Smoke-free yes, spit-free no? Park Board’s 1st look at new rules

Story and photo by Johnathon Fitzpatrick
Reporting for West Seattle Blog

Last night the Seattle Parks Board took its first official look at a compiled list of potential rules designed to regulate the public’s behavior in parks.

The proposed Code of Conduct (see it here) includes explicit bans on smoking, spitting, cursing, and entering restrooms that are for the opposite sex, as well as more ambiguous language banning any “conduct that unreasonably deprives others of their use or enjoyment of the park or park facilities.”

“We’ve had to deal with these situations one by one and we thought we’d gather it all together in one place,” explained Parks spokesperson Dewey Potter. “We’re trying to suggest good behaviors that make the parks more enjoyable for everybody by putting one little extra piece of trash in the can or by refraining from swearing in front of a 2-year-old.”

But the proposals weren’t all a hit with board members.

After reading through the list of rules, board member Neal Adams warned that “some of this just pushes the boundary of being practical and enforceable. It’s getting into personal rights, and some of the rules leave a lot to interpretation.”

Parks Superintendent Tim Gallagher was quick to point out that the city’s Law Department has thoroughly vetted all of the proposed rules, but by the meeting’s end, there was an overall agreement that while some rules may be removed or added, the language would need to be clarified.

The Parks Code of Conduct is starting off with 31 items. Half involve existing state and municipal laws; the other half are new rules proposed by Parks’ policy staff. The final list would be posted on the city’s website and distributed to local media outlets, but, according to Potter, signage in parks will not be required because it would be unwieldy.

The Board predominantly discussed the smoking and spitting rules, with policy director Eric Friedli indicating that the spitting rule probably won’t make the final cut. Even board member Dana Kincaid, who strongly supports the spitting ban, was realistic about its chances “That’s the only thing that makes me gag, but (banning it is) going too far. I love (the rule), but I don’t think it would be regulated.”

The smoking ban had strong support from the entire board, as well as City Councilmembers Tom Rasmussen, Sally Clark, and Nick Licata, who sent a letter of support. Friedli says more than a dozen cities in Washington state already ban smoking in parks, as well as cities in California, New Jersey, and Iowa.

In a twist of convenience, the language of the smoking ban may change to make up for the likely-doomed spitting ban. Board member Terry Holme suggested broadening the smoking ban to cover “all tobacco products,” which would eliminate spittoon-averse dip users, the main targets of the spitting ban.

A solution was also found for the “no opposite sex in restroom” proposed ule. Board member Jourdan Keith suggested making single-occupancy restrooms unisex “to minimize social stress from going to the bathroom.”

First-time offenders would be banned from the park for 24 hours, second-time offenders for seven days, and third time offenders for a year. This is the same enforcement model used in Seattle’s public library system. Notably, all violators would be registered not only in a Parks Offenders database but also in the Seattle Police Department’s records database as well.

Gallagher says this is just a preliminary list and that “we’re just throwing it out there to get public sentiment.” A public hearing is scheduled for January 28; the hearing will be held in the Seattle City Hall council chambers, since a larger-than-normal turnout is expected. A vote is likely to happen two weeks after that, at the Parks Board’s February 11 meeting.

In the meantime, you can e-mail comments to sandy.brooks@seattle.gov; Parks Board chair Jackie Ramels (from Alki) says they’d already received a lot of e-mail even before last night’s meeting.

33 Replies to "Smoke-free yes, spit-free no? Park Board's 1st look at new rules"

  • Miss Daphne January 15, 2010 (9:06 am)

    I think spitting is disgusting. It surely must spread disease. Spitting should not be allowed anywhere in public.

  • Miss Daphne January 15, 2010 (9:08 am)

    Is spitting spreading disease? Spitting should not be allowed anywhere in public.It is nasty.

  • Miss Daphne January 15, 2010 (9:16 am)

    Here is a bit of information from the CDC on the “transmission of infectious agents (such as a virus):”
    Any mechanism through which an infectious agent, such as a virus, is spread from a reservoir (or source) to a human being. Usually each type of infectious agent is spread by only one or a few of the different mechanisms.

