Boot Camp Culture. Should they pay for the space they use? [With poll]

I haven’t read back through 66 comments on this thread already, so sorry if it’s already been hashed to death. But recently I have seen such classes running in the tiny Veterans Park in Civic at lunch time. Surely that’s not on? Such a small and heavily used park at its peak usage time being half used by this commercial operator?

Deref said :

Slightly off-topic, but related. “Boot camp” operators get to use publicly-owned facilities at no charge. But people who want to use publicly-owned facilities like a hall have to pay rental and take out a $20M insurance policy. WTF?

Well it’s excludable. Once you put walls and a door around a space it becomes possible to make people pay for using that space – so they do. It’s more difficult to regulate and limit use of an open public space that anyone can access.

As for the $20m policy, it would seem to make more sense for the owner of the building to take out public liability insurance and then roll that into the price of the letting fee, unless there’s soome specific risk with the use you are putting it to.

Slightly off-topic, but related. “Boot camp” operators get to use publicly-owned facilities at no charge. But people who want to use publicly-owned facilities like a hall have to pay rental and take out a $20M insurance policy. WTF?

Holden Caulfield said :

I also think a modest blanket fee for Boot Camp operators to pay is a sensible approach.

In theory. But as noted above, then you have to pass a law to mandate the collection of the fee, have some agency be responsible for doing so, also for administering/explaining the rules, interpreting them, and of course some kind of legal sanction for people that don’t pay it, and some mechanism for enforcing it.

End of the day it’s people using a public space, how much effort do you want to go to in policing this stuff. We should be glad someone is getting use out of it.

Also reducing the number of fatties generates a public good that these trainers don’t capture the economic benefit of, so its a positive externality. Let’s say we don’t compensate them for that, and don’t tax them for the use of the commons, and call it even.

Shanski_0 said :

I’m “battling my weight. I battle to keep going when I attend battle camp…
I’m currently in a battle with my bulge… and battle camp is helping that…
I think the name of the company is perfect.

If you had only a weekly drop of battle rations, it would round out your weight battle nicely. Pack E was the nicest..

watto23 said :

My thoughts are that boot camps/group training, should maybe need to register locations they will use with times etc and pay say a rego fee of say $100 a year. that way the public could find out when a public space is not being used for boot camps etc.

Understand and agree about your point on exclusivity of use when a sporting team rents an oval (or whatever).

I also think a modest blanket fee for Boot Camp operators to pay is a sensible approach. In line with the exclusivity of use, perhaps areas being used for Boot Camp activities could be cordoned off by the operators with some small lightweight witches hats (or similar), which could also help make other members of the public spaces that that particular space is temporarily off limits (should be obvious, I know, but the GP can fail basic logic at times).

I’m not a boot camp person, but I do have a personal trainer who operates a gym in her own home. I’ve also been involved in not-for profit sporting teams as well.

Generally junior clubs pay very little for ground hire (used to be $1 and hour). However the fees do stop bigger clubs from blanket booking everything (which happens to some extent anyway). But hiring the ground means you have exclusivity and you can politely ask for others to leave. Often if it was the public and not taking up much space, it didn’t bother us, but if a sporting club tried to sneak in some extra training, especially when we paid for the lighting (thats the expensive bit).

Also sporting clubs have specific needs and requirements. On occasion we would do a group run up a hill or through the streets etc and we didn’t have to pay for that. And sporting clubs, don’t make profits they do make money and want to keep growing etc and then pay staff wages etc so its still a business.

I’d also suggest from seeing a few boot camps around, that the people in them, are generally the ones that need motivation and exercise and are not necessarily the super fit crowd.

Also the reports from Sydney are basically councils trying to make more money. So whats the bigger evil here 🙂

My thoughts are that boot camps/group training, should maybe need to register locations they will use with times etc and pay say a rego fee of say $100 a year. that way the public could find out when a public space is not being used for boot camps etc.

Governments seem to be great at helping smokers and alcoholics, but not people who struggle to lose weight and eating less and exercising more is just part of the problem here.

I’m sure this debate has been had before. Something about the ‘tragedy of the commons’ – goods that are both non-excludable and rivalrous in consumption. Some grey-cardigan types would interpret this to mean it is absolutely imperative that these “goods” be taxed to ensure that the consumption goes to those that value it most. However, I note this means that EVERYONE would be taxed for use of the good- not just those using it to make money.

Personally I think it’s stupid to attempt to impose a user-pays system. I use the public goods on my own account to do sprinting, other miscellaneous training, the mere fact that I’m not handing over my money to some third party doesn’t mean I don’t derive the same utility, it just means there’s one wealth transfer that doesn’t happen.

