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

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.

(deleted comment)

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".

The abandoned lot that was there was an eyesore.

Yes, I ignored your other arguments, because, basically they amount to the same thing - it's all the city's fault.

Wow, way to say the same thing, over and over again, hoping maybe the repetition will make it all okay.

there are four other parks within a 3000 ft radius, so yuppie or not, I don't see the dire need for a new park

The City, and the Mayor, disagree with you:

"because Somerville remains the most densely populated city in New England, and because only three percent of our land area is devoted to open space"

http://www.somervillema.gov/Section.cfm?org=MAYOR&page=1069

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.

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

Re: NIMBY

Re: NIMBY

Re: NIMBY

Re: NIMBY

Re: NIMBY

Re: NIMBY

Re: NIMBY

Re: NIMBY

Re: NIMBY

Re: NIMBY

Re: NIMBY