.

   ordinary people in general; the community.

   "the library is open to the public"

   synonyms: people, citizens, subjects, general public, electors, electorate, voters,taxpayers, residents, inhabitants, citizenry, population, populace,community, society, country, nation, world; 

   everyone

   "the American public"

Source: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=public+definition

 

Granted, if the people in that locality voted for this type of regulation (unlikely) then too bad so sad you get what you asked for, but this just seems like a way for the city to make money off of people for the use of what is supposed to be freely used public space.

[cesrai]

I am with Dropbox on this. If the city has decided that you can rent the field certain hours then you have to play by the rules. It doesn't matter if you've lived there for 20 year, that doesn't put you above the law.

I don't think it's strange to have to pay for government owned things either. In Sweden the government owns quite a lot of museums but you still have to pay to enter. Our biggest cellphone carrier is partially (used to be fully) government owned as well but that doesn't mean everyone can use their network for free.

I am pretty sure some parking lots in the city are owned by the government as well but I still have to get a ticket to park there. In fact, my school has a football field where some teams play games. Just because it's owned by the school (and thus owned by the government) doesn't mean I can just run in on the field in the middle of a game and start kicking their ball. If they have reserved it then I am not allowed to be there. It's as simple as that.

Government owned does not mean "free to use for everyone, at any time".

 

The park is free for anyone to use 96% of the time, and the other 4% CAN be reserved against a 27 dollar fee.

 

Thumbs up to the Dropbox employee for saying calm. That other guy was a dick that laughed at him for only having lived there 1 year, as if that had any relevance at all.

Like @Trik'Stari said if you pay for it it becomes private.

[dragosudeki]

I'm sorta with Dropbox, though it would've been nice for the park to let kids know when the reservations are going to occur. Put up some signs or something. If you see an organized soccer game in a local park, you can't just go in and ruin the event, since its an organized event.

[LePawel]

Like @Trik'Stari said if you pay for it it becomes private.

 

Again, public space, if you're paying for it and reserving it, that becomes private space.

 

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_property

 

You cannot restrict or deny access to one group of people on public property, based on financial or arbitrary reasoning, then it's not public.

Source: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=public+definition

 

Granted, if the people in that locality voted for this type of regulation (unlikely) then too bad so sad you get what you asked for, but this just seems like a way for the city to make money off of people for the use of what is supposed to be freely used public space.

You can give me definitions all you want. It's the San Francisco Park whatever organisation that owns it. They can make it public for x time and private for y.

as @LAwLz said, it's open for public most of the time, but between 7 and 9, they reserve the right to kick you out in favor of permit holders.

I'm pretty sure they have their own Terms and Conditions that you "automatically agree to the moment you enter the field" that none of you ever read.

Works the same way privately owned car parks work; X per hour monday-friday, saturday-sunday free.

If you don't like it don't use it. Vote with your wallet and never rent mostly-public spaces ever from anyone.

The guys with permit have not even raised their voice. No1 was hurt, and both sides now know how the object operates.

[Trik'Stari]

You can give me definitions all you want. It's the San Francisco Park whatever organisation that owns it. They can make it public for x time and private for y.

as @LAwLz said, it's open for public most of the time, but between 7 and 9, they reserve the right to kick you out in favor of permit holders.

I'm pretty sure they have their own Terms and Conditions that you "automatically agree to the moment you enter the field" that none of you ever read.

Works the same way privately owned car parks work; X per hour monday-friday, saturday-sunday free.

If you don't like it don't use it. Vote with your wallet and never rent mostly-public spaces ever from anyone.

The guys with permit have not even raised their voice. No1 was hurt, and both sides now know how the object operates.

If it's city owned land then it's public land, if it is owned by someone else who merely allows the public to use it, then you are correct.

 

But again, if it's city land, it's public land, meaning everyone has a right to use it at will, without reservations or payment.

