All Public School Athletic Facilities should be clearly marked "Open to the Public
- For Public Use, 24/7/365 (When not in use by a reserved or School event)"

As many as over 50% of our Public School Outdoor Athletic Facilities are closed to
public use at all times. This is illegal, according to the correct code PC 626,
which stipulates only that disruption of school or reserved activities is a crime.
All fences and signs obstructing entry onto school fields and tracks and tennis
courts, as well as outdoor campuses and parking lots, constitute Traffic Barriers
and are patently illegal. For it is not illegal to be on the campuses, nor their
courts and fields, the signs and fences are therefore merely obstructing
pedestrian traffic

Traffic Barriers are illegal in the State of California, according to case law,
and this applies to all public Roads, Parks, and Parking Lots. While it may or
may not be legal to charge entry fees, (as a separate matter) entry may not be
barred at any period of time. Traffic lights constitute "Traffic Flow," and are
not "Traffic Barriers." A "Traffic Barrier," is a sign saying "No Right Turn for
1/2 hour," and illegal.

Exercise is essential activity. Our public Tax Dollars paid for these Courts and
Fields and Tracks. Please uphold the law by ensuring no one is barred entry to
California State Public Schools, outdoor campuses, which constitute Open Public
Parks when not in use. Securing removable property, within reason, may be a
separate matter. Meaning classrooms and the Public Library may be a separate
matter. As well as parking lots solely for buses.

There are in fact, only running tracks at Schools, in our State. Outdoor running
is extra-essential exercise, because of fresh air, and all runners start out on a
track.

This applies to all K-12 Schools, California Community Colleges, Cal State, and
the University of California. [Private Schools could potentially be addressed
through the principle of Regulation of Commerce, if you cared.] The University of
California Berkeley, used to have its Running Track open to the public, for over
ten years. It then resurfaced it, and made its Running Track part of its
Recreational Sports Facility, which charges a thereby bundled fee with its other
facilities, and an unreasonably high fee at that. But moreover, this Recreational
Sports Facility is not for sale to the public, but only to Alumni, and Staff, and
Students - who have it as part of tuition. This was not the decision of the UC
Regents, but of some hired staff member, no doubt. The track at UCLA remains open
to the public, last I checked, and I have run at both these tracks, many times,
being a graduate of both these Universities.

There are metal plaques in the cement at UC Universities saying "Property of UC
Regent, Right to Pass Revocable." Yet PC 626 - "Disruption" - still applies to
these Universities. Is the right to pass really revocable? Are these not
misleading signs? Can the UC Regents, and the Cal State Regents as well, legally
close off the entire campuses to all BUT Students and Staff, without ANY special
reason such as construction or some kind of danger? Are you to continue to
preside over such violations of the commonwealth, and public rights to free
non-disruptive use of categorically public lands?

I would say they are not the private property of the UC Regents, but public
property administered in service to the public by the UC Regents, and all such
signs and barriers are misleading.

Sincerely Yours,

Note: all park and school bathrooms open to the outdoors should be open at all
times as well, (and ALL retail stores should be required to have public bathrooms
open to the public as well).

And all city parks and county parks (as well as any streets, parking lots, and
parking) traffic barriers, ought to be over-ruled by this principle of traffic
barriers being illegal. i.e. a special reason must be required and stated, for any
barriers. Both fences and signs are barriers to legal pedestrian traffic on all
public property without special reason. These special reasons should be serious
enough that the state code addresses them. That is, akin to, no trucks over so
many pounds on this street or bridge. Not prejudice. Reality and fact.

Even pools must be open at all hours, whether or not they require any fees to use.
So I guess this means the RSF at UC Berkeley has to be for sale to the general
public. - or at least the pools do; perhaps not the weight room?

There are high school pools that sit closed on the weekend. It's not like your
going to drown in a pool. So many people have pools, this is laughable. An
unlocked gate could stop a little child. These campuses are already protected
from liability, and they can put more extensive signs about swim at your own risk.
BUT - the students at UC Berkeley, already can barely use the pools, because
there are already too many people. It doesn't mean the public doesn't have an
_equal right_ to buy and use, if you want to because you live in that
neighborhood. The University can put in more facilities.

