The following appeared as a letter to the editor from the owner of a skate shop in Central Plaza.
“Two years ago the city council voted to prohibit skateboarding in Central Plaza. They claimed that skateboard users were responsible for litter and vandalism that were keeping other visitors from coming to the plaza. In the past two years, however, there has been only a small increase in the number of visitors to Central Plaza, and litter and vandalism are still problematic. Skateboarding is permitted in Monroe Park, however, and there is no problem with litter or vandalism there. In order to restore Central Plaza to its former glory, then, we recommend that the city lift its prohibition on skateboarding in the plaza.”
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
The letter’s author argues that skateboarding in Central Plaza should be permitted, because the park in Monroe is ‘litter and vandalism-free,’ and since the ban has been lifted there, the plaza is being revitalized. It is difficult to argue with that logic, given that Central Plaza is noticeably cleaner today than it was two years ago. However, there is still something missing in the argument. The letter writer does not explain why Monroe Park is such a pristine space, and, more importantly, why Central Plaza is any different. The ban was placed on Central Plaza, not Monroe Park. It would be impossible to lift the ban if Central Plaza was not clean. Therefore, if the recommendation were to be accepted, the city would need to have a thorough clean-up and revitalization campaign in Central Plaza. Otherwise, the parks and plazas in both cities would be just like every other public space, and the question would remain as to whether skateboarding is the culprit of unsightly conditions or the catalyst for restoration.
The letter writer discounts the environmental impact of skateboarding as the reason for lifting the ban. It is true that skateboarding, in all of its forms, uses up less energy than many other recreational activities, but that does not make it environmentally friendly. In fact, skateboarding promotes a wasteful lifestyle; skaters are constantly buying new boards, while old boards are discarded, creating piles of trash. As has recently been shown, simply collecting and disposing of these boards is a difficult task, especially in a densely populated area. Moreover, skateboarders and longboarders alike are prone to damaging sidewalks and street surfaces as they race around. This damage creates hazards and inconveniences for pedestrians and motorists alike. Furthermore, skateboarders often ride in packs, creating a traffic hazard on a crowded sidewalk. These issues are not unique to skateboarding; they are inherent to any activity that takes place in public areas. The ban placed on Central Plaza was put into place as a means to curb the damage caused by these activities. If the ban were to be lifted, it is unclear what additional measures would be taken to deal with the damage that skateboarding is already causing.
Another argument in favor of lifting the ban is that Central Plaza is now ‘revitalized.’ While this is true, it must be noted that this revitalization has been largely due to the efforts of nonprofit organizations, such as the Central Plaza Association and the Central Plaza Business Association. These organizations, in conjunction with local business owners, have been responsible for organizing cleanups and removing the graffiti that plagues the plaza. Since these organizations are not the ones collecting the litter or policing the plaza, the letter writer’s assertion that their work is done is questionable. The ban was put in place for the benefit of the entire community, not just of the business owners and residents in the Central Plaza district.
The letter writer maintains that the ban on skateboarding in Central Plaza is being lifted in Monroe Park because there ‘there is no problem with litter or vandalism there.’ It is true that Monroe Park is cleaner than it was before the ban was put in place, but the same cannot be said for Central Plaza. Nonetheless, there is no way of knowing why the plaza in Central Plaza is so dirty. Perhaps it is because of lax enforcement, or because patrons of Central Plaza simply do not care. Perhaps both these factors are at play. Whatever the reason, if the letter writer’s assertion that Central Plaza is now ‘litter and vandalism-free’ is to be trusted, then it is incumbent on the city government to use additional resources to clean and maintain these public spaces. Otherwise, the ban will remain in place, and the city will continue to see a decline in the cleanliness of Central Plaza.