The whole point of a government is that they are there to provide some public goods. Convert everything to user-pays and I guarantee the people complaining about the personal trainers getting a free ride aren’t the ones who will benefit. So get over yourselves.

LSWCHP said :

Jamesforreason said :

As a Co-owner of a local Canberra Boot Camp called Battle Camp Fitness,

Battle camp fitness? Jeez….

A long time ago I had quite a few mates who had been in battles. One had been flayed from the scalp to his ankles by an RPG that burst through the tree he’d been hiding behind. The back half of his body was covered in tight shiny purple scar tissue. Another had taken an AK round through the ankle. He had a permanent limp, and also had a fair bit of shiny purple scar tissue. Another had almost weekly dreams about the Vietnamese bloke he’d shot through the neck at a range of about 10 feet.

I know you’re just trying to make a buck, doing what others do, and physical fitness is good for everybody, etc etc. I just wish you’d chosen another name for your business because the reality of battle is very far from a run around the lake.

I’m “battling my weight. I battle to keep going when I attend battle camp…
I’m currently in a battle with my bulge… and battle camp is helping that…
I think the name of the company is perfect.

justin heywood said :

I haven’t seen one cogent, evidence-based reason for regulating/taxing Boot Camps…

Equity. If other for-profits, and at least some non-profits, have to pay then so should this for-profit.

I haven’t seen one cogent, evidence-based reason for regulating/taxing Boot Camps (apart from a slight inconenience to somebody walking on Mt Ainslie).

It seems to me that the primary motivation for some kind of government intervention is that there is a risk that someone might be making some profit from the enterprise – a cardinal sin for some petty bureaucrats. I have met more than a few (I am APS) who regard people in ‘trade’ with – at best – suspicion, despite the fact that they are extremely protective of their own comfortable pay and conditions.

And how would users of public spaces be regulated? There are other groups using the open spaces as well, and presumably sometimes someone is paid to organise it. Boot Camps seem to be able to operate virtually anywhere there is open space, so I amagine if one area is suddenly invaded by an army of Sir Humphreys they will move somewhere else.

And what will any new legislation be called? The ‘Open Spaces Act’? The ‘Fitness Tax?’

I have no inclination to attend Boot Camp. But I like the idea that people are heading out at lunch time to run around the park. If GovCo has their ususal way with things, they will kill this idea and the following year introduce a multi-million dollar ‘edcuation’ campaign to encourage people to exercise more. Daft.

Jamesforreason said :

As a Co-owner of a local Canberra Boot Camp called Battle Camp Fitness,

Battle camp fitness? Jeez….

A long time ago I had quite a few mates who had been in battles. One had been flayed from the scalp to his ankles by an RPG that burst through the tree he’d been hiding behind. The back half of his body was covered in tight shiny purple scar tissue. Another had taken an AK round through the ankle. He had a permanent limp, and also had a fair bit of shiny purple scar tissue. Another had almost weekly dreams about the Vietnamese bloke he’d shot through the neck at a range of about 10 feet.

I know you’re just trying to make a buck, doing what others do, and physical fitness is good for everybody, etc etc. I just wish you’d chosen another name for your business because the reality of battle is very far from a run around the lake.

Can we tax golfers using playing fields as a driving range. Then they might bugger off to a golf course

Disinformation said :

I think that calling it “boot camp” when it was nothing LIKE boot camp is pandering a bit though.

Damn straight. I don’t like the term “boot camp”, because it’s American, but I’ve been through the real thing over here, and it’s definitely not something you would ever pay somebody a lot of money for the privilege of attending. Far from it.

I guess the idea behind making NFP sporting teams pay for use might be a simple way to allocate the resource. If they didn’t have to pay then you could have a situation where the Charnwood Lawn Curling team was competing with the West Belconnen Cricket Club for the same space – by making the groups pay the ones who can afford it (and presumably the ones with more community backing) get the space.

Then again comparing NFP sporting groups and bootcamp businesses isnt comparing apples with apples as by definition one is designed for private gain. As other posters have pointed out (or should have pointed out by now) there’s a myriad of businesses that benefit from externalising their costs and internalising their profits … bootcamp operations probably wouldn’t even be a blip on that radar for Government.

As an aside, if this is taking place on NCA controlled land and it fits with the approved purposes in their planning framework its probably all kosher – they do allow all sorts of odd activities on NCA land – the Aboriginal Tent Embassy being but one example.

I voted ‘Aren’t doing any harm’ and still mostly stand by that. To me it seems just another step along the over-regulated path we like to travel along in this country.

