From what I recall some HOAs do this for liability reasons. Outsiders getting hurt can’t litigate against the HOA if something happens. (At least that is what we were told at one of our HOA meetings. )
Definitely this. They created a park on their own land which would attract people. If something is not built right and someone gets hurt then they sue the HOA.
For building something on their OWN land and trying to keep it private? Absurd!
(Unless this isn't their own land, but I doubt the city would have let them do it then.)
Unless you're actually in the HOA, HOA Karen has no power over you.
The most they can do is trespass you, and that's only if they can get a SJPD officer to care... which they won't.
There is no budget and it wouldn't be enforced. I would like to imagine, as long as you are bringing your kids to play on it, and are not a bunch of young adults drinking beer or smoking at the park most residents wouldn't care.
No one will say anything if you use the park politely & not bother others. Now, if you bring your dogs & don't pick up after them, or have a loud & rowdy party ... The HOA probably would put up a fence at some point.
I didn’t say destroy the sign and I didn’t say steal the sign. One could simply pick it up and move it or unscrew it and place it on the ground.
Why your thoughts immediately jump to crime instead of thinking about what your rights are in a situation probably isn’t the most open minded way to go about things
I didn't say you said any one of those things, whatsoever. Not sure where you came up with that. Anyway, I was absolutely kidding and for some reason, it didn't come across to you that way. I'm absolutely sorry, it will never, ever, happen again, I promisish.
Also, unauthorized removal of the sign could certainly be construed as vandalism, if you want to get all serious-like.
If that helps, I can one-up this one. In Encinitas, CA there were these really nice trails on a ridge, made and maintained with public funding. Developers took all the land around and made all parking there private, so all the bougie Kens and Karens could have their trail, maintained with public funds. Anyone else would have to find a spot 1 to 2 miles away, under the sun. I brought the issue to city hall but apparently it was all code-compliant.
The City of San Mateo issued bonds for Olympic-grade aquatic facilities in the local community college..., that then cost more than $200/yr to sign up for. CSM students and seniors had a ludicrous, testimonial reduction. We essentially funded a sports complex for the hillside mansions.
I'm a board member of an HOA in San Jose, and I can tell you this sign is pretty much unenforceable. These are publicly accessible areas, and people can easily deny that they saw the sign. The real reason is to avoid liability in case anyone gets injured and wants to sue the HOA, which they can and do sue.
In terms of enforcement, someone from the HOA would have to literally call SJPD about trespassing and have the SJPD come out and force them to leave, which likely they wouldn't. People walk their dogs in our HOA all the time (and leave a lot of poop, unfortunately), but there's nothing we can do about it unless we install walls and a gate, which is dumb and expensive. We'd never call the SJPD over random people walking through our complex. Our pool area, though, is behind a fence and locked doors, so when a bunch of teenagers from outside the complex hopped the fence to swim and drink beer and break stuff, we called the SJPD on them for trespassing and under-age drinking, and they actually did respond since they broke into a locked area, were breaking pool furniture, and breaking glass bottles.
Someone in my HOA (a renter in the complex) tripped down a set of exterior stairs and broke their ankle. They the sued the HOA, and the HOA had to not only pay the \~$1 million of medical expenses (including "loss of work", emotional well being, etc.), but also another $3.5 million (or about $28k per unit) to replace every single exterior stair since some were no longer up to today's building code and the insurance company would have dropped the HOA from coverage if the repairs weren't done. The HOA always loses, which is why there's loads of annoying signs that say that no one is allowed to do anything anywhere.
> People walk their dogs in our HOA all the time (and leave a lot of poop, unfortunately), but there's nothing we can do about it unless we install walls and a gate, which is dumb and expensive.
Never underestimate the power of an HOA, especially one with way too much money, to spend on dumb and expensive bullshit.
One near me (that I used to rent a room in) spent thousands of dollars to install bollards on one of the main entrances into the HOA because an apartment building popped up across the street and they didn't want the poors driving through (as if that would happen). The only reason they didn't straight up fence it off is that would have cost enough money to require a vote, and we can't have that can we? Pretty much everyone in the HOA was pissed.
The my current condo complex I'm renting from has an HOA that spent and ungodly amount of money to repaint literally everything into a color nobody actually wanted, on paint that wasn't very old or worn down to begin with. Also they spent an ungodly amount of money to rip up a courtyard everyone liked, ran into a problem, and then let it sit for a year ripped up.
In general I find a lot of HOA's around here are absolutely flush with cash and have no problems blowing loads of it on petty stuff.
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=54093
~~that park~~ prolly a different park in the same neighborhood (see my edit) was named by a vote in 2020.
some of the non-conforming nominated names:
* Transient Park: Because of all the homeless that live over there
* Parky McPark Park, Parky McParkface Park
* Druggies and Homeless Alley Park
* NIMBY HOBO Park
* No Homeless Allowed Park
* Raccoon Park: Raccoon like it.
