H&SC Sec. 481.134(a)(3) defines a "playground" as requiring "three or more separate apparatus intended for the recreation of children" yada yada yada. That presents problems when a playground has only one or two big pieces of equipment, like this monstrosity in Allen, Tx:



Someone is considering seeking a change in this statute. If anyone has had a problem with the current definition and would like to help make a change, contact me so I can put you in touch with the interested party.

FYI to anyone who's facing this issue, the Dallas COA ruled that something like this (which they classified as one "jungle gym" with several different apparatus like slides and poles) counts as a "playground" under the statute. See Antwine v. State, 2008 WL 4823218, No.05-06-01323-CR.

What about a provision that includes any playground apparatus constructed as a single contiguous piece that covers an area larger than ___ [insert number] square feet?

Or something along that line?

Why should it matter, really, if there are 3 pieces of equipment anyway? If there's a swing set at the park, who do you think will use that equipment? Is it less likely that kids will be on the swing set because a slide and a merry-go-round are not next to it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Other AP:
What about a provision that includes any playground apparatus constructed as a single contiguous piece that covers an area larger than ___ [insert number] square feet?

Or something along that line?

---

I think bearing in mind the case Andrea W posted, that shouldn't be a worry.

Having once tried one of those within x feet of the county line (but in another county when stopped), I don't treasure the experience of getting the county/city/pay-for-a-private surveyor to go measure the playground equipment.

How about just changing it to one piece of equipment? That seems simpler than imposing measuring requirements.

Who came up with the "three or more seperate apparatus" requirement anyway?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greg Gilleland:

How about just changing it to one piece of equipment? That seems simpler than imposing measuring requirements.

Who came up with the "three or more seperate apparatus" requirement anyway?

---

That may have come from the realization that if I have a swing in my back yard for my kid, then it my qualify under the law. What about the grandparents with the infant swing in the tree on the front lawn?

I was speaking to property not owned by an individual, but by a church, civic association, school, town, city, county, state or like governmental or civic entity.

Did you really think I was talking about the tree swing in my yard?

I think the intent probably was to separate personal equipment meant for one or two kids versus equipment meant to be used by a bunch of kids at once. Of course, now it seems everyone has those big playsets in their backyards that would qualify under most definitions, so maybe an "open for use of the public" clause should be added.

I'll play the devil's advocate here for a minute.....Why does it matter if it's open to the public or not? If the intent is to keep drugs away from areas where kids gather, a big swingset with multiple apparati (sp?) in a person's yard is probably going to have multiple kids on it, meaning it's a place where kids gather. WIth that focus in mind, who owns it shouldn't be the focus, but the capacity of the apparatus to be a gathering place for impressionable youngsters.

I know the intent of this law was to keep drug dealers out of playgrounds, but I see it used way more often with a pot / drug possessor in someone's back yard, or walking down the street, and they are simply within the 1000 feet zone of a daycare or playground (and at the time of the possession the daycare was closed and/or the playground was empty).

I have mixed feelings about that--but the current debate won't change the 1000 feet part, and to be honest, there are plenty of times when I'm glad to be able to enhance. So if we are already pushing the scope of the intent, why not use the enhancements to pop people who don't care if their neighbor's kids see them selling / using...or their own kids for that matter? Similar to the presumption for endangerment in meth lab cases when children are present?

Had similar situation in Gee v. State, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 5955, Eastland, 7/28/05. Not quite determinative on the multi station playground equipment because we also a basketball court in the park.

[This message was edited by pkdyer on 02-12-09 at .]