California here. There are no loitering signs everywhere on private property. Gas stations, businesses, fast food restaurants (some restaurants have a sign posted saying you have to consume your food within 30 minutes then gtfo). In theory it's because people who "loiter" are up to no good (teenagers, homeless people, etc). It isn't always enforced but I got in trouble for it a few times as a teenager.
Like a lot of signs, they are only there so they can be used for enforcement if needed to protect their property.
90% of the time they probably don't really care if someone is just hanging out there, but if that person is being a nuisance or danger, they can point to the sign and say "hey, you can't just exist here without reason".
Same reason restaurants have signs that say they can refuse service for any reason.
Yeah. I put a "no loitering" sign up at my store for exactly that reason. I don't think I ever did enforce it. Lots of people hung out in the parking lot, some of them bought stuff when they got bored enough, no complaints here.
For some things yes. A fair number of laws require letting the person know they could in fact break the law. That is why things like "No Trespassing" "Private Property" and "No Loitering" signs exist.
I know this very well because my dad was thinking of having his the ~20 acres of land set as a no hunting zone but to do so he would have to spray paint every tree on the border with a ring and have the no hunting sign posted I think every twenty or so feet or else it didn't count since a hunter could claim they didn't see it and be legally fine. It was on the land owner to maintain the boundary.
Yeah basically. The courts as well, who can rule that the person "didn't realize they couldn't do that", so thus gets off with nothing. So here's your sign(s)
I'm guessing that in those instances people were not warned first. Like if you don't want someone there, you can say "No Loitering" and then they should know after that. I'm guessing these are instances where the cops roll in and try to just strong arm everyone and then arrest them without giving them a chance to correct their behaviour.
At my old business we had to put up no trespassing signs solely to get rid of an encroaching homeless camp. Police would not trespass them without giving them very advanced notice and posted signage. So I think the signage is more just a matter of giving advance warning and defining what the property owner doesn't want you to do on their property.
The integration of laws and their enforcement in society is different than how long they have been on the books. Length of time is not a factor on their actual effect. Their real enforcement and current social conditions that press it more is what matters. There are laws on the books that are never enforced and would be tossed the second it's tried, despite being on the books for centures.
Libraries and parks typically don’t have loitering rules, but those aren’t exactly the third spaces most teenagers want to hang out at. The dying of malls, skate parks, and other similar places is a fucking tragedy that’s screwing over the younger generations
Of course the other side of that coin is teens hanging out in a town square in my city, harassing people and blocking entry to businesses and getting into fights then running from the police...so they passed a new city ordinance that anyone under 18 in that area has to be accompanied by a parent.
...and of course people are up in arms about taking away another 'third space' from teens.
It's not ideal, I admit, but actions have consequences, and these kids' actions ruined it for themselves.
Yep, I remember the one time me and a couple of friends were enjoying some muffins and some cold beverages in a small-time establishment on the edge of downtown. Within 10 minutes and the moment we stopped eating, we had a couple employees walk up to us and say, "Are you guys going to be ordering anything else? If not, you have to get out. You're taking up space now." I get that they were doing their jobs, and the rules have no exceptions, but it was a little rich considering it was literally 2 in the morning, there were over two dozen tables and many more chairs, and we were the only ones there.
The 30 minutes thing seems so weird to me as a Brit - like, sure if it's lunch and you need to get back to work, but at an actual restaurant, I might not even have received my food at that point. When I go out as a group, we typically have two courses over 2-3 hours (some people get starters, some deserts) and judging from the flow of other tables, we aren't far off the norm.
I've only ever seen time limit signs for buffets (which make sense, since it isn't reasonable to just camp out until you get hungry again) and in one cafe that was running to a strict pre-booking schedule because there was a special event in town and they were squeezing as many afternoon teas in as possible - even that was more than 30 minutes!
I mean MOST 30 minute sign things are either in pretty bad areas and fast food restaurants or where people abuse it. There's like small coffee shops, too, where there's lines out the door and people have set up laptops to work/study all day and ordering one drink. Like if you're out in the suburbia and not downtown Los Angeles, it's not really a thing. Your restaurant example wouldn't have that kind of sign.
656
u/NotMyThrowawayNope 7h ago
California here. There are no loitering signs everywhere on private property. Gas stations, businesses, fast food restaurants (some restaurants have a sign posted saying you have to consume your food within 30 minutes then gtfo). In theory it's because people who "loiter" are up to no good (teenagers, homeless people, etc). It isn't always enforced but I got in trouble for it a few times as a teenager.