    There are several types of transmission mechanisms:

    a) Direct transmission: This type of transmission is, at base, immediate. The transfer of the infectious agent is, as the name implies, directly into the body. Different infectious agents may enter the body using different routes. Some routes by which infectious diseases are spread directly include personal contact.
    Infectious agents may spread by tiny droplets of spray directly into the conjunctiva (the mucus membranes of the eye), or the nose or mouth during sneezing, coughing, spitting, singing or talking (although usually this type of spread is limited to about within one meter’s distance.) This is called droplet spread.

  • austin January 15, 2010 (9:48 am)

    It should be illegal for people to go outside at all, any one of them could potentially get me sick. Did you know breath contains spit? People breathing is like them spitting on you, constantly. Air is basically aerosol spit, just floating there constantly. It should be illegal to breathe as well.

  • nmb January 15, 2010 (10:01 am)

    I hadn’t considered that the spitting ban was aimed primarily at those spitting chewing tobacco. That makes 100x more sense now. Chewing tobacco spit is right up there with human feces for sheer digustingness (sic).

  • marty January 15, 2010 (10:09 am)

    This isn’t a joke? How can this city allow gang activity to run unchecked while wasting it’s time with trivial actions like this? Let’s get our priorities in order.

  • sam January 15, 2010 (10:10 am)

    ugh- I get sick when when I touch the nasty metal poles on the bus.

    I think metal poles in the bus should be illegal, people should tumble down and fall down, sitting on the floor, until it is time to get off at their stop.

    sarcasm aside though, I have heard from some body visiting from LA shock at the preponderance of people spitting in Seattle. but yeah- they should focus on real issues that they can and should enforce.

  • ab January 15, 2010 (10:16 am)

    i think the government should regulate everything until the world is exactly the way i want it (insert sarcasm).

    i’m prepared to spit, swear in front of 2 yr olds and smoke in protest when this takes effect. what a complete waste of time and money.

  • nmb January 15, 2010 (10:31 am)

    ab: thanks for being such a considerate, upstanding citizen. you’re mother must be proud.

  • old timer January 15, 2010 (10:34 am)

    The easiest thing would be to ban all team games.
    What’s football, soccer, or baseball if not spitting, cursing, and most important. potential for injury?
    These parks bureaucrats have way too much money, way too much time on their hands.

  • RobertSeattle January 15, 2010 (10:48 am)

    This is getting silly. What’s the rule on “passing gas?”

  • M.Burns January 15, 2010 (10:50 am)

    and keep all the people out of my parks, cursed riff-raff!

  • bebecat January 15, 2010 (11:35 am)

    I have never seen so many people so willing to throw their personal freedoms out the window.

  • Paul in Gatewood January 15, 2010 (11:49 am)

    I’m not saying it’s OK to smoke or spit in a park, but come on. You might as well make it illegal for people to leave their houses, in the name of protecting them. Quit wasting time and money trying to legislate behavior. Silly, silly, silly.

  • CB January 15, 2010 (12:15 pm)

    WHAT ABOUT THE DANGERS OF RUNNING WATER? WHEN ARE WE GOING TO WAKE UP AND TURN OFF THE TAP? SOMEONE COULD GET WET!

  • I'mHere January 15, 2010 (1:09 pm)

    Aren’t there more important issues than policing everyones park activity?

  • maude January 15, 2010 (1:15 pm)

    May as well ban sneezing while we’re at it. Coughing, too. And I had no idea it was currently ok to go into an opposite sex bathroom. Here I’ve been standing in long lines for the ladies room and I could have popped over to the mens room for instant relief.

  • old timer January 15, 2010 (1:55 pm)

    “Aren’t there more important issues than policing everyones park activity?”
    .
    NO.
    That is the point.
    For these bureaucrats there is NOTHING more important than managing THEIR parks down to the last detail.
    They are PAID to come up with this crap.
    .
    Remember this stuff when levy time comes around.

