Be Eternally Fearful, Slaves

Let's say you're a city councilman who has aspirations to kick drug dealers out of your city's parks, how would you go about doing that? If you said that you'd have law enforcers patrol the parks to discourage drug dealers from doing business there then you are not Mitch O’Farrell. If you said that you'd assemble a voluntary organization to patrol the parks to discourage drug dealers from doing business there then you are also not Mitch O’Farrell. If you said that you'd prey on people's fear of child predators in a deceitful plan to push through your agenda aimed at discouraging drug dealers from doing business in your city's parks then you are Mitch O’Farrell:

In an attempt to make Los Angeles parks seem super safe, City Councilman Mitch O’Farrell has proposed barring adults unaccompanied by children from entering playgrounds. It’s an effort, he said, to keep city parks “free of creepy activity.”

Who wouldn’t want to ban creepy activity or creepy people from playgrounds? But what O’Farrell is proposing goes far beyond targeting worrisome activities that, in most cases, are already outlawed. It would bar any adult from sitting on a bench, exercising or otherwise enjoying public space near playground unless he or she brought a child along. Is this really necessary?

His proposal is based on laws in place in a handful of major cities, including New York City, where police caused a minor uproar several years ago by ticketing people for sitting on playground-adjacent benches to eat donuts or play chess.

O’Farrell said he was inspired to propose the ban after residents in Hollywood complained that their local park had been taken over by drug dealers. That is real problem, and by all means, the city should crack down on illegal activity in playgrounds. But if drug dealing or vandalism is occuring at a site, then have police or park rangers patrol it regularly. If there is a childless adult hanging around, leering at kids or taking photographs, then enforce the state law that already makes it a criminal offense to loiter at a playground or school with an unlawful purpose.

What's fascinating about this proposal is that the real issuing isn't that controversial. It's not hard to sell most people on the idea of having law enforcers patrol parks for drug dealers. So why does O'Farrell see the need to lie about his intentions? Probably because patrolling parks for drug dealers is harder than patrolling them for adults who aren't accompanying children and because he believes that appearing tough on child predators will make for better reelection campaign literature than appearing tough on drug dealers.

As the article notes, several cities have passed similar laws. What have those laws accomplished? The only thing those laws have accomplished is prohibiting childless taxpayers who are forced to pay for those parks from utilizing them. Do you want to sit down on a bench and eat a sandwich during your lunch break? Too bad. Do you want to play chess with a friend in the park? Too bad. Do you want to do pull-ups on some of the playground equipment? Too bad.

I can hear somebody saying, "That's not true, Chris! Those laws accomplished a great thing! They've prevented child predators from preying on children in parks!" Unfortunately, those laws haven't even managed to do that. The fact is that most child predators aren't strangers to their victims. If you wanted to pass a law that actually targeted child predators in parks, the law would have to prohibit family members from accompanying their children in the parks.

The moral of this story is that you shouldn't allow politicians to prey on your fears for their personal gains. Laws like the one Mr. O'Farrell is proposing don't actually address any real threats. The only purpose they serve is to look good on campaign literature.