Local mall adopts extreme curfew

[RootedPhoenix]

If I were to show the same group to a less well informed person they'd be of the opinion that these kids were one step away from a riot.

They are, if you walk up to them like you're gonna fight them like wild beasts. They largely are not if you treat them with respect and speak to them like human beings.

People do not want to see this. They want to make every teenager into a wild beast set on world destruction. This isn't true.

When I was in my early teen years, there was a 7-Eleven near my house. They must have had problems with teenagers trashing their store and stealing stuff near the times school got out. They made sure to only let a certain number of teens in at an one time so that they could keep an eye on them. If they knew you, and knew you not to cause trouble, they left you alone.

That was better than blanket banning, I think.

Malls need to ban those they see causing trouble, and leave those who do not cause trouble alone. I also wonder what that one mall is going to do about its teen employees.

[Boozy]

People are afraid of teenagers because they are loud, make sudden gestures, gather in large groups, and are in peak health. Our hindbrains warn us away from such things.

Even I have a instinctual negative reaction when I walk in to a place and see a horde of teens. But logically, I know they're probably good kids. We were all teenagers once, and most of us are good people.

[Dreamstalker]

Malls need to ban those they see causing trouble, and leave those who do not cause trouble alone.

How would that work? Checking IDs at the doors? That seems like a logistical nightmare.

I would guess that the teen employees would have to wear a wristband or something else that says they work in the mall (issued by the mall or the store owner).

It's interesting how I have never seen the assholish behavior in outdoor malls, only the indoor ones.

[tropicsgoddess]

I honestly think that mall curfew is a bit extreme. Don't we have mall security to keep things in line at the mall and to kick out the ones that cause trouble?!! But unfortunately like the saying goes one bad apple spoils the bunch.

[RootedPhoenix]

How would that work? Checking IDs at the doors? That seems like a logistical nightmare.

I meant that they needed to ban people they saw causing trouble when they saw them causing trouble, therefore not cutting into any of the privileges of those who were not causing any trouble. Sorry that I didn't make sense.

Of course, I don't know how they'd go about preventing people causing trouble in the first place, which I imagine was the intent of the blanket curfew. That is, and would be, a logistical nightmare.

[Dreamstalker]

I was wondering how would they keep the offenders from coming back? That would be fairly easy to enforce in single stores, but the mall itself...yikes.

[Greenday]

To enforce bans on everyone who earns would would take a small task force, not a bunch of mall cops.

[Slytovhand]

I'm seeing a couple of other things going on here.

Firstly, let's just imagine a 17 year old who goes climbing on tables and chairs, falls, breaks a bone or 2. Parents sue... costs a fortune for the mall owners, because the 17 year old isn't 'legally responsible', and thus, someone else must be.. guess who?

4pm?? Obvious - they're keeping the school kids away from the place after school... makes sense to me. Not just for the violent or rowdy ones, but also just that large gangs of teenagers put other people off, and perhaps that on it's own is driving business from other patrons down. This may help to curb it.

As for the inherent ageist bit... well, don't we already discriminate on that? Sex, drugs, alcohol, driving, guns, movie tickets, train tickets etc. etc Under 18, you're still technically a minor, so you have a lot less individual rights than an adult (such as levels of prosecution!!)

One thing I would find interesting as far as enforcement... what right would a security guard have to ask for ID? Wouldn't that be a standard violation of rights?

Banning all instead of just throwing out the bad ones? A lot easier to ban everyone, and then slowly work your way back, rather than the other way around.

Oh, and as for the legality.. question to illustrate the point. If someone gets injured in a mall, who gets sued - the mall managers/administration/owners, or the local government?

Btw ppl's... what's an american 'gang-banger'? We have that term down here, but I suspect it means something quite different

[Evandril]

Ok, few points here, from my perspective.

1) Malls taking money from the government. The money is given because a mall *makes* money for the government, in taxes, and provides jobs for an area. The government is bribing them, not trying to control them. Anyone who gets more back on their taxes would have to fall under the same 'rules' as a government employee, if the mall had to fall under the same rules as a government building does

2) I worked at a mall growing up...and my Mom worked at one since before I was born. The teens were annoying, but the parents that used the mall as a free baby-sitting service were FAR worse. Like someone else pointed out, the kids were running wild, and if they hurt themselves because they were unsupervised...the PARENTS would then sue the mall. Is the age limit of 18 unfair to teenagers? Yep...but it's the legal 'age' for being responsible for your own behavior, and I'm sure that's the big reason behind it.

3) The mall is out to make a profit, pure and simple...If they will lose less money banning all teens, that's what they are going to do. Trying to 'ban' people from a mall is really not possible, even doing it in a store is *hard*, doubly so on weekends when there is quite a bit of traffic.

[powerboy]

I think it's discrimination, pure and simple. The vocal minority get noticed and then blanket rules are passed. If you want to fix the problem, get more security in and ban the people making problems.

Yeah about that, if the mall is losing money - because of the rowdy teens. Then how would they have enough to pay for extra security?

The lack of respect that society has for the young is terrible and makes me sad every time it comes up.

But it is ok, for people to disrespect the old? Thats the same damn thing.

[AFPheonix]

Not having an extreme curfew isn't disrespecting older people. If they made a curfew to prevent older people in, then yeah, that would be disrespectful.

Teenagers incredibly are just like everyone else: some are good people, some are bad people, some occasionally do incredibly stupid things. The same can be said for any age group.

