Riverside Info » About Riverside

Time to end ban on Picnics in Riverside

(22 posts)
  • Started 9 months ago by TomJacobs
  • Latest reply from TomJacobs
  1. TomJacobs
    Member

    Defined as a pleasure excursion at which a meal is eaten outdoors and which takes place in a beautiful landscape such as a park, beside a lake or river, and with an interesting view, picnics are a healthful and joyous form of passive open-air recreation that is enjoyed throughout the world.

    Not so in Riverside.

    In our village, which is widely recognized as one of the most scenic and beautiful places in the Chicagoland area, picnicking is illegal. How is that possible?

    When the picnic ban was enacted, it was done in response to concerns over littering, loud music playing, alcohol consumption, use of cooking and grilling equipment, and the potential for large group gatherings. While these are legitimate concerns with regard to the responsible use of our parks, the outright picnic ban is bad legislation, for three reasons.

    First, the picnic ban is a legislative overreach. The Village Municipal Code addresses all public nuisances that may occur in parks individually and separately from the no-picnic ordinance. These nuisances, like littering and grilling in the parks, are illegal. In other words, if the ban is lifted and picnics are allowed, all the activities of concern that led to the ban will remain to be illegal.

    Additionally, banning picnics is the equivalent of using a sledgehammer to tap in a finishing nail as it punishes the large majority of people and families that would use the parks responsibly.

    A much better way to deal with the legitimate use concerns of our parks would be for the Village to adopt a version of the “Leave No Trace” Program as advocated by the National Parks Service. The majority of this public education and outreach effort could be carried out by Riverside civic and conservation groups, and would offer volunteer opportunities for individuals as well.

    It comes down to a choice between educating and encouraging, or prohibiting and defending.

    Second, the picnic ban is in direct contradiction with Frederick Law Olmsted’s vision for open-air recreation. Olmsted explicitly endorses picnicking by labeling a significant portion of Swan Pond “Picnic Island” on his 1869 General Plan for Riverside.

    Further evidence of his view can be found in the Preliminary Report that accompanied the General Plan. Olmsted writes that “The chief advantages of a suburb consist in those which favor open-air recreation beyond the limits which economy and convenience prescribe for private grounds and gardens”, and that “some of the best of your property shall be used for public grounds rather than of enclosed and defended parks and gardens.”

    Third, as a stewardship measure, the picnic ban is counterproductive. While the ban does prevent the scarce instances of irresponsible park use, it precludes a far greater number of effective opportunities for people to become nature advocates from happening.

    As any nature lover involved in environmental preservation knows, there is nothing more powerful than an outdoor experience for a true understanding of the authenticity, beauty, and importance of Mother Nature. The outdoors stimulate our 5 senses in a way which reminds us of the fact that we are just a part of nature ourselves. During a picnic, sight, hearing, smell, and touch, are further reinforced by the experience of taste, and one can see the unparalleled ability for picnics to create positive and strong memories that shape our values.

    David Sobel, an education writer who has helped develop the philosophy of place-based education, points out that we must allow our children to love the earth before we ask them to save it. In that sense, the picnic ban is counterproductive, and throws the baby out with the bathwater.

    The combined effect of overreach, contradiction with Olmsted, and lack of stewardship potential illustrates how the picnic ban is not in the best interest of Riverside’s present and future.

    Additionally, there is the even broader issue of social justice.

    As residents of Riverside, we know we are privileged. It is easy for us to forget that not all people have beautiful backyards of their own. I believe we should do more to invite and encourage people, particularly those who aren’t as fortunate as we are, to be able to enjoy the outdoors more frequently.

    Riverside shall never rightfully claim the full extent of its beauty if we do not proactively offer to share that beauty with all people, near and far. Allowing picnics is a great way to start doing just that.

    If you support efforts to lift the ban on picnics in Riverside Parks, please send an e-mail to YesToPicnics@gmail.com

    Posted Wednesday Aug 10, 2011 17:28 #
  2. hgallagher
    Member

    I am in complete agreement with your argument, Tom.

    Beyond sending an e-mail, how can we proceed?

    Posted Wednesday Aug 10, 2011 20:47 #
  3. TomJacobs
    Member

    hgallagher: Just sent you an e-mail.

    The next milestone is the September 26 Parks and Rec Commission meeting, in which they will continue to discuss the picnic issue. Then, the plan is to request the Village Board to take up the issue.

    Over the next few weeks, we are collecting statements of support from members of the community, which can be sent to either YesToPicnics@gmail.com or info@greenriverside.org.

    Posted Wednesday Aug 10, 2011 22:51 #
  4. PAR4
    Member

    Maybe we can have a 'Picnic Sit-in Day" in Sept/Oct and get as many people as possible out to enjoy our parks illegally.

    Then again, they'll probably issue us all $50 citations as way to close the budget gap.

    Posted Thursday Aug 11, 2011 09:19 #
  5. chrisrobling
    Member

    It is also time to support Riverside businesses. Have you dined lately at Mi Casita? How about Grumpy's or Chew Chew? Let's go to Sol Amici...

    Posted Thursday Aug 11, 2011 10:06 #
  6. EricSundstrom
    Member

    Tom while I think your idea has merit I think it has one major flaw. The ordinances in place do address factors such as grilling littering and alcohol use. However, now it will fall on law enforcement to increasingly police the parks and from my years in North Riverside living by the Forest Preserve you WILL see people grilling drinking and leaving a mess. I do not think the village police currently has the manpower to also become park police.

    Posted Thursday Aug 11, 2011 16:34 #
  7. TomJacobs
    Member

    Eric:

    We would obviously not build pic-nic shelters as is done at the Forest Preserve District sites. All that would happen in real terms if the ban is lifted is that the approx. 5 "No Picnicking" signs would be taken down.

