Or they can find a new place to hang out, and let River Park scramble to get them back.

That's my thinking, exactly, Mike! But on the other hand, I don't think businesses should be able to get away with such discriminatory practices against an entire class of people.

Who was the one who made this decision?

You can address your comments to the property management company Lance Kashian & Company, 8365 N. Fresno St., 438-4800.

Let them stay home and read a book.

OK, I promised to check in with more about the River Park controversy. I hope you all will do the same.

The short story is "Follow the money."

I did a little research on the Web and found out that these "escort" or "chaperone" requirements are popping up in shopping centers nationwide. The ages vary but Fresno will have some of the the strictest rules I've found so far. Although one shopping center in another state includes Thursday, Friday and Saturday among the restricted days, but the minimum age is younger and the escort's age is younger.

I talked to Rod Anaforian over at Lance Kashian, the property management company in charge of River Park, and basically it boils down to this: The people who spend the most money at River Park don't feel comfortable with too many teenagers around.

At the end of the day, the stories are saying that malls that require parents to shop with their kids make more money. So long as people keep giving them their money, they'll keep screening the kids.

When I asked Anaforian why, when River Park was getting established, the teens were welcomed, but not now, he said that basically the personality of the shops has changed with time. He was more businesslike in his explanation, but essentially, it's matured and they want to accommodate a more sophisticated clientele.

There will be a story by Tracy Correa and Dennis Pollock in tomorrow's Bee that will describe the restrictions in more detail. I have a gimongous list of questions about this and I see a lot of loopholes in the rulebook.

The teens are already starting to speak out and I hope they won't let Lance Kashian dismiss them quietly. Check out the Opinion pages tomorrow. We got a very articulate letter from Nora Walker.

What is sad after reading all about these trends is the underlying hostility against all teenagers that emerges in the discussions on this topic. I got into a discussion with a couple of colleagues this afternoon and they like the idea of the curfew. They had several bad experiences with groups of teenagers and they understand why this would be a good idea.

That's a discussion for another day, but I have a different point of view on teens -- completely positive and as a generality, I find them fun, witty, amusing, interesting, curious, adventurous, vulnerable, full of enthusiasm for life. They make me laugh.

And by the way, they spend at leat twice as much money on clothes, restaurants and entertainment as I do.

They can't buy that book at Borders, though. I guess they'll have to go to Barnes and Noble now.

If it's proven to work and accomplish their objective why would they scramble to get them (a.k.a. loitering, annoying teenagers) back. Have I been spelling humongous wrong all this time.E-gad!

I would expect this in Fresno of all places.

I had to turn back and go home a couple of times myself because the cops were trying to stop the cruzing on Blacksone. The Fresno Community is to blame as well. I find that our community is more close minded, then open.

We have no civil rights in Fresno much less the teens who wish to shop, swap spit (kiss in public), and loiter at River Park.

I will expect some push back from the teens, more power to them.

River Park is looking for a more refined clientel? Movie theatres, and that skate board shop won't help.

How many millions did River Park make off the kids since it opened? Have them shop somewhere else and boycott.

If the kids are mad at the River Park establishment maybe the parents won't go there either.

If need be they can order books on-line, in addition to Barns and Noble.

Cool, now downtown should be smart and welcome teens to hang out. Make it a cool place to be. *Shrug more money spent downtown couldnt hurt

Good riddance. I might actually set foot out there again now that it's not just one giant day care for 14-year-olds.

This is completely unrelated to alcohol, driving, or dance clubs. This is PRIVATE sector, and there aren't civil liberties or government regulations involved. It's a business making a business decision. The kids can shop all day if they want.

First I avoided Riverpark because of the kids (and crowded stores I don't care about), now I'll avoid it because that's supposed to be their turf!

It's typical of this town really. Pretty soon you won't be able to walk down the street because the burbites think some of the pedestrians are too ugly and make the neighborhood look bad.

I think people are condemning the new policy prematurely. Why? Because River Park's managers are not going to foolishly push away the teenage crowd. What they have done is establish a rule which they will selectively enforce. This is perfectly within their rights and is not going to have much effect on your average teenager.

Look at it this way. Many adults have difficulty judging the age difference between a 16 year old and an 18 year old, except by behavior. If the 16 year old acts in a mature way, no one is going to ask whether he or she is 18. They will assume the 16 year old is 18 - or they will ignore the issue since it isn't a problem. But if the 16 year old is choosing to act immaturely - harassing people, yelling, or whatever - then the shopkeepers now have a rule to fall back on. They can ask to see ID, and the underaged miscreant will be asked to leave.

That the rule was established at all reveals to us that this has been an issue in the past. The management would not create such a rule and publicise it (risking a loss of business) if there had not been problems with overly rambunctious teenagers.

I hope this sheds some light on the debate.