Is the whole point that they're charging the staff and alumni to use the RSF
completely a crime, and it has to be open to the entire community (and thereby
public) anyway? And Los Angeles city pools, can they charge but must remain open
all night, regardless of lack of fee collectors or lifeguards? Not like you
really need a lifeguard - you use your own pool without one, and you pay the
subway fee without an in person collector. So I conclude they must be open all
night, but can they charge fees? And can the subway and bus charge fees?

Also, private parking lots of shopping centers become public property when open to
the public, and the cities aren't respecting this either, but have "No Loitering"
codes, apparently, as if they could have "no loitering" at the beach or park. When
the private parking lots are below a percentage full, they as of right, it ought
to be recognized that they become public parks, and those sleeping the night in
RV's, or vans, are not to be disturbed, upon pang of "disturbing the peace," and
"criminal harassment." The Federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has already
ruled, you have a right to sleep and live in a vehicle everywhere you can park a
vehicle legally, and the City of Los Angeles, is not complying with this order. It
goes a great way towards combating homelessness, that RVs and Vans have bathrooms,
kitchens, and king size beds in them. The only valid objection to vehicle
dwellers is they, produce 1/2 a bag of trash every day, like everyone, from
homeowners to tent dwellers, and have no place to throw it. And it should be
state law, that all not involved in large business activities can throw their
trash in any dumpster or trash can. So should you not be allowed to lock your
dumpster or trash can if it is in a location accessible to the general public?
Also, a caveat, those in RVs should be able to be restricted from parking in front
of someone's private property or directly across the street, where indicated, and
only there, to prevent them from blocking a view, with a whole wall of car, BUT
whole streets, neighborhoods, and cities may not restrict them. And RV's as
perhaps a general principle, may not block business signs, and business entrances.
Oppressing the poorest of Americans, who need help is despicable.