However, the argument that local footy teams, etc have to pay to train on ovals, whereas these for-profit businesses don’t have to pay to use public spaces is quite convincing.

Clown Killer said :

If you believe that operators of boot camp type training should have to pay for the privilege of using public space – the by definition you must also support and encourage other forms of government waste. It’s simply illogical to suggest that resources be committed to regulating these activities while at the same time being opposed to school closures, long hospital waiting lists and poor roads. But then again … this is Canberra we’re talking about … why give up an opportunity for more command and control regulation 🙂

Haha, there are definitely plenty of good reasons for and against Boot Camp operators paying rent for the space they use. Mostly, I just took exception to Jamesforreason’s easily dismissed list of reasons.

However, if not-for-profits like sporting groups are expected to pay—it may have escaped Jamesforreason’s notice, they are also supposedly providing a benefit the greater good by encouraging a healthy lifestyle—then why should a business that exists to make a profit, and ultimately for that reason only, get a free ride?

If Jamesforreason really is providing a community service then he should offer his classes free of charge. In which case he would have my full support to use public facilities in pursuit of his activities as he desires.

If you believe that operators of boot camp type training should have to pay for the privilege of using public space – the by definition you must also support and encourage other forms of government waste. It’s simply illogical to suggest that resources be committed to regulating these activities while at the same time being opposed to school closures, long hospital waiting lists and poor roads. But then again … this is Canberra we’re talking about … why give up an opportunity for more command and control regulation 🙂

Jamesforreason said :

As a Co-owner of a local Canberra Boot Camp called Battle Camp Fitness, I have some serious concerns about this topic. The last thing any local small business needs right now is another form of taxation.

Are you serious? When does any business “need” another form of what you think is taxation. As others have rightly pointed out it’s a basic cost of doing business.

Find me a business that wouldn’t like to operate rent free. Apparently only so-called Boot Camps need apply.

Jamesforreason said :

The competition in the fitness industry in the ACT is huge. Prices for your average Boot Camp class in the ACT can be half or even less than that of classes held in Sydney or Melbourne. Also, Canberra Boot Camps have to deal with Canberra’s winter! Participants should get a government rebate for training in such nasty weather 😉 Seriously though, Sydney and Melbourne get no where near as cold as Canberra and hold much better client numbers through winter. A lot of Canberra Boot Camps would have as few as 6 or 8 participants over winter.

We all have to live with the choices we make. If you made a bad one either move to Sydney or Melbourne where there is, apparently, little competition for your business or start looking for a new line of work.

Jamesforreason said :

My business partner and I have close to 20 years experience as fitness instructors combined, and whilst we do see a lot of other Boot Camps doing the right thing, unfortunately we have seen others who do not. All it takes is one group to not take the general public into consideration and we all get painted with the same brush.

Wow, you have lots of experience in your field and you’re qualified in that same field. Come to think of it, that is actually a very good reason for being able to operate a business rent free. If only other industries bothered to get qualifications and experience in their chosen fields then they too could hope to experience the nirvana of rent free workspace lovingly provided by the public purse.

Jamesforreason said :

I can understand how some people might think that running Boot Camps is an easy way to make a lot of money, I can tell you right now it isn’t. We have to start work at 6.00am, finish at 7.30pm (or later) and once you have all your expenses covered you might be lucky enough to afford some extra advertising or buy some new equipment.

Perhaps it’s because other industries don’t operate in the highly motivated world of Boot Camp that they clearly don’t work as hard as you guys. You guys really are unique in the business world. I thank you for taking up the task of doing it so tough when everyone else is doing it so easy.

Jamesforreason said :

Surely if everyone is being respectful, a group fitness class being run on public land is doing so much more good than harm. Lets all take a deep breath 🙂

Oh, I see now. You’re doing this all because the world is a better place for your simple existence. Hospitals function better, children are better educated and a cure for cancer will be found if Boot Camp rent free bliss continues in perpetuity.

Honestly, you were better off letting the peanut gallery take up your cause. Sounds to me like you should start looking for work in a different industry.

Charity perhaps.

Funky1 said :

…
Then please explain why a sporting organisation must register and pay to use a local oval if no one else is using it??

Good question – why are sporting organisations forced to register and pay?

I’m guessing that the answer is the “wear and tear” part of my previous comment; the cost of provision of bits of infrastructure so specific in purpose that the general public will get no direct benefit from it (eg goals, changerooms, line markings etc), but which a number of similar-purpose organisations will use; and a payment to guarantee exclusivity of use at a particular time.