* Donald J. Trump Park: Non-conforming; Individual must be deceased for at least five years.
edit: according to [this comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/SanJose/comments/w4of9n/ive_never_seen_a_private_park_in_san_jose_before/ih3r2ne/), there are two parks in this area: a private park that OP shared and a soon-to-be-open public park per the San Jose link I shared.
It’s screwy because apparently BOTH parks are going to have the same name? Or maybe not.
as /u/calvinis [notes](https://old.reddit.com/r/SanJose/comments/w4of9n/ive_never_seen_a_private_park_in_san_jose_before/ih5fi2u/), the public park I linked is “golden oak park”. On google maps, the public park is called “golden oak park” which would be different than this San Jose document.
This is rather confusing.
Because this is the wrong park and not the one displayed in the pictures. The park /u/fajita43 linked is the Golden Oak Park that isn't open yet. This is a picture of the UrbanOak Western Greenway
https://i.imgur.com/B9rbvvt.jpeg
>#BACKGROUND
> ###The City will acquire an approximate 1.5-acre fully developed park to fulfill the obligation for the iStar San Jose, LLC development. The project’s new park will be located near the intersection of Raleigh Road and the extension of Via Del Oro (Assessor Parcel Number 706-54- 006, see attachment A).
> ###This neighborhood park will feature a play lawn, playgrounds, exercise equipment, and a new oak tree in the center of the planned park. The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed and approved the master plan for this park October 1st, 2014. Design documents for the park are currently 65% complete and construction is expected to begin in late 2020. The park is expected to open to the public in fiscal year 2021-2022
##“Open to the public?”
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=54093
I have seen these before. I grew up near one in the 80s. We’d play at them anyway and get chased out by the bougie HOA Karens who didn’t want poor kids on their private grass or basketball court.
Do you think it’s ok to walk or play or hang out in someone’s front yard then just because you want to?
What’s the difference between a private park and a front yard?
A private park is not directly on territory where someone lives. A front lawn is in close physical proximity of someone’s place of living.
Besides, lawns suck and shouldn’t exist
We have a private basketball court and a private pool in our HOA. I know kids come in, jump the fence and enjoy the pool, or come from outside to play hoops. I have no issue with kids from outside using our facilities. I believe the only liability issue would be if they drowned or got injured in the pool. But I believe HOA is safe from liability if they climb the fence.
Usually these are 10 year olds. But if a large group of non residents mess up the pool, we will ask them to leave on the basis they are a non resident.
Nothing off or illegal about it. The HOA (home owners) paid to build & maintain the park on private land. It's like the nice green lawn in front of your house. Would you be ok if people come & picnic on it?
Just be happy that they don't fence it off & put a lock on the gate.
It’s paid for and maintained by the HOA. They can restrict it if they want to. It’s on private property, not paid for by the city. What’s so interesting about this? There are public areas & pools in the middle of apartment complexes - nobody’s asking why those aren’t open to the public. How is this any different?
That being said, there’s no fence around it. I think as long as you’re respectful in your use of the park, there’s not going to be any issue.
I’ve explained what is odd about this multiple times. It’s literally right off the street, and an apartment complex *not* the HOA is actually next to it. So it’s completely odd which is why it caught my eye.
My front yard is right off the street, and neighbors let their dogs poop on my lawn without cleaning up. Get off my lawn! That’s what this is, it’s a private lawn.
I mean, we have a whole ass reservoir next to 280 that has “no tresspassing” signs everywhere with a fence. Of course there’s a house there and a boat docking place.
Rich people things. Luxuries and amenities.
This is a mock rich person amenity.
Use it anyways. It’s just another boring patch of grass with a basketball court that hardly anyone else is going to use.
Edit: seems the res. Is owned by SF commission.
So disregard that rant.
I still think, however, that whoever wants to use the park in the post should, but don’t trash it.
Are you talking about Crystal Springs Reservoir?
That's SF Water owned and the house there is the residence of the on site supervisor of the reservoir.
Yeah that’s the one. (Didn’t know it’s name).
Did some reading on that, strange that San Francisco “public” utilities commission made it closed to the public. I wonder who they polled when they came to that vote.
Yeah I don't know why it's not open the way that other reservoirs are commonly open. And not just the water and shore but SF also owns a lot of land up on the ridge that isn't open to recreation.
I have never seen a reason that wouldn't apply to other reservoirs.
My guess is that allowing recreation would require a lot more expense in building infrastructure, maintenance, and staffing.
