Click the image below to read the Sunday, March 25th headline article:

Below was my response, emailed to the publisher, managing editor, and the reporter herself:

Hello, Neal Boyd here (skateboarder and webmaster for Small Time Skates here in Hammond).

I’m emailing you in response to the latest of two articles (the latest being the March 25 headline article, the first being the August 25, 2005 article concerning drug use and the skatepark) written by Ms. Aimee Yee that has cast the Hammond skatepark into a negative light. Granted, I’m sure there are some legitimate reasons that could be found to take issue with the park’s existence, but I don’t believe Ms. Yee has actually found them (and as a skateboarder with a blinding pro-park bias, I’m not able to provide those legitimate reasons for her).

First I’ll start with the tail end of the article which includes my announcement of Small Time Skate’s offer to reward the individual who might help us apprehend the vandals that desecrated our skatepark…. and by “our,” I don’t just mean skateboarders, I mean the citizens of Hammond, since we as a community own it.

My problem (with the above) is that the announcement is tacked onto the end of a front page headline article that spends four of five written columns concerning itself with 15 people being removed from the park itself, going into detail about some of them being arrested because they had been caught using the facility after park “hours” (”hours” is in quotes since I’m not sure the city of Hammond has a legal definition of the word… though I’m sure I could be wrong on this point… I do know that “dusk” has a formal definition, I’m just not clear as to whether or not the city has a definition of the word as it relates to city policy and/or enforceable city ordinance… I’m sure that someone more clever than myself could argue that “it’s dusk somewhere on the planet.” Regardless, it does seem like a pretty subjective term to use when referring to operating hours. Even Arsenal Park surrounding the State Capital building in Baton Rouge clearly states that it’s closing time is 9 P.M.). Ask anyone at the skatepark what “time” it closes, and you’ll get several different answers.

The implication made by adding my announcement to the end of the article is that the damage that the park sustained by vandals (which was cleaned two days later by skateboarders, not the city) was done by skateboarders themselves. The fact is, Small Time Skates, with cooperation from many in the local skateboard community, actually found the culprits responsible.

This leads me to a point of contention in the article that could have been examined had Ms. Yee chosen to follow up on. On one hand, I’m glad that the police have been making themselves visible lately in an effort to rid the park of people, if only because that presence might also help to extinguish further acts of vandalism to a city facility that so many of us appreciate on a very personal level. My problem is, while these arrests have been made (and misdemeanor summons have been delivered), Small Time Skates has made near-daily, repeated efforts to provide not only the identification of the vandals, but actual confessions that we were able to derive from said vandals during an investigation of our own. Ironically enough, while skateboarders have effectively been criminalized for skating in a skatepark, the two individuals that caused the damage are not only from an entirely different city, but they don’t even ride skateboards. We’ve had this information available for nearly a week (at this writing), and we still have not been given audience to fully inform our City’s law enforcement concerning damage done to City property.

Yet another issue I take against this recent article is based on not only the statement that Chief Kenneth Corker made in response to the nighttime arrests made at the park (and his promise to offer summons to those who might trespass in the future), but the fact that those statements could have easily been investigated by some elementary-level journalistic initiative.

The statement in question reads “We want people to have a good time and enjoy the park. That’s what it’s here for. But people do need their sleep.” This selected quote led me to believe that the people living across the street from the park might be having problems sleeping because of noise generated by skateboarders doing what skateboarders do. While it is true that skateboards are capable of being quite loud under certain conditions, I wasn’t convinced that they created so much of a racket that it caused anyone to lose sleep.

So I knocked on some doors.

Across from the park are two occupied residences (206 and 208 West Coleman). Though I couldn’t reach anyone at one of the two homes (206), I was able to speak with the resident of the other. I asked the gentleman at the door if nighttime skateboarders were keeping him up at night… he tilted his head at me in a curious manner and responded that he “couldn’t hear anything at night” because he runs a fan. So basically, 50% of the people that could have been referred to by Chief Corkern were actually no affected by the parks use at night. I’m positive that taking the effort of knocking on the remaining occupied residential space across from the park (right next door to the one I knocked on) could validate or discredit the implication that people are being kept awake.

In relation to the above, I remembered something from a personal experience I had in the house whose occupants were unavailable… you see, I actually made an attempt at renting that property myself before buying a home at the very end of Cherry Street (in downtown). For one, the sound of skateboards being used, even on a busy day at the park (note that the park was quite busy when I came to tour the home) is surprisingly faint outside when you factor in the traffic noise coming from both West Coleman and Oak Street (arguably one of the busiest streets in the city), as well as the other sounds that any productive city might make… not even counting the regularly used train tracks located roughly a block away from the aforementioned houses.