  • marty January 15, 2010 (3:11 pm)

    old timer: Right on! They shouldn’t get any more $$$ until they can manage what they already have. Have you ever tried to use one of the parks on the waterfront or downtown areas? You would never take kids there because they are turf for the local winos and drug dealers. Let’s try enforcing the laws we have before making a bunch of new ones.

  • Trisket January 15, 2010 (5:43 pm)

    I agree with M. Burns, there is entirely too much riff-raff in the parks. Did you know some of these people even wear their clothes more than once? What is this world coming to? Thank goodness we have our city leaders who know what is best for us and protect us with lots of rules. I knew there was a reason I slept well at night.

  • marty January 15, 2010 (6:02 pm)

    I’m really concerned! Now that there is a rule against packing my handgun in a park I am worried about what might happen if I try to make a citizen’s arrest when I see a criminal spitting on the ground!

  • Michele January 15, 2010 (6:54 pm)

    Rules rules rules…

    How annoying. I don’t care for spitters, its gross. I can sorta understand the smoking, but cursing? Seriously?

    1st AMENDMENT PEOPLE…HELLO?!?

    While I’m at it, how about banning off leash dogs too…oh wait, that IS A LAW ALREADY. I bet these laws/rules will be observed just as diligently as that non enforced so therefore nonexistent law.

  • Lou January 15, 2010 (8:03 pm)

    let’s just try enforcing the rules that currently exist. Please…no spitting, no smoking – this is a silly waste of money and time. So they are going to spend all this money to change signs and track people for 24 hours who spit in the park. Let’s funnel these funds to the king county parks to keep Mt Si, Little Si and Rattlesnake ridge open.

    In protest, if you use the toilet at the park, don’t flush! I wonder what kind of rule will come from that.

  • Case sensitive January 15, 2010 (9:18 pm)

    I suspect that these rules are intended as a tool to control outrageous behavior. I suspect I will be able to spit, swear, pee, poop just as I always have. But I’ll use discretion and no one is going to have a reason to point out my disregard for the law. And if I get caught, and I have, I’ll take my punishment without complaint. You won’t see me crying cause I can’t walk in the park for a whole day. I really don’t care what’s on my PERMANENT RECORD. Just so it doesn’t affect my credit score.

  • dsa January 15, 2010 (10:46 pm)

    Public sidewalks are next for their wise consideration.

    I wonder if they are planning to arrest kids too.

    BTW, sanicans would have to come in pink and blue.

  • rob January 16, 2010 (11:02 am)

    My child spit-up at Alki once and it didn’t get anyone sick. Fact of the matter is, all the creatures in the parks and the ocean use the parks along with humans. Coyotes, birds, bugs, fish all creatures release their fluids and wastes. Smoking is not a natural body function, but spitting, sweating and urinating will continue for eternity.

  • Karon H January 16, 2010 (11:12 am)

    OMG what a waste of taxpayer money. Our cities and country for that matter, has far more serious issues to tackle. We have people without medical care or enough food to eat and we are going to spend money tracking people who swear in public. I’m apalled! I thought this country was about freedom especially of speech.

  • nmb January 16, 2010 (2:30 pm)

    I find it both humorous and painful to read the twisted logic that people use to rationalize away the simplest rules to follow (i.e. no spitting and no smoking in parks).

    For example, @Sam, who suggests that, similar to spit which spreads infectious disease, the “nasty” metal hand-poles on buses should also be banned. Sam, given the choice between a metal pole on the bus, and a metal pole that someone had spit on, which would you choose to grab onto, knowing that both were equally infectious? If you chose the spit-less one, would you not support a ban on spitting on bus hand-poles?

    The poles on buses have a primary role as a safety device for all bus passengers. Spitting on the ground in a park, however, serves no purpose other for the benefit of the person doing the spitting.