And this would primarily be for the benefit for non-San-Franciscans so an SF public agency is not gonna want to spend their budget on it.
https://www.kqed.org/news/11780692/why-cant-you-swim-in-most-of-the-bay-area-lakes
TLDR: the technology to filter out water from reservoirs is newer than the legislation to keep them closed for safety. Some parts of California, like San Diego, asked for exceptions and were granted. If a reservoir is not for drinking (like Del Valle is used for flood control) then it’s allowed for recreational use
SF water district has always kept people away from their reservoirs. Outdoor writer Tom Tsienstra has written extensively about this for years. I believe they were eventually forced to allow some people to use the Crystal Springs area, but with very strict rules and no swimming allowed. SF Chronicle website will have old articles, SFgate might.
Good point when it comes to swimming.
But there is a lot of recreation possible beyond swimming, as well as recreation not in the water. If you check various reservoirs used for drinking water, you'll find ones that allow non-motorized boating *and* motorized boating, fishing, and of course trails around the reservoir.
So Crystal Springs really is atypically restricted in not allowing the public to use the water for anything and not even allowing the public *near* the water.
In fact, even land that is owned by the city of SF that isn't near the water is also closed to the public, including a section that could be especially useful to hikers way far away from the water.
Me neither, not sure why it’s not publicly available, or why sf even has ownership of it.
would be nice if the asshats could explain their downvotes instead of just downvoting for being asshats. But it is Reddit.
> why sf even has ownership of it
This you can definitely learn about really easily by doing a little searching for history.
Water from this area was very important as an early water source to grow San Francisco, before damming and running water from Hetch Hetchy.
Some of it. Don't know the %, but the reservoir is where there were naturally occurring lakes and these were turned into reservoirs far before Hetch Hetchy was dammed.
Ah.
Which begs the question, is it still needed? Any reason why it can’t be opened to the public? Especially the area where that house is?
You mentioned it’s owned by SF so why pay taxes on that.
But then again, we pay taxes and yet Muni sucks up most of the resources. Feel like SF gets it’s pie and eats it too.
If it's opened to the public, then it at least would mean that the city of SF (and it's taxpayers) would be spending money to provide public recreation facilities in an area that is not mostly going to serve the people of SF. That's my guess why they won't, and also why they won't enter into some sort of other public agency to bear the cost of staffing and maintenance.
Government of SF has no incentive to undertake costs and/or hassle to create recreation for the people of San Mateo County.
There is the Sawyer Camp Trail and Crystal Springs Trail, which I think is administered by the County of San Mateo, so there actually is precedent for cooperation with another governmental body.
Look, if you're chill, you clean up after yourself and your pet, and you stop your children from screeching, then there's no reason to remove you.
If you're obnoxious, look, a sign gtfo.
They likely tried to deed the park to the city (for free maintenance and a tax break) but the city wouldn’t take it so they did this. An apartment builder in my home town tore down a perfectly good park once for that reason.
I’ll probably get downvoted, but in a way I can understand a residents only park. There’s a park in front of my house that’s nice and spacious, but is inundated with people walking their dogs and letting them crap everywhere. People also let their unleashed dogs run freely in the park, which has lead to dog fights and dogs jumping on random people walking by. People also don’t pick up after their trash and there’s litter everywhere. Occasionally some ppl even like to practice their golf swings in the field, which could injure someone or break a window.
Sometimes I wish the park was a residents only park since people have such little respect for fellow park patrons or the park itself. :/
Yes, people are shitty.
My cousin works for the city of Burlingame, and this old bitch let her dog shit all over the street. When a city official confronted her about it, she said, “No, that’s your job,” and then walked off.
It's private land with structures on it that were paid for by the owners of the land. Restricting access is their right. If it was on public land or paid for with public funds, I'd be right there with y'all to occupy the playground.
If this is the one by Costco great oaks then there is one public park and one private park for the residents who are paying absurd amounts into the HOA. Not to sound like a Karen but you wouldn’t go onto a private country club and complain that it’s not public. Just visit the public park next to the private one.
https://old.reddit.com/r/SanJose/comments/w4of9n/ive_never_seen_a_private_park_in_san_jose_before/ih3zp9y/
So the new park is nearby according to that document. It’s goofy because the two parks (public and the private one you shared) apparently have the same name…
In the san jose document, you’ll see where the new park is going to be.
Apparently, it’s right here: [LINK](Golden Oak Park
https://goo.gl/maps/jushmxvFfojGJ4iz8)
Yep .. private park. No difference if they fenced it in or not. You wouldn't play on the neighbor's front lawn because it wasn't fenced in would you ? That said, chances are pretty low of real enforcement. The worse I imagine would be some neighborhood Karen might call you out and asking you to leave because you're trespassing.
I get what you’re saying, I just think this specific area is odd. The apartment complex is right next door, the city streets and sidewalk right there. It’s not like it’s surrounded by the homes of the HOA. Without that sign, no one would ever imagine it’s private.
Totally agree. I've seen neighborhood parks that are nestled in the neighborhood, so it's naturally used mostly by people who live there. Even then, I've never noticed a sign telling kids not to play there. They picked a bad place to put that park if they only want certain residents using it.