I’d also note that it’s uncommon to find a “family and friends” picnic being held in the middle of a soccer field or cricket pitch, so even the general shape and location of the space might be make it a purpose-specific facility.

Snarky said :

emmsy77 said :

…
If using ovals that are maintained by the government they should have to pay some sort of fee similar to the football teams – I suggest that there is more money around boot camps than the community footy teams and alike and they should contribute.

Why? The people taking part in the bootcamps (and the trainers too) are “the public”, and they’ve already contributed towards the parks just like the rest of us. Why, precisely, do they need to pay more if they are not stopping the rest of us enjoying those same parks?

emmsy77 said :

…
The group that was using the walking trail up Mt Taylor on the Kambah side was dangerous and annoying for the MANY walkers using that trail.

That’s not a “fee” issue, although a sufficiently punitive one might prevent the occurrence. That’s a simple and pretty common lack of consideration for others.

I should add I’m not a bootcamper and have no intention of ever joining one, but I really don’t think a lot of the “they should pay” arguments hold up. Damage the area with your activities? Sure, you should recompense the govt. But if the amenity’s been paid for out of your rates, then as a ratepayer you should be free to enjoy it whether or not you’re in an organised commercial group or just a family and friends picnic on the weekend.

Then please explain why a sporting organisation must register and pay to use a local oval if no one else is using it??

emmsy77 said :

…
If using ovals that are maintained by the government they should have to pay some sort of fee similar to the football teams – I suggest that there is more money around boot camps than the community footy teams and alike and they should contribute.

Why? The people taking part in the bootcamps (and the trainers too) are “the public”, and they’ve already contributed towards the parks just like the rest of us. Why, precisely, do they need to pay more if they are not stopping the rest of us enjoying those same parks?

emmsy77 said :

…
The group that was using the walking trail up Mt Taylor on the Kambah side was dangerous and annoying for the MANY walkers using that trail.

That’s not a “fee” issue, although a sufficiently punitive one might prevent the occurrence. That’s a simple and pretty common lack of consideration for others.

I should add I’m not a bootcamper and have no intention of ever joining one, but I really don’t think a lot of the “they should pay” arguments hold up. Damage the area with your activities? Sure, you should recompense the govt. But if the amenity’s been paid for out of your rates, then as a ratepayer you should be free to enjoy it whether or not you’re in an organised commercial group or just a family and friends picnic on the weekend.

If not-for-profit sporting groups have to pay to use government grounds, then why don’t for-profit businesses? The fees aren’t that high and at least then the govt knows who is training where and so if there is a complaint for noise or damaging facilities, then the powers that be know who is responsible. They should at least have to register their class locations and times with the ACT govt.
Also for insurance purposes, if someone wishes to make a public liability claim for being injured either by participants in these classes or by tripping over equipmet etc used by these classes, then again it makes it easier to track down those responsible.
Registration will also make these operators more responsilble for their actions. For example only yesterday I saw a class being conducted on the grassed area where Foreshore was run and the area has been fenced off to give the grass a chance to recover. Surely there are other grassed area that they could have used.

Ex Warrior said :

justin heywood said :

And now that you’ve alerted me to these nasty special pleaders Breda, I see them everywhere!

What about the balloon people? They are using public airspace. For profit! Then there is the tour companies – using national monuments to entice people onto their nasty tour buses. And don’t get me started on the little girl down the road who runs a dog-walking service on our public footpaths. By God- these parasites are shameless!

I’ll certainly sleep safer tonight knowing that people like you have spent their careers protecting us from this kind of exploitation.

So your saying you think balloon operators don’t pay a fee??
How about explaining then why sporting clubs etc should pay for organised group training when they are not for profit and PT businesses as hard as it is in this market do not have to pay?

here here

Postalgeek said :

Everyone interferes with everyone else in public spaces. Cyclists interfere with pedestrians […]

So what you’re saying is that cyclists should pay rego?

Classified said :

Snarky said :

If they aren’t blocking the public from using a public space I have no problems with them.

This. +1.

If using ovals that are maintained by the government they should have to pay some sort of fee similar to the football teams – I suggest that there is more money around boot camps than the community footy teams and alike and they should contribute.

The group that was using the walking trail up Mt Taylor on the Kambah side was dangerous and annoying for the MANY walkers using that trail.

Everyone interferes with everyone else in public spaces. Cyclists interfere with pedestrians and pedestrians interfere with cyclists. Prams interfere. Kids interfere. Dogs interfere. Cafes interfere. Buskers interfere. Skateboarders interfere. Wheelchairs interfere. Elderly pensioners on electric scooters interfere.

