Some here are assuming that the city owns the property the sandbox is on. There may be some cities where the side strip/parking strip/whatever is city property. There are cities where the homeowner owns the property to the street, often with a right-of-way for a sidewalk. I can’t be sure in this case, but I didn’t get impression the sandbox is on city property from the article. If it is city property, then I guess the city government gets to determine proper use for it.

If the sandbox is on the sandbox owner’s property, then I would say the sandbox isn’t doing direct damage to an unwilling party’s person or property (and isn’t posing a clear and present threat of same). In that case, the city government should mind its own business and tell any complainers that they can speak to the sandbox owner themselves and convince him to do something else with it if they want to, but that the government won’t be pro bono hired muscle for every whiner with a phone.

Then, if necessary, the city government should collaborate with other cities and get the state legislature to pass a law clarifying that the city isn’t liable for damages caused by someone’s non-city-related activity on non-city-owned property. If they were feeling magnanimous, they would extend that indemnity to the property owner, so long as the plaintiff against the property owner should reasonably have understood the risks of that activity and still undertook the activity. (In this case, it might be worth noting that those claiming they were unable to understand those risks may well be making a case against their suitability as parents.)

Of course, pursuing that latter scenario (the one where people take responsibility for their own actions and the city government refuses to do it for them) may not be especially likely in a city as overrun with busybodies as Seattle seems to be.

At most, their may be some legitimate ordinance about not building structures in the easement, because they might obstruct vision. A sandbox clearly does not, and anyway is hardly a permanent structure, so the ordinance really should not apply.

For those who think this may be dangerous: it is just not your business to decide. It’s not the city’s business to decide either. His property, his kids, his sandbox, his judgement.

Watch the link. I don’t see a problem at all with the sandbox. Since it is at the end of his driveway (and not a parking spot), it does not impede passengers getting out of a parked car. As for speeding and accidents….it doesn’t look like a dangerous street to me.
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Seattle-man-fighting-city-to-save-his-sandbox-166193346.html?tab=video&c=y

Saw the video! The guy is blocking his own driveway with the sandbox, not only that… but there is a car parked in front of the driveway as well. I assume it’s HIS car. Who else would be parking there?

All he has to do is move the sandbox further up the driveway. But no. He’s taking the “I can do whatever the fuck I want” route and insisting that the sand box needs to be right there.

In THIS case, it can be demonstrated that it’s generally safe for the kids because of the car parked right there.

But let’s look at it from the point of view of the city.

If this guy can put a sand box right at the curb, than anyone can put a sand box right at the curb. And without the guarantee of a car parked at the end of the driveway, it could be quite dangerous.

Again.. I don’t have a problem with the danger. There are enough of us humans where we can handle a culling of the herd.

But from a liability standpoint, the city would think otherwise. Idiot parents that let their kids play there could easily sue when their precious offspring is run over by a parking car.

Ergo, you’re (perhaps unknowingly) defending the bureaucracy in question. Refusal to attack/scorn/agitate against something as moronic as a Sandbox Safety Regulatory Agency and its soon-to-be-heavily-armed agents means you’re accepting the premise that it needs to, and *should*, exist at all.

Silence implies consent.

I say to the snitch, “Come forward and face the music. Instead of standing out there pretending like you didn’t call the city.”

But then I watched the video above and have no idea what the big deal is. The thing is at the end of his driveway which means, most likely, he’ll be parking right in front of it, blocking it from traffic. The street is also narrow with, apparently, two way traffic (the cars are parked in both direction). How fast can the cars be going? And there is a good foot of space from the end of the sandbox until the street starts so it’s not RIGHT on the curb.

I grew up in Chicago, and minus the driveways, our streets looked a lot like this. It never stopped us from playing in the grass next to the curb (which is technically owned by the city). We played in the streets, too.

I raised my kids in Chicago until 2010 (for the most part). They were babies there, toddlers, preschoolers and grade schoolers. They always played in the grassy median. I never thought twice about it. There were parked cars between them and the traffic.

Growing up in a city like Chicago you learned real quick how to navigate traffic. Otherwise you ended up dead. My youngest daughter knew at 2 to not go near the curb. She would stop a foot from it even if her older siblings were closer. She also used to yell at any kid she saw in the street and tell them to get back on the grass.

Second, and more importantly, kids from all over the neighborhood are playing in the sandbox. Do you really think that many parents would let their kids play there if it were dangerously close to traffic? This, in my opinion, is at the heart of what Lenore’s writing about, and it’s frustrating how many (including self-described libertarians here) are willing to dismiss it: parents are in the best position to decide what’s safe and unsafe for their children, NOT bureaucrats.

and about half are sticking up for the city/bureaucracy in question.

No one has actually defended the bureacracy; people have suggested that putting a sandbox right next to the street may not be a good idea or that neighbors could have legitimate reasons for not wanting it there. Lenore seems to keep making a false dilemma is that the only alternative to intrusive government is that people should do whatever they like regardless of the problems it creates for people around them.

Well, no. What I hear is a bunch of people discussing whether the sandbox is in a good location or not.

That guy has the coolest eyeglass frames, btw.

The $500 a day fine wouldn’t pay the coffee bill for all those desk jockeys.

Kids are going to play somewhere – why not in a front yard sandbox?

Playing next to the street… you’re not in the street so you don’t pay as much attention to what’s going on. You drop a toy on the wrong side of the sandbox and bend over to get it, or you step out of the sand box at the wrong time on the side facing the street…. And you want to try and keep a toddler who isn’t old enough to know he needs to avoid traffic away from a sandbox? Good luck.

I support free range parenting or I wouldn’t be here. But the whole concept is about balancing risk versus reward and the risk is too high here. I’d bet money that the anonymous complaint is from what of his ‘supportive’ neighbors who doesn’t want their kid playing in it but knows it would be nearly impossible (and make the kid miserable) to try and forbid it when every other kid on the block was playing in it.

Most of all… all the neighborhood kids can have just as much fun in it if they just put it on the other side of the sidewalk. 8′x4′ isn’t that big even in a postage stamp sized yard.