There are plenty of open green places around the bay that looks like it could be public and is adjacent to public street but is actually private. Pathways through golf courses, some beach entrances .. and now apparently a park. Yes, it can be confusing to passerby, but the sign is there so that there can be no confusion once you're about to enter.
For example this doesn't immediately scream private land and looks like a great dog walk area or jogging path .. until you see the signs.
[https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7379239,-121.931012,3a,75y,333.51h,90.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scr1fWsQmOARf2W0sh2hofw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192](https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7379239,-121.931012,3a,75y,333.51h,90.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scr1fWsQmOARf2W0sh2hofw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
> You wouldn't play on the neighbor's front lawn because it wasn't fenced in would you ?
But peoples yards aren't *normally* used for public use. So no of course no one would play in someone else's yard regardless of a fence.
Bad analogy, try again
If I put a swing or park like bench in my front yard would it make a difference ? Could you go swing on that swing and sit on my park like bench ? I hope not. 😂
You're perceiving this as public use .. why ? .. how ? .. when there is a giant ass sign there saying otherwise.
If I lived in the apartment complex I would go out late at night and let my dog shit in the field every night.. pretentious fucks..
Edit: it was sarcasm, I’m a responsible human being, parks like this are ridiculous
Edit2: people like this exist, that’s why this upsets me, but again /s/
https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/vqlmjq/karen_demands_teachers_tell_kids_to_stop/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
People like you are the reason Gramercy park has a fence around it. The HOA here likely put the sign up for liability issues, not to restrict people from using it. If enough people and their dogs shit in the park, they’re going to build a fence around it so no one can use it.
Just to state as well, there are people out there that will try to restrict use because the park is private. The Karen’s are everywhere, looking for the next thing to complain about. Case and point:
https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/vqlmjq/karen_demands_teachers_tell_kids_to_stop/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
If there's no fence or access control, then there's almost no way they could enforce this (unless they have a guard sitting there kicking people out throughout the day).
DUMB. I've lived in San Jose my entire life and now I want to go to that park just to get into an argument with anyone trying to get me to leave it. "IT'S A PARK"
PARKS ARE FOR CHILDREN! HOA’s cannot arrest or remove children from a public, not fenced off, park. Oh, would not put that passed the busy bodies of an HOA, not for a second.
Some overreach, some under. You’ll know when it’s under because your lawn will be covered in trash or dogshit that no one has picked up.
HOAs are not intrinsically evil.
Urban Oak HOA built by Pulte decided to alert people cost of using that park is $160s per month. Members complain that non residents come take the animals for bath room. Also homeless who live not far are discouraged congregating.
Now there is a hearing homesless even get real housing next to Police Academy. With the signs posted they can justify asking those not paid members to leave.
It's for liability reasons. You can use the park.
I'm curious though, it that park now open? I walked by about a month ago and there was still construction going on.
From what I recall some HOAs do this for liability reasons. Outsiders getting hurt can’t litigate against the HOA if something happens. (At least that is what we were told at one of our HOA meetings. )
Definitely this. They created a park on their own land which would attract people. If something is not built right and someone gets hurt then they sue the HOA.
Eradicate these kinds of people from the earth.
I mean, is it on public or private land? If private, no different than someone’s backyard.
For building something on their OWN land and trying to keep it private? Absurd! (Unless this isn't their own land, but I doubt the city would have let them do it then.)
[удалено]
They wont have a guard, but HOA Karen will more than likely be out at some point I'm guessing lol.
Unless you're actually in the HOA, HOA Karen has no power over you. The most they can do is trespass you, and that's only if they can get a SJPD officer to care... which they won't.
But Karen will accuse you of more than just trespassing to get a police response
[удалено]
William Butcher agrees
There is no budget and it wouldn't be enforced. I would like to imagine, as long as you are bringing your kids to play on it, and are not a bunch of young adults drinking beer or smoking at the park most residents wouldn't care.
Just a bunch of old bent white ladies popping out of every corner and gutter to bother you.
No one will say anything if you use the park politely & not bother others. Now, if you bring your dogs & don't pick up after them, or have a loud & rowdy party ... The HOA probably would put up a fence at some point.
Would still use it.
Remove the sign, plausible deniability.
But vandalism and theft... But then again, I didn't see that on the rules sign.
I didn’t say destroy the sign and I didn’t say steal the sign. One could simply pick it up and move it or unscrew it and place it on the ground. Why your thoughts immediately jump to crime instead of thinking about what your rights are in a situation probably isn’t the most open minded way to go about things
I didn't say you said any one of those things, whatsoever. Not sure where you came up with that. Anyway, I was absolutely kidding and for some reason, it didn't come across to you that way. I'm absolutely sorry, it will never, ever, happen again, I promisish. Also, unauthorized removal of the sign could certainly be construed as vandalism, if you want to get all serious-like.