    Addressing the potential for additional litter is legitimate, and implementing a public education program such as the Leave No Trace Front Country program is what we will recommend to go along with the ban. Such programs have been used very successfully by National Parks, for instance.

    Lastly, allowing picnics would create a minimal uptick in police workload, one that should be expected to be carried out without additonal hires or overtime. I find it interesting that every time a minimal change to the duties of police are mentioned, the argument is that they cannot be expected to do this without extra people or pay. In the private sector, people are expected to do more with the same compensation all the time, and public servants should be held to the same standard.

    Posted Friday Aug 12, 2011 17:09 #
  8. JohnM
    Member

    Tom,

    If all this project entails is removing a few no picnicking signs, i think you'll find most people support it. However, I'm a little concerned its proponents see it as a bit more than that. Are you suggesting that Swan Pond, Harrington Park, Big Ball Park or Indian Gardens would be used for large-scale picnics? Would this be advertised? Will permits be required, or will we simply open up our Village to any group that wants to have a picnic?

    With respect to your idea of a public education program, while I think it is laudable, I'm not sure how receptive certain members of the general public will be to this. If you want to see a depressing sight, check out the forest preserves in North Riverside after a large picnic hasd been there. Some groups, of course, are respectful and clean. However, a significant minority leave the area in a mess--garbage all over the place, food dumped everywhere, cars parked on the grass. While it is amusing to think of a group of Riverside docents gently reminding people to "leave no trace," I simply don't see the type of person who thinks it appropriate to drop his or her beer cans and chip bags wherever he or she is standing responding well to this.

    Finally, while our public servants should (and from what I've seen, do) step up and do more with less, policing the parks in addition to their other responsibilities would require additional staff--particularly if you want no littering, drinking, noise ordinances enforced. A case in point--a few years ago, one deranged individual with a knife required the attention of an entire shift of police to deal with. Imagine what would happen with a brawl at a picnic in Swan Pond.

    Maybe I'm focusing on worse case scenarios. However, I think these need to be looked at and considered before anything is done. Besides, does anybody really think the police are going to ticket a resident if he or she spreads out a blanket in Swan Pond and eats a sandwich? I don't. Maybe this is a case of if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

    Posted Monday Aug 15, 2011 12:34 #
  9. TomJacobs
    Member

    John:

    Lifting the picnic ban is primarily intended to allow and promote “traditional” picnics: a family brings a blanket and basket, and gets to the selected spot by foot or bicycle. This type of use, in my opinion, should be advertised. It would bring people into the Village that could buy their food and drink locally, in addition to all the benefits I see that I wrote about above.

    For groups of 10 people or more, a permit should be required. One would have to register for that group picnic permit, i.e. give name and address. This would be the perfect opportunity to lay down the rules, and would allow for offenders, if not caught during their picnic, to be fined and turned down for future permits. In terms of promotion, group outings is not what I would focus on.

    Your skepticism of the Leave No Trace program doesn’t consider the fact that many such programs have been implemented and have proven to be very effective. The National Parks are probably the most prominent example. In Riverside, because of our small size and the fact that people are actually living here, the program will be an even better fit.

    I’ll give you another example of why I would love to see people sitting down across from our house in Scottswood Common and have a picnic. For a few years now, our family has taken camping trips around the Great Lakes and along the East Coast. One of the greatest things is the variety of people one meets on campgrounds, truly amazing. We hear stories of the real America, from the people who camp permanently because they can no longer afford their home, to the people who travel professionally in trucks the size of a school bus. What they have in common are they amazing stories they tell. In short, I think we need to be exposed to more people here in Riverside, because we can learn from them.

    With regard to staff, I do not agree with your view that additional staff would need to be hired, i.e. paid. I think it is safe to assume that most picnics would occur during the weekend, and if more police presence were found to be needed, this would be the perfect task for the auxiliary police people to take on. We have so many amazing people in this town who volunteer that I’m positive we could cover this without incurring any additional costs.

    Lastly, with regard to your last statement, that the police is probably not going to ticket a resident, I completely and wholeheartedly disagree. The law is the law, and no citizen, regardless of where he or she lives, is above it. Your statement represents an unacceptable and embarrassing double standard. If it’s good enough for us, it’s good enough for all.

    Posted Tuesday Aug 16, 2011 08:48 #
  10. JohnM
    Member

    Tom,

    While I may be sceptical about the Leave No Trace program, I think your faith in human nature is a bit misplaced. The people who go to National Parks are likely a bit different (and thus more responsive to gentle guidance) than those who lug grills, bouncy houses and DJ equipment to a picnic.

    I find your statement about how "we need to be exposed to more people here in Riverside" to be a touch insulting. Riverside residents are perhaps not as parochial as you think we are, and it probably wouldn't hurt for you to stop lecturing us. Speaking for myself, I've had, and continue to have, plenty of exposure to a wide variety of people. I don't particularly want--to use one of your examples--homeless people camped outside my house--regardless of how amazing their stories are. Maybe you're fine with that, but you may want to clear it with your neighbors.

    Finally, I don't find my last statement to be a double standard at all. I pay a lot of taxes to live here. People who come from out of town don't. My taxes go to pay for the parks that you want to open up to picnicking. Theirs don't. Is it unfair that I would get off with a warning, while a non-resident would be ticketed? Maybe, but I can live with that, just as I live with my taxes.

    (I'm actually not a complete grinch--I have no problems with people from outside Riverside using our parks for picnicking. My concern is that if you completely eliminate this ban, you eliminate the ability of the village to regulate the size and nature of the groups. If we decide to go down this road, I think we need to be very clear about what we are doing, and understand exactly how this will effect the use of the parks by residents.)

    Posted Tuesday Aug 16, 2011 10:50 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.