 

To me, all of this is just more and more reasons of why not to live in a city. No land, no room, more BS than you can shake a stick at. If I want to have a soccer match, I can go outside and have one on my own property that our family rents, for probably less than the rent of an apartment in the bay area. And we actually have an entire house, not just some shitty little apartment, also no noise ordinance, our dogs can run freely, and I can shoot my .22 at soda cans in the backyard if I so choose. Only downside is that the grocery store is 10 miles away, and anything more than that is further out.

[LAwLz]

Again, public space, if you're paying for it and reserving it, that becomes private space.

 

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_property

 

You cannot restrict or deny access to one group of people on public property, based on financial or arbitrary reasoning, then it's not public.

Source: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=public+definition

 

Granted, if the people in that locality voted for this type of regulation (unlikely) then too bad so sad you get what you asked for, but this just seems like a way for the city to make money off of people for the use of what is supposed to be freely used public space.

Then the park is not public space. Simple as that, right?

However, I don't really see anything in any of your links which says that you can't be denied access to public property in certain cases. Like I said before, I can't run out on the school football field in the middle of the match because the teams have booked the field for a certain period of time.

 

Facts are facts. The city has decided that the park is free to use 96% of the time, and people are allowed to reserve the park for the remaining 4% of the time if they so desire. You can complain all you want about the city's decision but the Dropbox people did nothing wrong.

 

 

 

But again, if it's city land, it's public land, meaning everyone has a right to use it at will, without reservations or payment.

No, that is just pure bullshit. Like I said before, I am not allowed to interrupt football matches just because the field is public space. If they have reserved it then I am not allowed to interrupt them. It is as simple as that.

It is the same deal with the government owned cellphone carrier here in Sweden. I am not allowed to hack into their network and use it for free just because it is government owned. If I want to use it I have to pay.

[Trik'Stari]

Then the park is not public space. Simple as that, right?

However, I don't really see anything in any of your links which says that you can't be denied access to public property in certain cases. Like I said before, I can't run out on the school football field in the middle of the match because the teams have booked the field for a certain period of time.

 

Facts are facts. The city has decided that the park is free to use 96% of the time, and people are allowed to reserve the park for the remaining 4% of the time if they so desire. You can complain all you want about the city's decision but the Dropbox people did nothing wrong.

 

 

 

No, that is just pure bullshit. Like I said before, I am not allowed to interrupt football matches just because the field is public space. If they have reserved it then I am not allowed to interrupt them. It is as simple as that.

It is the same deal with the government owned cellphone carrier here in Sweden. I am not allowed to hack into their network and use it for free just because it is government owned. If I want to use it I have to pay.

1. You are right about the football field thing. Although me and some friends did do doughnuts in our HS football field the weekend before the homecoming game. (not really relevant, but funny, or at least we thought so)

2. You do pay for that cell phone carrier, it's called taxes.

3. I am disagreeing with the practice or idea that the city can decide to charge for access to public land, when said land is already paid for by we the people, i.e. taxes. Perhaps they should lower their own pay and stop taking all of the money.

[Misanthrope]

Honestly, I would be on Dropbox's side for this one.  They reserved it, they should get what they paid for.

 

No. That's like saying "Oh I bought this amazing stolen car from an official, corrupt dealership, I should get what I paid for" No you don't, if the government screwed up and gave you land reserved for the general public then you should totally sue the city but you have no right to just kick the tax payers who, regardless of renovation, are entitled to their parks  on their communities

[LAwLz]

1. You are right about the football field thing. Although me and some friends did do doughnuts in our HS football field the weekend before the homecoming game. (not really relevant, but funny, or at least we thought so)

You do realize this is the exact same situation, right? Someone booked the football field to play a game.

 

2. You do pay for that cell phone carrier, it's called taxes.

And I have to pay an additional fee to use the network. I don't think this is strange at all. In fact, the company generates money for the government so in theory it reduces the need to pay tax.

 

3. I am disagreeing with the practice or idea that the city can decide to charge for access to public land, when said land is already paid for by we the people, i.e. taxes. Perhaps they should lower their own pay and stop taking all of the money.

They are not charging for access to the land. They are charging people for exclusive access to the field under a very limited period of time. If nobody books the field during that time then everyone is free to use it.