I don't know where to start. This is what we get for turning our real human culture into a giant factory farm in which people are crops, farmed to extract the maximum value for their owners -- developers, corporations, etc.

Gone are the days when kids hung out in the streets of their neighborhoods, gone are the unique and locally owned businesses (franchises don't count).

You want to see the middle-class future? Gated communities with empty streets as far as the eye can see, dotted with River Parks, each with its identical stores.

I don't go to River Park unless I have to; it's cold, unfriendly, and exploitative. Take away the kids (who will then be expected to -- what? -- stay in their rooms and play video games?) and it will feel even more like a milking parlor in a mega-dairy.

My son is grown now into a wonderful young man. I didn't let him go out with friends unril after he was 17, I didn't want to be a parent that said my boy wasn't part of a gang or was just hanging out with his friends when he got shot or injured while loittering somewhere. I knew that I couldn't control something happening to him at home. It didn't make upset too much. Today I saw the most beautiful sight, While having lunch a Chipotle in Clovis there were a couple gtoips of teenagers laughing and having a great time with their friends all while they were having lunch with their parents as well. I am personally sick to death of going places and having to look and all the underwear they show. Boys with their boxers hanging out and girls with their thongs showing on top. I also don't want to see teens or adults playing tonsil hockey. There is a place for that, not in public. I may be a bit old fashioned but I don't care I know where my kids are.

as a 17 year old i can say that at least i am lucky enough to be turning 18 in 6 months so this new rule will not effect me for too long. but to all those adults who leave comments about how wonderful this new rule is *cough i wont say names you know who you are* i ask you to think back for when you were in high school, or even a freshman in college. what were you like? did you goof off with your friends, did you go to movies, well im sure if you had a social life you did. being a teenager is very diffucult. your growing up, and as a result "adults" dont know how to treat you, your not young enough to be a child yet your not over 18 to be considered a legal adult. we turn 16 and get a license and we get a new list of "adult" responsibilities that we have to abide to. the judge isnt really going to care if your underage and you crashed your car or got a speeding ticket, so we are to be treated like adults. and then we get slammed with this decree of riverpark when was i found not responsible enough to go se a movie? man i sure missed the memo on that one, maybe i should check my email more...huh. well just to show you adults one more time how- well for lack of a better word- stupid this rule is: at the age of 15 and half i can start to drive, 16 i can drive by my self,and get a job, at the age of 17 i can see a reated R movie, join the army, give blood, apply for college, drive other people, and at the grand age of 18 i can now go to riverpark.

An observation: Shopping centers don't usually institute regs of this type for non-existent problems. Proper and responsible behavior by young people has always brought greater freedoms. Irresponsible behavior has always brought restrictions. It's always been that way. I know, that its only a few individuals that give everybody else a bad rep; Here is a suggestion - if in a responsible way, youngsters police themselves, I have a feeling that the regs will go away.

On another note: This is not an ideal situation for River Park or for young people. Somehow a compromise must be worked out.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

At least one group is planning a boycott. And if money talks, it could make a big statement.

As a private enterprise, River Park should be allowed to do whatever it deems appropriate -- the consumers will make the ultimate decision.

But it does give some insight about why so many kids want to get out of Fresno as soon as they graduate.

In response to the darling Ms. Walker. I did have a life when I was a teen in the late 70's and early 80's. The think then was cruising up and down Belmont which after a time they pit an end to. We had sleepovers, went roller skating and hung out with our friends in the street in front of our houses. Keep in mind that we didn't have to lock or doors and their weren't as many abductions and virtually no sign of gangs. It was jusy safer back then. It is always fun to go ice skating with a bunch of friends. Like the other day when the teens at Fashion Fair had a big fight in the parking lot. Those are the ones that have ruined it for the rest of you.

Actually i saw a special on 20/20 the other day about this noone under 18 after 6 curfew before they came up with this brilliant idea at river park. i think they got it from that. Well there is always the mall, sierra vista mall needs people can pawn there kids off there. Or better yet send them to Manchester.

I can't believe what I've been reading about this new rule. They're classifying all teenagers as troublesome and irresponsible distractions. And that "waiting place" that they're going to stick us in if we're there past curfew is ridiculous. If we're as bad as they're making us out to be, you can bet there's going to be kids that break out of it. What they should do is just have a security guard kick certain people out instead of punishing everyone. I think this new rule will result in it blowing up in their faces.

Let's look at the bright side. At least we don't have to go through metal detectors, and take our shoes off before entering the mall.

But it will take only one lunitic to make this go away as well. Till then let's celebrate the limited freedoms we have left for the rest of us, even on River Park's private property.

