Events in Salem parks may face tougher rules

There's good reason to say that some of the recommendations of the Salem Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (SPRAB) could be called "Proud Boys" rules. 

After all, the May 1 gun rights rally at Riverfront Park, where the Proud Boys provided security (better termed insecurity), wasn't a shining example of how events in Salem parks should be conducted. 

                                                                                      Proud Boys at Riverfront Park

Citizens, including at least one journalist, were confronted by armed Proud Boys and told they had to leave the public park for no discernible reason other than the Proud Boys like to intimidate people. Salem police stood by and let this happen.

So it's good that the SPRAB recommendations include a prohibition on bad behavior and a prohibition on intent to intimidate. Too bad the nation's capitol didn't have those prohibitions or the Proud Boys never would have been allowed to take part in the January 6 insurrection, since their reason for being is bad behavior and intimidation. 

I've copied in the 15 recommendations below. The whole SPRAB report can be downloaded here:
Download Parks-and-recreation-advisory-board-pup-subcommittee-agenda-2021-08-09

Other recommendations seem to be related to Salem Awakening wrongly feeling like they have a god-given right to use the amphitheater at Riverfront Park to hold religious gatherings numerous times through the summer, mostly without getting a required permit, even though the gatherings are amplified. 

City officials have been very slow to crack down on Salem Awakening. But citizen activist Jim Scheppke and others have been relentless in demanding that the City of Salem enforce its park rules against Salem Awakening.

I suspect that this is one reason SPRAB has recommendations about how often a group can reserve a park, plus a requirement that events using amplified sound post notices warning other park users that an event may impact their use of the park.

Speaking as an atheist, I can tell you that my enjoyment of Riverfront Park is impacted by loud voices telling me to believe in God. Likewise, if an atheist group was to hold amplified events in the park, I doubt that religious believers would enjoy hearing godless talk night after night while they're trying to enjoy the park.

All in all, the SPRAB has done an excellent job with these recommendations. They researched how other cities in Oregon and elsewhere handle park policies and permitting. The City of Salem has had a hands-off approach that, clearly, has led to some serious problems in city parks. 

It's no wonder that groups like Salem Awakening and the Proud Boys push the limits of acceptable behavior when so far there have been few, if any, consequences when existing park rules are broken. Here's the new stronger recommended rules. 

1. Statement of Expectations on permits. The City should develop a statement of principles or expectations regarding appropriate behavior in City parks. The statement should be posted at prominent locations in the parks. The statement should be incorporated into permit applications with a signature of the event organizer acknowledging having read and understood it.

2. Reporting acts of discrimination. It is not clear what options park users have in instances in which they feel threatened or discriminated. The City should at least be able to track such occurrences and should set up a hotline similar to the below.
   
   Discrimination: The City of Salem values all persons without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, domestic partnership, disability, familial status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or source of income. If you believe that you have been discriminated against in a program, activity, or facility, or if you desire further information, please contact the Public Works Department at 503-588-XXXX. 

3. Accessibility at events. Event organizers should be required to ensure their events are accessible per the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A statement to this effect should be incorporated into all facility reservation agreements.

4. Summary of rules and potential consequences on permits. The City should clearly state on permit applications that park rules and regulations must be followed and required permits must be obtained. Language should be included indicating that if the rules are violated or permits not obtained, the event organizer or the organization may not be allowed to reserve a facility in the future. Event organizers must be required to sign the permit application acknowledging they have read and understood.

5. Notification of event impacting other park users. Events that use walkways, bridges, or amplified sound should be required to post signage ahead of the event notifying other park users that an event will be conducted that may have an impact on their use of the park.

6. Posting approved permits. The City should consider posting approved permits at the reservable locations where an activity will be taking place so that others are aware of the approved times and to reduce the risks of an opportunity user inadvertently taking a space in advance of the arrival of the party that has reserved the facility.

7. Exclude individuals or organizations from permits based on unpaid damage. The Director should have the authority to exclude an individual or a group from reserving a park facility if the individual or group has caused damage to park property and not reimbursed the City for the cost. Similarly, permits should not be issued to individuals or organizations that have not paid permit fees from previous events.

8. Exclude individuals or organizations from using parks based on unpaid damage. The Director should have the authority to exclude an individual or a group from using a park if the individual or group has caused damage to park property and not reimbursed the City for the cost.

9. Limit multiple reservations. The City should consider establishing a policy that limits the ability for one group to make multiple reservations at the same location on the same day(s) over an extended period of time. The concern is the potential for a single entity to block the same reservable area on the most popular days of a season over many weeks or months. Perhaps there could be a limit of two events per month for a single entity in specific parks or reservable facilities.

10. Sound Permit – Maximum allowed dB. Enforcement of sound permit violations should be clarified in SRC 51 regarding maximum allowable dB levels and how this is determined.

11. Sound Permit – Notification requirements. Applicants for sound permits are required to notify residents and business owners within a certain distance of sound source. From a practical aspect, this is a challenge for most applicants. Consider, for example, all the apartments and condominiums located near Riverfront Park. The City should review the notice requirements for residents and business owners and determine if there a way the City can facilitate the notification requirement, charging an appropriate fee for cost-recovery.

12. Enforcing violations of park rules. Violators of park rules—dogs not on leash, smoking, using facilities without permits, driving on turf, etc.—should have an expectation of enforcement actions being taken against them. Enforcement is a matter of policy and resources and should be evaluated by City staff.

13. Tiered fines for repeat violations. It might be possible that the fine for using a park facility without a reservation is lower than the fee charged for using that facility. Therefore, there should be a tiered system of fines so repeat violators of park rules pay higher penalties.

14. Prohibit bad behavior. Section 1.010 (Prohibited Activities) of the City of Eugene’s Parks and Open Space Rules includes a provision prohibiting “participating in a disturbance or riotous behavior that interferes with the reasonable use by the general public of the park, open space, or facility.” The City should consider incorporating similar language in its codes, rules, permits, or policies.

15. Prohibit intent to intimidate. The Seattle Municipal Code 12.A.14.075 (Unlawful use of weapons to intimidate another) includes the following: “A person is guilty of unlawful use of weapons to intimidate another if he or she carries, exhibits, displays or draws a firearm, dangerous knife, any knife with a blade that is open for use, other cutting or stabbing instrument or a weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another person or warrants alarm for the safety of other persons” (SMC 12.A.14.075.A). If allowed under Oregon law, the City of Salem should consider incorporating similar language in its codes, rules, permits, or policies regarding menacing actions.