On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 1:14:20 AM UTC-7, Intelligent Party wrote:
> All Public School Athletic Facilities should be clearly marked "Open to the Public
> - For Public Use, 24/7/365 (When not in use by a reserved or School event)"
>
> As many as over 50% of our Public School Outdoor Athletic Facilities are closed to
> public use at all times. This is illegal, according to the correct code PC 626,
> which stipulates only that disruption of school or reserved activities is a crime.
> All fences and signs obstructing entry onto school fields and tracks and tennis
> courts, as well as outdoor campuses and parking lots, constitute Traffic Barriers
> and are patently illegal. For it is not illegal to be on the campuses, nor their
> courts and fields, the signs and fences are therefore merely obstructing
> pedestrian traffic
>
> Traffic Barriers are illegal in the State of California, according to case law,
> and this applies to all public Roads, Parks, and Parking Lots. While it may or
> may not be legal to charge entry fees, (as a separate matter) entry may not be
> barred at any period of time. Traffic lights constitute "Traffic Flow," and are
> not "Traffic Barriers." A "Traffic Barrier," is a sign saying "No Right Turn for
> 1/2 hour," and illegal.
>
> Exercise is essential activity. Our public Tax Dollars paid for these Courts and
> Fields and Tracks. Please uphold the law by ensuring no one is barred entry to
> California State Public Schools, outdoor campuses, which constitute Open Public
> Parks when not in use. Securing removable property, within reason, may be a
> separate matter. Meaning classrooms and the Public Library may be a separate
> matter. As well as parking lots solely for buses.
>
> There are in fact, only running tracks at Schools, in our State. Outdoor running
> is extra-essential exercise, because of fresh air, and all runners start out on a
> track.
>
> This applies to all K-12 Schools, California Community Colleges, Cal State, and
> the University of California. [Private Schools could potentially be addressed
> through the principle of Regulation of Commerce, if you cared.] The University of
> California Berkeley, used to have its Running Track open to the public, for over
> ten years. It then resurfaced it, and made its Running Track part of its
> Recreational Sports Facility, which charges a thereby bundled fee with its other
> facilities, and an unreasonably high fee at that. But moreover, this Recreational
> Sports Facility is not for sale to the public, but only to Alumni, and Staff, and
> Students - who have it as part of tuition. This was not the decision of the UC
> Regents, but of some hired staff member, no doubt. The track at UCLA remains open
> to the public, last I checked, and I have run at both these tracks, many times,
> being a graduate of both these Universities.
>
> There are metal plaques in the cement at UC Universities saying "Property of UC
> Regent, Right to Pass Revocable." Yet PC 626 - "Disruption" - still applies to
> these Universities. Is the right to pass really revocable? Are these not
> misleading signs? Can the UC Regents, and the Cal State Regents as well, legally
> close off the entire campuses to all BUT Students and Staff, without ANY special
> reason such as construction or some kind of danger? Are you to continue to
> preside over such violations of the commonwealth, and public rights to free
> non-disruptive use of categorically public lands?
>
> I would say they are not the private property of the UC Regents, but public
> property administered in service to the public by the UC Regents, and all such
> signs and barriers are misleading.
>
> Sincerely Yours,
>
> Note: all park and school bathrooms open to the outdoors should be open at all
> times as well, (and ALL retail stores should be required to have public bathrooms
> open to the public as well).
>
> And all city parks and county parks (as well as any streets, parking lots, and
> parking) traffic barriers, ought to be over-ruled by this principle of traffic
> barriers being illegal. i.e. a special reason must be required and stated, for any
> barriers. Both fences and signs are barriers to legal pedestrian traffic on all
> public property without special reason. These special reasons should be serious
> enough that the state code addresses them. That is, akin to, no trucks over so
> many pounds on this street or bridge. Not prejudice. Reality and fact.
>
> Even pools must be open at all hours, whether or not they require any fees to use.
> So I guess this means the RSF at UC Berkeley has to be for sale to the general
> public. - or at least the pools do; perhaps not the weight room?
>
> There are high school pools that sit closed on the weekend. It's not like your
> going to drown in a pool. So many people have pools, this is laughable. An
> unlocked gate could stop a little child. These campuses are already protected
> from liability, and they can put more extensive signs about swim at your own risk.
> BUT - the students at UC Berkeley, already can barely use the pools, because
> there are already too many people. It doesn't mean the public doesn't have an
> _equal right_ to buy and use, if you want to because you live in that
> neighborhood. The University can put in more facilities.
>
> Is the whole point that they're charging the staff and alumni to use the RSF
> completely a crime, and it has to be open to the entire community (and thereby
> public) anyway? And Los Angeles city pools, can they charge but must remain open
> all night, regardless of lack of fee collectors or lifeguards? Not like you
> really need a lifeguard - you use your own pool without one, and you pay the
> subway fee without an in person collector. So I conclude they must be open all
> night, but can they charge fees? And can the subway and bus charge fees?
>
> Also, private parking lots of shopping centers become public property when open to
> the public, and the cities aren't respecting this either, but have "No Loitering"
> codes, apparently, as if they could have "no loitering" at the beach or park. When
> the private parking lots are below a percentage full, they as of right, it ought
> to be recognized that they become public parks, and those sleeping the night in
> RV's, or vans, are not to be disturbed, upon pang of "disturbing the peace," and
> "criminal harassment." The Federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has already
> ruled, you have a right to sleep and live in a vehicle everywhere you can park a
> vehicle legally, and the City of Los Angeles, is not complying with this order. It
> goes a great way towards combating homelessness, that RVs and Vans have bathrooms,
> kitchens, and king size beds in them. The only valid objection to vehicle
> dwellers is they, produce 1/2 a bag of trash every day, like everyone, from
> homeowners to tent dwellers, and have no place to throw it. And it should be
> state law, that all not involved in large business activities can throw their
> trash in any dumpster or trash can. So should you not be allowed to lock your
> dumpster or trash can if it is in a location accessible to the general public?
> Also, a caveat, those in RVs should be able to be restricted from parking in front
> of someone's private property or directly across the street, where indicated, and
> only there, to prevent them from blocking a view, with a whole wall of car, BUT
> whole streets, neighborhoods, and cities may not restrict them. And RV's as
> perhaps a general principle, may not block business signs, and business entrances.
> Oppressing the poorest of Americans, who need help is despicable.

"This seems nutty."