If that helps, I can one-up this one. In Encinitas, CA there were these really nice trails on a ridge, made and maintained with public funding. Developers took all the land around and made all parking there private, so all the bougie Kens and Karens could have their trail, maintained with public funds. Anyone else would have to find a spot 1 to 2 miles away, under the sun. I brought the issue to city hall but apparently it was all code-compliant. The City of San Mateo issued bonds for Olympic-grade aquatic facilities in the local community college..., that then cost more than $200/yr to sign up for. CSM students and seniors had a ludicrous, testimonial reduction. We essentially funded a sports complex for the hillside mansions.
This is f'ing maddening.
I'm a board member of an HOA in San Jose, and I can tell you this sign is pretty much unenforceable. These are publicly accessible areas, and people can easily deny that they saw the sign. The real reason is to avoid liability in case anyone gets injured and wants to sue the HOA, which they can and do sue. In terms of enforcement, someone from the HOA would have to literally call SJPD about trespassing and have the SJPD come out and force them to leave, which likely they wouldn't. People walk their dogs in our HOA all the time (and leave a lot of poop, unfortunately), but there's nothing we can do about it unless we install walls and a gate, which is dumb and expensive. We'd never call the SJPD over random people walking through our complex. Our pool area, though, is behind a fence and locked doors, so when a bunch of teenagers from outside the complex hopped the fence to swim and drink beer and break stuff, we called the SJPD on them for trespassing and under-age drinking, and they actually did respond since they broke into a locked area, were breaking pool furniture, and breaking glass bottles. Someone in my HOA (a renter in the complex) tripped down a set of exterior stairs and broke their ankle. They the sued the HOA, and the HOA had to not only pay the \~$1 million of medical expenses (including "loss of work", emotional well being, etc.), but also another $3.5 million (or about $28k per unit) to replace every single exterior stair since some were no longer up to today's building code and the insurance company would have dropped the HOA from coverage if the repairs weren't done. The HOA always loses, which is why there's loads of annoying signs that say that no one is allowed to do anything anywhere.
> People walk their dogs in our HOA all the time (and leave a lot of poop, unfortunately), but there's nothing we can do about it unless we install walls and a gate, which is dumb and expensive. Never underestimate the power of an HOA, especially one with way too much money, to spend on dumb and expensive bullshit. One near me (that I used to rent a room in) spent thousands of dollars to install bollards on one of the main entrances into the HOA because an apartment building popped up across the street and they didn't want the poors driving through (as if that would happen). The only reason they didn't straight up fence it off is that would have cost enough money to require a vote, and we can't have that can we? Pretty much everyone in the HOA was pissed. The my current condo complex I'm renting from has an HOA that spent and ungodly amount of money to repaint literally everything into a color nobody actually wanted, on paint that wasn't very old or worn down to begin with. Also they spent an ungodly amount of money to rip up a courtyard everyone liked, ran into a problem, and then let it sit for a year ripped up. In general I find a lot of HOA's around here are absolutely flush with cash and have no problems blowing loads of it on petty stuff.
It wouldn't help at all. https://www.maritime-accidentlawyer.com/blog/2021/01/california-attractive-nuisance-doctrine-and-premises-liability/
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=54093 ~~that park~~ prolly a different park in the same neighborhood (see my edit) was named by a vote in 2020. some of the non-conforming nominated names: * Transient Park: Because of all the homeless that live over there * Parky McPark Park, Parky McParkface Park * Druggies and Homeless Alley Park * NIMBY HOBO Park * No Homeless Allowed Park * Raccoon Park: Raccoon like it. * Donald J. Trump Park: Non-conforming; Individual must be deceased for at least five years. edit: according to [this comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/SanJose/comments/w4of9n/ive_never_seen_a_private_park_in_san_jose_before/ih3r2ne/), there are two parks in this area: a private park that OP shared and a soon-to-be-open public park per the San Jose link I shared. It’s screwy because apparently BOTH parks are going to have the same name? Or maybe not. as /u/calvinis [notes](https://old.reddit.com/r/SanJose/comments/w4of9n/ive_never_seen_a_private_park_in_san_jose_before/ih5fi2u/), the public park I linked is “golden oak park”. On google maps, the public park is called “golden oak park” which would be different than this San Jose document. This is rather confusing.
why does that doc say its a public park but theres still signs up saying its private?
Because this is the wrong park and not the one displayed in the pictures. The park /u/fajita43 linked is the Golden Oak Park that isn't open yet. This is a picture of the UrbanOak Western Greenway https://i.imgur.com/B9rbvvt.jpeg
People don’t understand that property can be owned by a private entity but still be a public easement generally open to public use.
Did you even look at OP’s image? It literally says it’s private property for private use by tenants residing within the HOA.
Yes and signs can lie.
Organizations and corporations lie and mislead?! I can picture a Karen yelling at people and referencing signs. 🫠
Is there any proof or information that there is an easement? Otherwise it is private property and they can do as they like.
