Do You Have a Permit for That Birthday Cake?
By Mary Theroux • Thursday October 28, 2010 2:30 PM PDT • 13 Comments
As just another example that the Nanny State is alive and flourishing in San Francisco—the city that delights in calling itself a bastion of “freedom”—here are a few of the rules if you wish to hold your child’s birthday party in one of its public parks:
Don’t bring Mylar balloons. Don’t attach non-Mylar balloons to a park bench or tree. Same with pinatas, streamers and signs (a freestanding pole is required).
Want to grill? Get a permit from the Fire Department.
Want a jumpy house? Give the city a $250 deposit and make sure the company providing the inflatable jumper has $1 million in liability insurance. And if you’re dreaming about a pony at your child’s party, consider this: The city of San Francisco expects you to have a veterinarian on hand.
In case you’re wondering,
“You need a veterinarian because there is a lot of concern by the pro-animal groups. They want to make sure everything is good for the horse.”
Since only the well-heeled or well-connected could hope to comply with such rules, I guess it doesn’t matter if everything is good for the kids whose families might be most likely to want to use a public park—those lacking a large private yard. “Public,” indeed.
Tags: California, Civil Liberties, Family, Liberty, Personal Liberty, Property Rights, Racism, The State, Uncategorized, Urban Issues 
Laws are in place for those of us civilized enough not to want to live in a constant state of chaos.
Your jumpy house sitting on a park’s sod for say 7 hours will kill that sod. Why should taxpayers pay the cost of repairing something your exuberance broke?
Park structures are not designed nor constructed for anyone to hang anything from them. Imagine if everyone that used them hung something, with nails, tape, etc., etc. The deplorable conditions in which you’d find these public structures after a couple of years.
If you are not civilized enough to appreciate the laws that keep this nation civil then perhaps you should find a more chaotic nation and relocate.
Sebastian Formoso | Oct 29, 2010 | Reply
Also, why shouldn’t there be a veterinarian on site to take care of the poor animal that has been forced into a life of servitude. Should the poor pony endure the abuse of children constantly riding him and the heat of the sun bashing down on him just so that some brat can have a ride? What about the pony’s well being? How selfish and inconsiderate can you possibly be to complain about that!?!
Sebastian Formoso | Oct 29, 2010 | Reply
Sebastian, your arguments demonstrate a fundamental ignorance of the difference between license and liberty.
FYI: Ponies are not people.
Lloyd | Oct 30, 2010 | Reply
Sebastian Formoso,
Spoken like a true statist. Or was this meant to be a parody?
RickC | Oct 30, 2010 | Reply
“Since only the well-heeled or well-connected could hope to comply with such rules, I guess it doesn’t matter if everything is good for the kids whose families might be most likely to want to use a public park—those lacking a large private yard.”
The well-heeled people of San Francisco (probably Sebastian too) actually don’t want the other kind of people having birthday parties in their parks. Those houses don’t kill sod—I know for a fact, my folks have them for the kids at parties, and no sod is killed. Same with the permit—if the grills at the park are safe then no permit should be needed for any reason other than keeping out the “undesirables.” These are stupid rationalizations for basic racist feelings. To think that he cares about the poor horse himself but that the people actually interacting with the horse don’t give a damn about the horse is the epitome of conceit. It’s a fiction that really proves my point—what he thinks about “those” people. Well I am one of “those” people and his contempt for me and my kind is clear. The sweet revenge is that me and my people have huge loving families and lots of great birthday parties with piñatas, bounce houses and ponies! I hope some of us live next door to Sebastian! LOL.
ccrawford | Nov 1, 2010 | Reply
“Since only the well-heeled or well-connected could hope to comply with such rules, I guess it doesn’t matter if everything is good for the kids whose families might be most likely to want to use a public park—those lacking a large private yard. ‘Public,’ indeed.”
Of course. Keep the rabble out of OUR parks. After all, WE’re the ones who pay the taxes that pay for the parks. Parks are to look good and be pleasant, not to be clogged with the lower classes.
Mac | Nov 2, 2010 | Reply
I think those are good rules. Public parks are for enjoyment of everyone. When there are many people, there have to be more restrictions to keep them that way. If you want freedom from considering others, do it on a private property. I want public parks to look and feel good, and that means green vegetation, not ugly bright jump houses, noise and trash from parties. I’d ban stinky grilling altogether to keep air clean too. There are many activities kids can enjoy in a park without ruining it. They can cut a cake, eat and play games. Parents should do a better job entertaining kids, instead of dumping them into a jump house and drinking beer.
Stan | Nov 3, 2010 | Reply
Don’t get me wrong, I value freedom, but I disagree with your perception of public parks as some sort of playground where you should be able to go wild. Exactly because it’s a public park, people there should be just as considerate of others as on a city street. You wouldn’t want me to break my pinata in your front yard, and have city worker clean it up next morning, so why do you think it’s OK in a public park? I suspect, it’s just because you never use public parks and spend your time with a typewriter looking into your clean front yard.
Stan | Nov 3, 2010 | Reply
By definition, a public park is just that, PUBLIC. Who’s to say that just because a family has a party there they are going to leave any more of a mess than say the soccer clubs do leave every weekend when they play there. At some point, we have to go back to being a civilized nation and trust that we will respect the property that has been given for our enjoyment.
On the other hand, being a sanctuary city is okay? These laws prohibit citizens from having a nice time, yet the citizens who pay their taxes also pay for illegals to live in their city and use its resources. Isn’t it a contradiction?
lgf | Nov 4, 2010 | Reply
Believe it or not, it will grow back (if it dies at all after only 7 hours!)
4TimesAYear | Nov 4, 2010 | Reply
Wow. A never-ending revenue stream. Whatever the city imagines, they can require a permit for. Time for the people to put up toll booths on your private sidewalks so they can generate their own revenue....ooops, I forgot – the city would require a permit for that as well.
I wouldn’t put up with this kind of nonsense.
4TimesAYear | Nov 4, 2010 | Reply
Yes,heaven forbid the park becomes some kind of playground. And no permit from the fire dept. to grill?
daddysteve | Nov 5, 2010 | Reply
If Cali wasn’t blowing all their tax dollars on socialism they could afford to clean their parks.
daddysteve | Nov 5, 2010 | Reply