    @Karon: Are you appalled that swearing is regulated on television? Would you support the free speech rights of, say, the Cartoon Network to start including obscene language on Saturday morning cartoons? It is just speech, after all, correct? And yes, there are plentiful other more serious problems that society needs to tackle, but does that mean we should stop enforcing lesser crimes until, say, everyone has medical care and enough food? Do you really believe that these new park regulations mean that the police will be “tracking people who swear in public”? Do you fear that the City will create a new Department of Swearing? Don’t you think a more reasonable reading of this rule is that it would only be punishable if someone files a complaint to the police?

    I could go on and on given the comments above, but I would simply end by asking “Is it really that difficult to follow no smoking, no spitting and no swearing rules during your brief visit to the park?”

  • kp January 16, 2010 (8:21 pm)

    Arrest all the geese.

  • park ordinance January 16, 2010 (9:24 pm)

    This parks ordinance is just a micro level example of the freedoms that are being taken away, the larger picture is what the politicians are doing to us. Representatives and Congress, getting away with what they are and we are distracted by the small scale abuses of government. Hey, has anyone tried to talk to McGinn about this? The last mayor went and had the Park head, Gallagher sign the gun ban ordinance, perhaps someone can get McGinn to have parks focus on more pertinent issues (plus repeal the gun ban).
    Are they going to control where dogs go to the bathroom in the park, as I certainly don’t want to picnic in a spot they just urinated.
    2010 elections coming up, kick them all out!

  • Friend O'Dingus January 17, 2010 (5:38 am)

    What a tremendous waste of time and money. Not to mention an appaling attempt to steal other citizen’s rights to use the parks in an enjoyable way for themselves.
    Claiming that spitting in a park, or smoking in an open air venue, is in any way a health issue for others is flat out absurd. In order for either of these actions to affect other’s health, the spit would need to be ankle deep, and they would have to be surrounded by a 100’s smokers within 3 feet blowing smoke directly at them. In either of these ridiculous scenarios, I think the person being subjected to these situations would leave the area immediately, not simply wait for the police to arrive and write citations. I mean really….come on.
    Now if it’s the ‘ick’ factor of seeing someone spit, or seeing a one inch diameter wet spot on the ground, or the momentarily sniffing the aroma from a wafting cigarette, well then the other sights and smells in an average city park (unpleasant smelling flowers, bee stings, garbage cans, racoon feces, etc etc etc) mean that you won’t be visiting the park anyway. Your disposition is simply too frail to accomodate.
    I however, find the sight and aroma of a fair number of you folks just as offensive, but you don’t see me trying to get a law passed. Your latee sipping, energy bar snacking, and holier-than-thou grandstanding makes me cringe.
    It’s a ‘public’ park; if you can’t stand the ‘public’ part, then for God’s sake stay at home where you can control every detail of your obviously painful existence. Meanwhile the remaining non-neurotic members of our community will go on living our lives without whining and crying about every little thing that isn’t exactly the way that we would wish.

  • Friend O\'Dingus January 17, 2010 (5:48 am)

    Oh, regrettfully I forgot to mention one other thing. By all means, let’s pass this intrusive law, which will be used to harass and fine otherwise law abiding citizens, but then take months to actually charge a person who stole an expensive and historic piece of Native American art. I am still waiting to find out this greedy SOB’s name so I know which of my fellow West Seattlites fully deserves a public flogging.
    We can’t even get the big things right, why the hell would we want to pass more laws dealing with comparitively minor issues?

  • mar3c January 18, 2010 (6:42 am)

    the fact that the city felt the need to discuss this at all just points to the fact that the citizenry has no respect for each other and an eroding sense of manners and decency.
    .
    if people were more courteous and didn’t feel they were entitled to do whatever they want whenever and wherever they want, regardless of other people, this wouldn’t be an issue.
    .
    that’s the main reason you rarely find me in city parks: people.
    .
    and the metal poles on buses? i use my sleeve to hang onto them. there’s just not enough hand-washing going on in this country, and i automatically assume that every piece of public equipment is a germ magnet.

Sorry, comment time is over.