[McDreidel09]

I'm a little over a month away from turning 18. That would really suck for me. I've been able to walk the mall by myself since I was 12, because I proved that I was mature enough to do so. I walk around, go into stores, search around, spend some money, and enjoy everything. When store clerks ask me if I want one of their store's credit cards, they are surprised to learn that I'm not even old enough to have a credit card.

The mall I go to has no curfew. It closes at 9. I do think 4pm is a bit extreme. I would understand like...8 or 9pm, if the mall is open at that time.

My money is just as good as everyone else's. Just because a group of kids my age act like asses, doesn't mean I'm going to act like an ass.

[Pedersen]

My money is just as good as everyone else's.

Unfortunately, and contrary to popular opinion, your dollar does not have the same value as some other random person's dollar. Let's use an extreme (and illegal) example to prove the point.

Consider a store owner in an area where the Ku Klux Klan still has a stranglehold on the hearts and minds of the vast majority of the populace that comes to the store (like 95%). Now, the Grand Exalted High Poobah person of the area comes in and tells the store owner that, unless the store owner stops treating the "undesirables" equally, the GEHPp is going to tell all Klan members to stop shopping there.

From the store owner's perspective, anybody who fits the definition of "undesirable" is worth far less than somebody else. Especially since the store owner has just been told that he's likely to run the risk of losing 95% of his customer base unless he does this.

You're a white male? Your dollar, to that store owner, is worth a lot more than the "colored" man who walked in behind you. But even your dollar is worth a lot less than the GEHPp person from above. Your voice might sway a few, but his voice will sway a lot more.

Now, change a few of the specifics around. Instead of it being the KKK, it's the community at large. Instead of it being the "coloreds", it's the rabble-rousers. Only thing is, there's no GEHPp person telling the mall owners what to do. It's simply the case that the mall is making less money overall, and stores are threatening to leave and/or close due to an inability to make sufficient sales at the mall.

The mall owners start looking at the trends. And what do they find? Last year, sales were acceptable. This year, they're not. And the trends show that the sales drop dramatically when school is out. This results in the logical correlation that people who are attending school are, somehow, negatively impacting sales when they are not in school (and yes, I know that correlation does not equal causation. It is still a seemingly logical step that most people will take). Regardless of how it's occurring, it's occurring.

Now, put yourself in the mall owner's shoes. You're seeing the value of the mall drop. You can charge less per square foot due to the lower sales. You're making less money. Businesses are threatening to close. And the item that most stares you in the face is that, somehow, school age people are killing your sales.

Obviously, their dollars are not worth that much. If anything, their dollars are costing you sales, so far as you can see.

Working with that as my data, I'd be hard pressed to allow unaccompanied minors into my mall as well. In the mall owner's position, I think you would be, too.

[McDreidel09]

I was speaking from monetary value. Forget who has the dollar. It is a dollar.

4 pm is still too extreme. I understand a curfew. Curfew is fine. That is their decision, but that is waaaay too early. Honestly, if I were a mall owner, I would put up a curfew, but around 8pm.

[Pedersen]

I was speaking from monetary value. Forget who has the dollar. It is a dollar.

That is the sort of thinking that winds up closing down businesses. A dollar is only worth as much as it costs you to get it. If you have to spend two dollars to get one dollar, that dollar you got is actually taking money out of your pocket. So no, a dollar is not a dollar. And thinking that way may very well cost you your business (should you become a business owner).

And that's the fundamental dilemma faced by the mall owners. Their data showed them that sales were being lost. The conclusion they drew from their data was that teenagers were costing them sales.

4 pm is still too extreme. I understand a curfew. Curfew is fine. That is their decision, but that is waaaay too early. Honestly, if I were a mall owner, I would put up a curfew, but around 8pm.

Ponder the logic of that time with me, please. Most malls that I have been to close at 9pm. Some close a little later, but (aside from movie theater portions) I don't recall ever seeing one that closed after 10pm. We'll go for generous, and use 10pm as the closing time.

Now, as a mall owner, you've come to the conclusion (rightly or wrongly) that unaccompanied teenagers are costing you sales to such a degree that you have to ban them. You are doing this to try to bring back the older crowds that kept your overall sales figures higher.

So, in order to get these older people to come back and spend more money, you will give them (at most) two hours. Depending on your mall hours, as little as one hour.

What's more, you're trying to bring these same people in at the end of their day. Few of them want to go out after they've had dinner and browse through the mall. Generally, their day is done. And now you're giving them one to two hours to come in.

It's not going to be worth their time or effort to do so. If anything, you are going to make the situation worse. Now, instead of just having random teens (some of whom spend money) and a small number of adults, you're going to have no teens and that same small number of adults. You're going to reduce sales even further.

Your curfew time makes no business sense.

Does the situation suck all around? Yes, yes it does. I don't have an easy solution, either.

If you wish to prove me wrong, please do. I would suggest specifically targeting two suppositions, since those are the ones I'm least certain about myself (and am not researching right now). They are:

• Adults are not terribly likely to come out to a mall after 8pm. They might stay if they're already there, but are not likely to wait until that time to go. Perhaps other times might be a better compromise. Show me which times will work and why.
• Unaccompanied teenagers are costing the mall money in the form of reduced sales while they are there. Furthermore, it's possible that they are costing the mall money in the form of expanded security forces, vandalism repair, higher shoplifting rates in the stores, and fines/other issues from the local police department. Show me that all of this is wrong, and that the money the unaccompanied teenagers bring into the mall offsets all of that, and results in higher net profits than are gained when unaccompanied teenagers are banned.

As I said, I could be wrong on all of that. I have no problem with that. But, right now, I believe those two items to be true. And, based on their own sales data, so do the mall owners.