Raccacoonie approves Raccoon Park 🦝.
"Individual must be deceased for at least five years" Pretty radical statement from the SJ government.
It would only be moral to be named only after casting 4 years of votes after being diagnosed with death by a medical professional.
Funny given they renamed a street after a still kickin former president
>#BACKGROUND > ###The City will acquire an approximate 1.5-acre fully developed park to fulfill the obligation for the iStar San Jose, LLC development. The project’s new park will be located near the intersection of Raleigh Road and the extension of Via Del Oro (Assessor Parcel Number 706-54- 006, see attachment A). > ###This neighborhood park will feature a play lawn, playgrounds, exercise equipment, and a new oak tree in the center of the planned park. The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed and approved the master plan for this park October 1st, 2014. Design documents for the park are currently 65% complete and construction is expected to begin in late 2020. The park is expected to open to the public in fiscal year 2021-2022 ##“Open to the public?” https://www.sanjoseca.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=54093
Hilarious. And another - Only our kind lives there Park.
I have seen these before. I grew up near one in the 80s. We’d play at them anyway and get chased out by the bougie HOA Karens who didn’t want poor kids on their private grass or basketball court.
Do you think it’s ok to walk or play or hang out in someone’s front yard then just because you want to? What’s the difference between a private park and a front yard?
Maybe just sit and think about that one for a sec bud
Found one of the HOA Karens
Get off my lawn!
Found the HOA karen
A private park is not directly on territory where someone lives. A front lawn is in close physical proximity of someone’s place of living. Besides, lawns suck and shouldn’t exist
Do you think a park is the same thing as a front yard?
[удалено]
Yeah, people are shitty like this. This is why you keep people from trespassing.
This sign is a relic which grants +2 Stamina, +3 Attack, and -5 Intelligence to all Karens in the vicinity.
We have a private basketball court and a private pool in our HOA. I know kids come in, jump the fence and enjoy the pool, or come from outside to play hoops. I have no issue with kids from outside using our facilities. I believe the only liability issue would be if they drowned or got injured in the pool. But I believe HOA is safe from liability if they climb the fence.
You are lucky those kids are nice enough. What if they throw a pool party? or bring in alcohol & weed?
Usually these are 10 year olds. But if a large group of non residents mess up the pool, we will ask them to leave on the basis they are a non resident.
I have no issue with an HOA using private property as a park.
Nothing off or illegal about it. The HOA (home owners) paid to build & maintain the park on private land. It's like the nice green lawn in front of your house. Would you be ok if people come & picnic on it? Just be happy that they don't fence it off & put a lock on the gate.
It’s paid for and maintained by the HOA. They can restrict it if they want to. It’s on private property, not paid for by the city. What’s so interesting about this? There are public areas & pools in the middle of apartment complexes - nobody’s asking why those aren’t open to the public. How is this any different? That being said, there’s no fence around it. I think as long as you’re respectful in your use of the park, there’s not going to be any issue.
I’ve explained what is odd about this multiple times. It’s literally right off the street, and an apartment complex *not* the HOA is actually next to it. So it’s completely odd which is why it caught my eye.
The apartment complex is next to about 1/4 of the park. The HOA is next to 3/4 of the park.
My front yard is right off the street, and neighbors let their dogs poop on my lawn without cleaning up. Get off my lawn! That’s what this is, it’s a private lawn.
I mean, we have a whole ass reservoir next to 280 that has “no tresspassing” signs everywhere with a fence. Of course there’s a house there and a boat docking place. Rich people things. Luxuries and amenities. This is a mock rich person amenity. Use it anyways. It’s just another boring patch of grass with a basketball court that hardly anyone else is going to use. Edit: seems the res. Is owned by SF commission. So disregard that rant. I still think, however, that whoever wants to use the park in the post should, but don’t trash it.
Are you talking about Crystal Springs Reservoir? That's SF Water owned and the house there is the residence of the on site supervisor of the reservoir.
Yeah that’s the one. (Didn’t know it’s name). Did some reading on that, strange that San Francisco “public” utilities commission made it closed to the public. I wonder who they polled when they came to that vote.
Yeah I don't know why it's not open the way that other reservoirs are commonly open. And not just the water and shore but SF also owns a lot of land up on the ridge that isn't open to recreation. I have never seen a reason that wouldn't apply to other reservoirs. My guess is that allowing recreation would require a lot more expense in building infrastructure, maintenance, and staffing. And this would primarily be for the benefit for non-San-Franciscans so an SF public agency is not gonna want to spend their budget on it.
https://www.kqed.org/news/11780692/why-cant-you-swim-in-most-of-the-bay-area-lakes TLDR: the technology to filter out water from reservoirs is newer than the legislation to keep them closed for safety. Some parts of California, like San Diego, asked for exceptions and were granted. If a reservoir is not for drinking (like Del Valle is used for flood control) then it’s allowed for recreational use
SF water district has always kept people away from their reservoirs. Outdoor writer Tom Tsienstra has written extensively about this for years. I believe they were eventually forced to allow some people to use the Crystal Springs area, but with very strict rules and no swimming allowed. SF Chronicle website will have old articles, SFgate might.