There is a massive difference between saying "you're not allowed to use it unless you pay" and saying "you can use this for yourself if you pay, if you don't pay then everyone can use it". This is the latter, but you pretend like it is the former.

[Misanthrope]

Then the park is not public space. Simple as that, right?

However, I don't really see anything in any of your links which says that you can't be denied access to public property in certain cases. Like I said before, I can't run out on the school football field in the middle of the match because the teams have booked the field for a certain period of time.

 

Facts are facts. The city has decided that the park is free to use 96% of the time, and people are allowed to reserve the park for the remaining 4% of the time if they so desire. You can complain all you want about the city's decision but the Dropbox people did nothing wrong.

 

 

 

No, that is just pure bullshit. Like I said before, I am not allowed to interrupt football matches just because the field is public space. If they have reserved it then I am not allowed to interrupt them. It is as simple as that.

It is the same deal with the government owned cellphone carrier here in Sweden. I am not allowed to hack into their network and use it for free just because it is government owned. If I want to use it I have to pay.

 

The city can't decide "This is no longer a public park". By law, there must be a certain amount of parks on metro areas. Now if the municipality opens a second park within the area then they can re-purpose the old one. Public parks however are actually paid by the people of that county with their taxes and they can't be just taken away, fully or partially, by a greedy fucking park administrator who took what it amounts to an illegal bribe from Dropbox.

 

Sorry but seems like you're all being emotional and siding with dropbox because you don't like some obnoxious kids, but that doesn't changes the law.

[Scheer]

3. I am disagreeing with the practice or idea that the city can decide to charge for access to public land, when said land is already paid for by we the people, i.e. taxes. Perhaps they should lower their own pay and stop taking all of the money.

 

I really don't think its the cities intention to profit off of this, just a way to make it easier for organized company teams to get a place to play. If the cities didn't allow reserving fields there would be more private only parks that charge an insane amount of money to play on them and everyone looses... Kids have less places to play, and company teams would have to pay more.

 

At my old house there was a tennis court at a part nearby that a team would reserve for a few hours once a week and no one protested them...

[Misanthrope]

I really don't think its the cities intention to profit off of this, just a way to make it easier for organized company teams to get a place to play. If the cities didn't allow reserving fields there would be more private only parks that charge an insane amount of money to play on them and everyone looses... Kids have less places to play, and company teams would have to pay more.

 

At my old house there was a tennis court at a part nearby that a team would reserve for a few hours once a week and no one protested them...

 

Well you have your own argument refuted right here in this case: If you allow private funds into public adventures, then you have too many gray areas where the parks are no longer fully public or fully private, hence causing a greater conflict. This is exactly why no matter how shitty your parks are or how scarce your funds are, you just don't take private money.

[exyia]

**I haven't watched the youtube video because I'm at work, so my response is based on the text

 

I have a BIG problem for a completely different reason

 

These guys CLEARLY followed all the rules/protocols when putting these new protocols into action.

 

The place was clearly (from what we know and lacking any indication otherwise) voted for this renovation and change in rule set. Changes like this, of this large budget, of this public of property, are made after government discussion and voting.

 

So here's my problem:

 

WHERE WERE YOU KIDS WHEN THEY WERE VOTING TO DO THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE?

 

This whole change was done by your government. This was not some corporation taking over by greed. This was a government change done under government rules. If you don't like these changes, WHY WEREN'T YOU MAKING YOUR VOICE HEARD?

 

I'm sorry - it just looks like stupid kids were oblivious of the changes and are complaining AFTER the fact. Boohoo. With today's youth, I seriously doubt these kids were opposing the change at the time of voting....you know, when it SHOULD be done.

 

Maybe if kids weren't so stupidly caught up in dumb things these days and actually just a little bit aware of their community/government actions, they could have stopped these policies in the first place.

 

If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me. But I have no remorse for these kids. It seems like they're just complaining about something that they didn't bother to take action on when they should have. Government and representatives exist for a reason - everything they do is for the community they serve. This wasn't done by a private corporation.