Old Nick wrote:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 23:17:14 -0600, Jeff Starr
vaguely proposed a theory
I too wondered what the OP thought he would accomplish bringing in the
homeless to his arguement for the right to kayak. I also felt that it
made him sound petty. One has "nothing" to do with the other and if he
continues to include his rant on the homeless, it will just blur his
arguement for kayaking.
......and in reply I say!:
So you have NEVER thought or said something similar?

"Why is this being done to me because you are bothered by it and I
can't understand why, when that over there (which bothers me and other
people but not you)is being ignored?"

Regardless of whether one may think such things, it's not an
effective argument for having the rules changed to allow your
activity. And it's likely to distract from the main points you
want to make as well as alienating some people who might
otherwise be your supporters.

Better to first find out what reasons, if any, there are for the
prohibition. Then find ways those concerns can be addressed while
also stressing that paddlesports are a healthy activity that could
benefit families in the community and enhance the usefulness of the
park to the city residents and visitors.

There is probably a statute against living in that park, and certainly
there would be health issues. There is no statute against paddling on
a lake.

If this is a typical city park there are probably rules against
overnight stays and the OP found out there are also rules against
paddling on the lake in that park. Other parks may allow either or
both of these activities. But the issues are separate and should
be dealt with separately.