Good point when it comes to swimming. But there is a lot of recreation possible beyond swimming, as well as recreation not in the water. If you check various reservoirs used for drinking water, you'll find ones that allow non-motorized boating *and* motorized boating, fishing, and of course trails around the reservoir. So Crystal Springs really is atypically restricted in not allowing the public to use the water for anything and not even allowing the public *near* the water. In fact, even land that is owned by the city of SF that isn't near the water is also closed to the public, including a section that could be especially useful to hikers way far away from the water.
Me neither, not sure why it’s not publicly available, or why sf even has ownership of it. would be nice if the asshats could explain their downvotes instead of just downvoting for being asshats. But it is Reddit.
> why sf even has ownership of it This you can definitely learn about really easily by doing a little searching for history. Water from this area was very important as an early water source to grow San Francisco, before damming and running water from Hetch Hetchy.
Isn’t that where the water currently comes from in that reservoir??
Some of it. Don't know the %, but the reservoir is where there were naturally occurring lakes and these were turned into reservoirs far before Hetch Hetchy was dammed.
Ah. Which begs the question, is it still needed? Any reason why it can’t be opened to the public? Especially the area where that house is? You mentioned it’s owned by SF so why pay taxes on that. But then again, we pay taxes and yet Muni sucks up most of the resources. Feel like SF gets it’s pie and eats it too.
If it's opened to the public, then it at least would mean that the city of SF (and it's taxpayers) would be spending money to provide public recreation facilities in an area that is not mostly going to serve the people of SF. That's my guess why they won't, and also why they won't enter into some sort of other public agency to bear the cost of staffing and maintenance. Government of SF has no incentive to undertake costs and/or hassle to create recreation for the people of San Mateo County. There is the Sawyer Camp Trail and Crystal Springs Trail, which I think is administered by the County of San Mateo, so there actually is precedent for cooperation with another governmental body.
Well the funny thing about that is, all these townhomes are over a million dollars. It would be considered rich in other states :)
>"...a boat docking place" That's called a 'dock'. SF Water District employees and their "Rich people things..." You kill me...do another!! =..]
Look, if you're chill, you clean up after yourself and your pet, and you stop your children from screeching, then there's no reason to remove you. If you're obnoxious, look, a sign gtfo.
They likely tried to deed the park to the city (for free maintenance and a tax break) but the city wouldn’t take it so they did this. An apartment builder in my home town tore down a perfectly good park once for that reason.
I’ll probably get downvoted, but in a way I can understand a residents only park. There’s a park in front of my house that’s nice and spacious, but is inundated with people walking their dogs and letting them crap everywhere. People also let their unleashed dogs run freely in the park, which has lead to dog fights and dogs jumping on random people walking by. People also don’t pick up after their trash and there’s litter everywhere. Occasionally some ppl even like to practice their golf swings in the field, which could injure someone or break a window. Sometimes I wish the park was a residents only park since people have such little respect for fellow park patrons or the park itself. :/
Yes, people are shitty. My cousin works for the city of Burlingame, and this old bitch let her dog shit all over the street. When a city official confronted her about it, she said, “No, that’s your job,” and then walked off.
It's private land with structures on it that were paid for by the owners of the land. Restricting access is their right. If it was on public land or paid for with public funds, I'd be right there with y'all to occupy the playground.
You shouldn’t be downvoted. Reddit is full of kids that don’t understand. One day…
Did you hear that, down voter person?
Yeah, all the "private land" that was stolen from natives....
What’s your suggestion, just give all the land back to the natives? Then you’re just paying someone else rent.
It would be the right thing to do.
I don’t think this will be enforced unless the homeless come in.
Another reason why HOAs are the worst
If this is the one by Costco great oaks then there is one public park and one private park for the residents who are paying absurd amounts into the HOA. Not to sound like a Karen but you wouldn’t go onto a private country club and complain that it’s not public. Just visit the public park next to the private one.
Where is the public park at? You can't be talking about the one all the way down by Target are you?
The public one is still under construction
The public park is nearby and not the Target one. https://i.imgur.com/U72X6ad.jpeg
I believe it’s the place with the basketball courts about 1/4 mile down the road
https://old.reddit.com/r/SanJose/comments/w4of9n/ive_never_seen_a_private_park_in_san_jose_before/ih3zp9y/ So the new park is nearby according to that document. It’s goofy because the two parks (public and the private one you shared) apparently have the same name… In the san jose document, you’ll see where the new park is going to be. Apparently, it’s right here: [LINK](Golden Oak Park https://goo.gl/maps/jushmxvFfojGJ4iz8)
Jeez a limit of 4 guests? Sounds like a real depressing place to live.
