This just came over the transom:
My friend Janet Owen Driggs is in the running to produce a short documentary for KCET on California's first Fruit Park. Due to arcane legal doctrine, fruit trees are currently banned from public parks, but the LA artist collective Fallen Fruit is challenging the law with their dedicated fruit park, and Janet has written a piece, "Fallen Fruit and the Thin End of the Wedge," chronicling this radical experiment in democracy.
If Janet's story gets the most votes on the KCET website, the station will produce a documentary exploring why fruit and vegetables are banned from our public parks. She's currently ahead by a nose, and I'm calling on all fellow fruit lovers to help put her over the top.
Let's vote for Janet!
Vote here: http://www.kcet.org/arts/artbound/vote/
Here is a short extract from Janet's story. Read the rest by following the above link.
Fruit trees are neither sanctioned for planting in L.A.'s public parks and streets, nor for planting in public land in most cities in the United States. According to LACAC's due diligence and Fallen Fruit's eight-years of research, there is not a definitive law to which one can point here. Certainly there are California State and L.A. laws that regulate produce grown for sale, but public trees - which are by definition owned by us all, and which give of their fruit at no charge - are not specifically addressed.
The legal basis for the prohibition lies instead with the doctrine of attractive nuisance: a tort in common law by which a landowner may be liable for injuries inflicted on an "infant trespasser" by an object or condition appealing to a child, when the landowner could reasonably foresee the potential danger. Examples include: an unfenced swimming pool, a cute-looking dog with a propensity to bite, and, apparently, a fruit-laden tree.
It is beyond question that children must be protected from harm. But the question must also be asked: how much hazard is there, really, in a fruit tree?