Check out these sites and you will find that this in not a new thing and the program works.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/1019curfew1019.html
http://www.azcentral.com/families/articles/0724mallkids24.html

I will say on the weekends there are WAY to many kids just loitering around, most not eating or drinking anything from any of the establishments. The main problem I have, is that the kids stand around and talk in groups of 20 or more, and block other people's way of getting through to where they want to go. And if you try to walk between the group, watch out, you're in for some name calling, and sometimes you're just ignored by asking "excuse me?" They're in their own little world. I was a kid, I remember hanging out with friends, nowhere like River Park was around, we had Manchester Mall, Fashion Fair, or Blackbeards, or on Belmont cruising. I agree they need a place to just hang out and talk and laugh, but I think under the circumstances I mentioned above, they need some rules there, just so other paying patrons can comfortably get around, without getting in the kids way and making them mad, and making snide remarks behind your back, that make you really want this curfew thing to happen. And what about the smoking? Isn't there an age requirement, I see one's that are obviously not 18 smoking.

the movies may be entertaining, but getting to and from my car is ALWAYS entertaining, the 21rst century teen is a facinating animal, and yet no different, anthropologicly, than any other generation's teenagers....in the absence of some kind of crime spree or disruption of business,the 6/18 program reminds me of the bumper sticker " mean people suck "

As a 20 year old, I can say from personal experience this rule won't be selectively enforced. I just moved to Fresno, and couldn't believe I was getting carded to walk to a Jamba Juice and buy a drink at the ungodly hour of 10:10 pm. Checking 20 year olds for ID to walk to a frozen drink store is not good business, and doesn't make me want to go back.

I think this whole thing is getting way out of hand. Both sides have viable points and issues with one another. And, as a teen and frequent of riverpark, I have this to say:

On the one hand, teens need a safe place to hang out, away from parents without fear of weirdo freaks trying to ruin our fun. Thus we spend money at Riverpark, what was once our safe haven. 6 o'clock though? I don't usually get there until 6:30 or 7. And now they're threatening us with 'containment cells' for us to wait until our parents get there? What are we to do if our parents work late and can't come pick us up, or don't have a car.

But, then there's the fact that sometime teens do act far out of hand. I've seen this several times. I honestly believe though, that 9 would have been respectable, 8 would even be reasonable.

Overall, this whole thing is preposterous, and won't last. Me and hundreds of other teens just won't allow it.

Don't be suprised if Sierra Vista and Fashion Fair bring out the welcome mat and say "Not welcome at River Park, teens? Come on in, you and your money are always welcome."

And don't be surpised also if, after the first "violators" are picked up, there will be a lawsuit. Given how lawsuit-happy society is, it won't be long.

What's so unfortunate about this is that River Park didn't ask the following question: "We plan on a Friday and Saturday night restriction on teens at River Park. We want community input, including teens and their parents, to see if this is a good idea." If they'd done that, then the potential damage from a PR perspective, not to mention the legal expenses that will (shortly) be incurred, would have been avoided.

Six a clock are you crazy! I have 2 teen age boys and am so sick of everyone acting like every teen is a crimanl and have no rights.

My boys work just like every other person and have the right to spend there money any where the want. I dare anyone to tell my child they must leave while making a purchase our for that matter any time before 10:00p.m. They dont even get out of sports until 6:00.

Did the people that made the laws forget what it was like to be a teen.And for the lady that was on the news that states we only want a certain person to shop here.That was one of the worst comments any buisness owner could have made. We finally get great stores like Tillys and I know for sure they will go under.

I hope anyone else who wants to build does it in Clovis at the new shopping center since kids that support most resraunts and stores at River Park are not welcome there. That is the message you gave and that is how most parents I have talk to are taking it. That you do not want our money. Explain why you put in a Tillys,Clairs,Jamba Juice,Jonny Rocka, Pizza,movie theater and SBI store. It is nice that Fresno does not support our young people. For my family we will take our buisness else where. Until this is resolved. I am sure the new theater in Clovis will love you for this.

I have no doubt that the powers that be at River Park needed no inspiration from 20/20 or any other shopping center to discover this policy. The policy was likely crafted concurrently with the new Sierra Vista theater. River park surely believes that they are passing off non-paying patrons on Sierra Vista, and obviously do not care about any kind of boycott. Public outcry has a chance of reversing the policy, but realistically if everyone simply ignored the policy then it would be too expensive to enforce. But what will probably be the ultimate demise of what is really nothing less than culturally-induced corporate heartlessness is the legal ramifications of such a policy. Security at such an establishment has no right to detain anyone without calling the police. They can not technically touch anyone without risking a suit for battery ("a touching of another"). Any holding area cannot actually confine kids without breaking at least a couple of laws. The entire policy is based on trespassing.