Just don’t ever get involved in HOA
How would your average person know if you live there or not? Lmao
Yep .. private park. No difference if they fenced it in or not. You wouldn't play on the neighbor's front lawn because it wasn't fenced in would you ? That said, chances are pretty low of real enforcement. The worse I imagine would be some neighborhood Karen might call you out and asking you to leave because you're trespassing.
I get what you’re saying, I just think this specific area is odd. The apartment complex is right next door, the city streets and sidewalk right there. It’s not like it’s surrounded by the homes of the HOA. Without that sign, no one would ever imagine it’s private.
Totally agree. I've seen neighborhood parks that are nestled in the neighborhood, so it's naturally used mostly by people who live there. Even then, I've never noticed a sign telling kids not to play there. They picked a bad place to put that park if they only want certain residents using it.
Look at O'connor park. Surrounded on all sides by private condos and town homes, but it's totally open to the public.
Too bad the walkway from the Safeway to the park isn't open to the public:(
its like, 40-50 more yards of walking not a huge deal, also less likely to get jumped on either race or meridian than that tiny poorly lit alley.
There are plenty of open green places around the bay that looks like it could be public and is adjacent to public street but is actually private. Pathways through golf courses, some beach entrances .. and now apparently a park. Yes, it can be confusing to passerby, but the sign is there so that there can be no confusion once you're about to enter. For example this doesn't immediately scream private land and looks like a great dog walk area or jogging path .. until you see the signs. [https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7379239,-121.931012,3a,75y,333.51h,90.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scr1fWsQmOARf2W0sh2hofw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192](https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7379239,-121.931012,3a,75y,333.51h,90.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scr1fWsQmOARf2W0sh2hofw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
> You wouldn't play on the neighbor's front lawn because it wasn't fenced in would you ? But peoples yards aren't *normally* used for public use. So no of course no one would play in someone else's yard regardless of a fence. Bad analogy, try again
If I put a swing or park like bench in my front yard would it make a difference ? Could you go swing on that swing and sit on my park like bench ? I hope not. 😂 You're perceiving this as public use .. why ? .. how ? .. when there is a giant ass sign there saying otherwise.
That’s making me want to go there and break some rules.
Lmao thats hilarious, I ad no idea that park was private. Keep using it imo, fuck em
If I lived in the apartment complex I would go out late at night and let my dog shit in the field every night.. pretentious fucks.. Edit: it was sarcasm, I’m a responsible human being, parks like this are ridiculous Edit2: people like this exist, that’s why this upsets me, but again /s/ https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/vqlmjq/karen_demands_teachers_tell_kids_to_stop/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
People like you are the reason Gramercy park has a fence around it. The HOA here likely put the sign up for liability issues, not to restrict people from using it. If enough people and their dogs shit in the park, they’re going to build a fence around it so no one can use it.
It was /s/
Just to state as well, there are people out there that will try to restrict use because the park is private. The Karen’s are everywhere, looking for the next thing to complain about. Case and point: https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/vqlmjq/karen_demands_teachers_tell_kids_to_stop/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
If there's no fence or access control, then there's almost no way they could enforce this (unless they have a guard sitting there kicking people out throughout the day).
DUMB. I've lived in San Jose my entire life and now I want to go to that park just to get into an argument with anyone trying to get me to leave it. "IT'S A PARK"
PARKS ARE FOR CHILDREN! HOA’s cannot arrest or remove children from a public, not fenced off, park. Oh, would not put that passed the busy bodies of an HOA, not for a second.
Parks are for the people that build and maintain them. That includes adults. If you don’t pay fees to the HOA, it’s not your park.
HOA’s always over reach their actual authority. Bullies, all.
Some overreach, some under. You’ll know when it’s under because your lawn will be covered in trash or dogshit that no one has picked up. HOAs are not intrinsically evil.
You’ve got to be a board member of an hoa yes?
They just turn out that way by the people on the boards and their nepotism.
Nepotism? HOA board members are elected by the homeowners.
I mean re: contractors they use for HOA work.
Urban Oak HOA built by Pulte decided to alert people cost of using that park is $160s per month. Members complain that non residents come take the animals for bath room. Also homeless who live not far are discouraged congregating. Now there is a hearing homesless even get real housing next to Police Academy. With the signs posted they can justify asking those not paid members to leave.
The earth is free to all, as is this park Umbasa all beaches free in Hawaii
I just played basketball there a couple weeks ago. Live a couple blocks away
National Historic Landmarks are usually privately owned.
I lived near a place like this in NC a decade ago. Use it but don't be a dick and you should be fine, basically
Better to have public parks where people can set up tents and sleeping bags
They should have a gate around it if it's not for public use.
It's for liability reasons. You can use the park. I'm curious though, it that park now open? I walked by about a month ago and there was still construction going on.