davis_square | Somerville Theatre bans (young) kids from entering after 6 pm. Let's discuss it here

This week's Somerville News has an article about the Somerville Theatre's policy of banning children under 12 8* from entering the theatre after 6 pm, even if they are accompanied by adults.

Is the theatre's policy a service to its customers who want a peaceful movie experience, or is it unfair discrimination against families with young children?

I'm posting this because we can have a more civilized discussion here than on the Somerville News blog comments. Ian Judge, the theatre's manager, reads this community, so we may be able to provide useful feedback to him here.

* Edited 11:55 am to add: I have a serious factual issue with this article. It says the policy applies to children under 12, but the theatre's website and exterior signs say it's for children under 8. That's a significant difference -- maybe significant enough to change people's opinions.

Second edit, 3 pm: Ian Judge has clarified that the theatre's policy is to exclude children under 8, not 12, from entering after 6 pm. He had made an erroneous statement to the News reporter which very unfortunately made it into the published article. Also, here is Ian's response to the specific incident detailed in the News article.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

The city is opening a new park on Walnut Street next week. It was supposed to be a skate park, but the neighbors objected, so it isn't.

Really? That's annoying. What's wrong with a skate park? That would be great for a lot of people.

Noise and graffiti.

I've not seen one skate park that wasn't tagged all over the place.

Noise? Sure, the city curfew for parks is 10pm.
Do YOU want kids skating next to your home at 9:59pm?

Yes, it's absolutely a NIMBY issue.

> I've not seen one skate park that wasn't tagged all over the place.

So make it officially okay for that park.

So, screw anyone who lives there who wants to live in an area that doesn't have graffiti?

What exactly is it that you don't want? You don't want to see art painted on walls ever?

If encouraged and done well, it can be nicer than a lot of the publicly-funded murals I've seen around.

Why don't you go ask the people who live on Walnut Street, next to the soon to be opened "Ed Leathers Community Park" what they want and don't want in the park next to their homes.

Yay non sequitur!

sorry, it completely follows, because I was discussing what people who live in the area where that park is, want.

Too bad you can't follow that.

(no subject)

mattdm.livejournal.com - 2008-08-22 14:03 (UTC) - Expand

pierceheart.livejournal.com - 2008-08-22 14:07 (UTC) - Expand

Or...

pity them, for they need to get some real joy in their life so that they can see how great it is to have a neighborhood full of kids being creative and doing something healthy. :-)

Graffiti isn't "great"--even when creativity is used in its design, it's still defacing public property.

As someone who frequented several skate parks growing up, I have to admit they do get very very loud and do unfortunately lend themselves to noise issues and otherwise, as opposed to a regular playground/park. Which is lame, because even at 24 I was looking forward to a skatepark, but I understand their reasoning. No skate park I attended was quite so in a residential area.

(deleted comment)

What you see as objecting to something that doesn't directly benefit them, I see as them objecting to something that only benefits a small few - skaters.

The park as it is now benefits a greater segment of Somerville than just one small special interest group.

Whereas now, yuppies have yet another park in the area to sit unused. Because there was a dire need for more parks.

That's so laughable.

Have you been to the neighborhood that new park is in?

It's not yuppies - it's mostly immigrant working class families, with a number of SCC subsidized homes within two blocks.

By giving youths a place to go and something to do, you benefit the entire community.

But you're NOT giving youths a place to go - you're giving skaters a place to go.

A skate park is a purpose/function built place - it's not appropriate for anything but skating.

I know I personally wouldn't have done half the drugs I have if I had something to keep me entertained between 14 and 17, and accordingly, I wouldn't have broken so many windows, waxed so many curbs and benches, and wouldn't have fucked up so much public property in general.

So, you're saying it's the city's fault you committed criminal acts?

I notice you ignored the issue of "yuppies".

Re: NIMBY

pierceheart.livejournal.com - 2008-08-22 13:42 (UTC) - Expand

pierceheart.livejournal.com - 2008-08-22 13:52 (UTC) - Expand

pierceheart.livejournal.com - 2008-08-22 13:56 (UTC) - Expand

The question is, what would have kept you entertained? A skate park only entertains skaters. What percentage of teenagers in the Davis area are skaters? I agree- they need something to entertain themselves with, but an area that caters to only a small part of them isn't it.

That's not the Davis area, Walnut St.

The park is in what is shown as an empty lot in this google map (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=42.386767,-71.093557&spn=0.00123,0.002414&t=h&z=19).

Or you could have read a fucking book.

Well, clearly, the only two things that keep 14 year old boys entertained are skate parks and vandalism. Face it, you were a shitty little hooligan and blaming society for not giving you a ~~pony~~ skate park makes you feel a lot better about it.

What you see as objecting to something that doesn't directly benefit them, I see as them objecting to something that only benefits a small few - skaters.

Without getting into the details of whether a skate park is appropriate here, or at all, the same reasoning could be used to object to building space for basketball courts (only benefits basketball players), bike racks (only benefits cyclists), playgrounds (only parents of small children), or many other amenities that appeal mainly to a minority subset of the population. But I contend that basketball courts, bike racks, and playgrounds are all good things for an urban environment to have, by encouraging healthy modes of outdoor social interaction.

So while a skate park may not be a good idea, I think there needs to be a better reason than "it only benefits skaters". Heck, if it gets skaters off of the front steps of City Hall and other plazas where people are trying to walk, it already benefits a lot more folks than just skaters.