Imagine for a moment the teenager as described by River Park: he is a rowdy, pierced, smart-mouthed and belligerant kid who might be considered "scary" by some. Now imagine a security gaurd's interaction with that kid, is he going to willingly sit in a designated area until his parents pick him up or he is going to fight back to some degree (figuratively speaking)? What then? The security gaurd tries to restrain him (battery) the police would be called (for the trespassing violation) and the kid is going to turn around and sue Riverpark for the bruise on the inside of his arm from the security gaurd grabbing him and sue the police department for unlawful arrest after the judge inevitably decides that any reasonable person would have to some degree considered Riverpark a publicly accessable space. So after that (or more likely, before that) the police are going to refuse to assist Riverpark in their enforcement efforts, and the policy will crumble under its own weight. This is aimed at all of those folks that want to follow the free-market path of argument: Yes, Riverpark is privately owned and they can establish policies at will in accordance with the law, but at the point where those private policies make use of public resources (such as the police and court systems), it becomes a public issue.

To be completely honest, Riverpark either does not believe that all of the kids fit the mold of the teenager above, or they simply have not thought far enough ahead to plan the logistics of enforcement. One of those two situations is true, because otherwise the policy could never conceptually work, not even in a stuffy board room.

The real problem is that we have increasingly viewed teenagers as criminals since around the time of the generation of most adults contributing to the discussion above. We are a community, and these are our teenagers. Do we want to segregate them from the adults they will be using as examples for their own behavior or do we want to integrate and accept them and give them a chance to learn the ins and outs of societal interaction? To claim that Riverpark can do what they wish with their property is certainly a valid argument, but it shows a lack of understanding, compassion, and realism to believe the issue actually is so narrow.

Really, the private versus public sector argument is the very small drop in the very large bucket. And it is high time society evaluated the consistancy, clarity, and drinkability of the water in that bucket. Gloria Ladson-Billings said it best in her article on the evolution of a Zero-tolerance culture in America: "America still eats her young."

I think this new rule is totally out of line. I think the people that come up with this must have never had teenagers or remembers being a teenager. There are not a lot of places for them to hangout at that are safe. It is the teens that do most of the shopping in that area. If the old fogies don't like let them go somewhere else. I do not want chaperone my daughter everytime she wants to hang out with her friends. That is just not cool and I sure would not have wanted that when I was that age.

I am so glad for this curfew. I can go back to Riverpark now. I am 21 years old so I definately remember my teenage years, and before. I miss the days of "Hey! Can Maggie come out and play". There was roller skating in the neighborhood, street picnics, and pools. Oh, and I had a thing called parents, which seem to be lacking judging solely on the behavior of teenie boppers I have seen at Riverpark. The last 2 times (and they were my last time at riverpark) there were fights. One day it seemed like a boyfriend and girlfriend got in a fight and each of their posses had to defend their leaders honor, and the other time it was some emo dudes, well, i think they were dudes, anyways. Riverpark actually does have a right to enforce this roll, it is privately owned. I can see where you are coming from on the "cells" and that seems somewhat crazy. But last time I checked businesses do it often with shoplifters. Just like the nonsmoking rule at riverpark- smoking isnt allowd because it is a public nuisance, annoys and bothers many people- and california only has a law stating no smoking indoors, but riverpark can do this. Anyways, a lot of people view many of the teenagers the same way as smoking- a nuisance, annoying, and bothersom. I agree with a statement made earlier- You aren't going to be bugged if you are acting like a mature decent person with social grace. And if you are over 18 and being obnoxious you can be carded AND still asked to leave. I have seen it even before the curfew, security having to escort someone off the premises. And to the person commenting on a businesses statement about "serving a certain people". Thats business. They all cater to a certain crowd. Maternity, skater, prep, adult, baby even race..ever seen the store d.e.m.o? Thats business for you, and curfews regs like this have worked in the past. Where I use to a live, a theatre implemented a reg that after 6 no one younger than 18 (even with a parent) would be permitted on thursday, fri, and sat nights...and their business doubled. Malls have been doing this for a long time. People talk about their rights...what about the business owners rights?

If River Park wants to increase adult patronage, they should ban children under 18 from the seperate bar area of restaurants. The entire remainder of the restaurants are open to ill mannered brats with doting parents. My wife and I now frequent higher end dining where children are seldom taken, although we like Elephant Bar, and others in the area. I am 58 years of age, and Teens outside having fun. or "hanging out", do not bother me at all, but having children screaming and kicking the seats while we try to have dinner and drinks is inexcusable!They should be politely directed away from the bar area by wait staff.

A few teens (very few) almost spoiled it for everyone else because they feel a need to wear way-far-out styles of clothing that scream at the eye and demand attention, carrying a message of rejection to adults. A few adults feel intimidated and bothered and then choose to attend other movie theaters and shop elsewhere on Friday and Saturday nights. Super-loud woofers turned up full blast in cars passing by in the parking lot added to the negative effect.

But Gail is probably right, this this wasn't the rationale behind the policy. It was probably a misguided decision by someone who (by his own admission) spends too much time in the office.