This situation also leads me to wonder about other sleep-distracting nuisances that might be keeping fellow citizens awake… for example, what about ball games that take place a couple of tennis courts away? Do after-dusk ballgame announcements blaring from loudspeakers recieve the same concerns from Hammond’s nearby citizenry? What about the dozens of floodlights used to illuminate the tennis courts (tennis courts that neighbor the skatepark by a matter of only a few yards)… do nearby residents also take issue with light pollution creeping into their homes? Also in relation to the tennis courts, a phone call to Hammond’s Recreation department informed me that the tennis courts close at 10 P.M., or whenever the lights automatically shut off (lights that I have admittedly taken advantage of at night as the skatepark lacks any illumination of its own). As a skateboarder, I’m used to a certain undeserved stigma, but I don’t appreciate the double standard.

So that I don’t come across as too reactive on any of these issues, I’d like to offer some solutions rather than wallow around in negativity.

On reporting:
1. When reporting on issues with skateboarding, especially when those issues are opinion based and in some cases cover sensitive issues (as many of us with a passion for the park take any reference to the park in a public forum very personally), it may serve Ms. Yee well to inquire within the skateboard community to see if there’s another angle to the debate… or to even consider that ther may in fact be a debate.

2. When someone makes a claim, investigate that claim to verify it’s accuracy.

On the topic of skateboarders at night:
1. Set up some lights around the skatepark. Because it isn’t directly lit, the transitions and architecture of the park create many shadows for ne’er-do-wells to hide in and create mischief without being seen. The locations of the various pieces of graffiti (all of which were inside the swimming-pool like bowl at the park) are directly correlated to the invisibility that one might take advantage of should they choose to do harm. When lights are on, roaches scurry.

2. Give the park real hours. If it’s good enough for tennis players, then surely it’s good enough for other children and adults who wish to use the facilities that Hammond has provided.

In summary, the skatepark is self-policed for the most part. As I mentioned before, skateboarders are responsible for the investigation and identification of the miscreants responsible for spray painting our park. Skateboarders are also responsible for fixing the mess that they created. Skateboarders are the people that report unlawful activities, and skateboarders are also the people that have deemed themselves responsible for preventing illegal activities from occurring. While some stories may be cut-and-dry in their simplicity, I feel that there are a number of nuances, details, and facts that haven’t found their way into the article.

Thanks for your time,
Neal Boyd

From the editor:

Hi Neal,
Just to be clear…
I, Lil Mirando, added the reward into the end of the story because I had
some space to fill in that particular block on the page. And I thought i
was doing you a favor by pointing out that you guys were being good guys
to offer the reward. There was no other motive as to the reason for it
being there.
Headlines are not written by reporters. Headlines are written by the
editor, who is the person who puts the pages together. I wrote the
headline in order to get people to read the article, which is the purpose
of a headline.
The reporter had filed the story as a routine police report.
Looking at the other copy we had, I decided it was the most interesting
news story we had for that day and thus put it in the prominent position.
That’s how this came about.
Lil Mirando, editor, The Daily Star

My Response:

Though I do appreciate the clarification, I hope you can understand the reasoning behind my concern.

All of us that have read the article and use the facilities were extremely dismayed at how we feel we were represented as a community. I understand the role that the Daily Star plays in reporting and relaying news, but I have to be clear that as a community, skateboarders have gone through decades of negative press and suffered under a negative stigma. I feel strongly that the article exudes an air of anti-skateboarding, even with the inclusion of Small Time’s offer of reward (that has been collected, by the way).

I’m not saying that the Star shouldn’t report facts as they recieve them, by all means… I just take issue with the overall sentiment I read into the article, a percieved sentiment that others that skate tend to see as well. FOr many people, perception is reality, and I fear that the perception many have read into that article is not one based on the reality of the skatepark environment.

Thank you,
Neal

One more from the Editor:

OK, Neal. While we cannot be your public relations agency, we are open to
publishing positive publicity for the skate park especially if you will
send it to us.

We will be glad to publish any positive letters or statements or
announcements you would like to send us.

Would you like to announce that the reward has been collected?

We are resurrecting our community calendar in another month, but if you
have community calendar types of information that you would like for us to
publicize, just please send it over to us. Send it to my e-mail address –
editor@hammondstar.com (i think you see the townnews coded address, but
editor@hammondstar.com is easy to remember and comes to me)

We encourage “citizen journalism.” Send us your news and photos and
announcements. You can send us your advertising too, but we will charge
you for that.

Thanks.

Lil

And one last one from me:

I appreciate the information, but to clarify… I’m not making an attempt to use the paper as a public relations agency, I’m just trying to make sure that skateboard community here isn’t painted in a bad light, in this case especially, considering the statement from the Chief (implying that skaters are keeping people awake at night) and considering the damage that was done to the park itself (for which the general public will no doubt blame the skate community).

As far as announcing the reward, I should have noted that two were issued. One of the individuals would prefer to remain low-key, and the other is a minor… I’m not sure if I have the authority to release his name or not.

Again, thanks for your time. I appreciate it.

>Neal