If it’s outside your bedroom window, fair enough, but this issue probably wasn’t remotely on the radar of most posters until the OP. Suddenly everyone feels people getting fit at 6.30 down by the lake need closer scrutiny?

helium said :

Q. do they ‘boot camps’ have to have Public Liability and Profesional Indemnity when operating on public land, just like other events ?. Obviously their employees have Workers Compensation, but would not cover attendees.

I think they should use sportsgrounds, and for free (and we have many) and not use the Parliamentary triangle or other parks.

The trainer/company is required to have liability insurance.

It is also on the onus of the trainer to adequately check their surroundings prior to commencing a class. If someone falls over and sprains their ankle from a divot in the ground, they can seek damages from the trainer not the landowner.

I think it’s pathetic to ask these companies to pay to use the land. They aren’t doing any harm, they are helping people get fit an healthy so what’s the big deal.

Most should logically have informed ‘landowners’ of their use before starting classes anyways.

I would think they should only pay if the area is reserved solely for their use. This would only really happen if they had a large enough group so that the rest of the public feel excluded from the area.

Bramina said :

Breda is right. There are a set of about 10 standard arguments that people use when pushing their interests to the government. Interest groups continually espouse how are doing a public good out of the goodness of their hearts. But this has no semblance to reality. What they are actually doing, admittedly without understanding it, is trying to get government to redraw the rules so they can carve some of the pi from the rest of society.

Having worked in the public service for a while, these pleas can become mind numbingly repetitious. Although, I note that the public service is also a special interest group and also engages in this behaviour, after all almost every one is in one special interest group or another.

Someone please explain to me where this industry is lobbying government? As far as I can see, this isn’t on the radar for the ACT in any way – this whole thing was started by someone simply linking to a story related to what’s happening in NSW, and asking whether we should consider the same here. Someone who runs a boot camp replies on an internet forum, and all of a sudden we’re talking about protecting ministers, special interest groups, redrawing rules (what rules? If this activity isn’t regulated now, what is there to redraw?) and the boot camp operators pleading for special permission… I’d call it a mountain out of a mole hill, but there isn’t even a mole hill to start with.

I think they should use sportsgrounds, and for free (and we have many) and not use the Parliamentary triangle or other parks.

You realise that the location that they’re operating is down to where their clients are located, not necessarily because they have some obsession with working in the parliamentary triangle? Given that many of the people attending want to exercise on their lunch break, being able to do that somewhere close by is kind of important.

thatsnotme said :

Wow, are you actually writing this stuff with a straight face? ‘Protecting Ministers and the public’? ‘Public assets converted to private use’? Anyone would think that on any given day that the boot camp operators set up razor wire enclosures around the lake, with guards on towers making sure that nobody encroaches on their patch of grass.

Breda is right. There are a set of about 10 standard arguments that people use when pushing their interests to the government. Interest groups continually espouse how are doing a public good out of the goodness of their hearts. But this has no semblance to reality. What they are actually doing, admittedly without understanding it, is trying to get government to redraw the rules so they can carve some of the pi from the rest of society.

Having worked in the public service for a while, these pleas can become mind numbingly repetitious. Although, I note that the public service is also a special interest group and also engages in this behaviour, after all almost every one is in one special interest group or another.

justin heywood said :

And now that you’ve alerted me to these nasty special pleaders Breda, I see them everywhere!

What about the balloon people? They are using public airspace. For profit! Then there is the tour companies – using national monuments to entice people onto their nasty tour buses. And don’t get me started on the little girl down the road who runs a dog-walking service on our public footpaths. By God- these parasites are shameless!

I’ll certainly sleep safer tonight knowing that people like you have spent their careers protecting us from this kind of exploitation.

So your saying you think balloon operators don’t pay a fee??
How about explaining then why sporting clubs etc should pay for organised group training when they are not for profit and PT businesses as hard as it is in this market do not have to pay?

breda said :

The Boot Camp owner certainly has captured most of the perennial elements of special pleading used by lobbyists to get public assets converted to private use at no charge since time immemorial.

True, and the following points capture the situation nicely, except for:

breda said :

Sport, this town is full of public servants who have spent their careers protecting Ministers and the public from attempts to shave off just a little piece of the commonwealth (in the old sense) for their personal benefit, using these sorts of specious claims. We haven’t always won, but we can smell this stuff coming from a mile off.

You should have known better than to write this. It just gives people a chance to ignore your argument and indulge in a bit of argumentum ad hominem.

Q. do they ‘boot camps’ have to have Public Liability and Profesional Indemnity when operating on public land, just like other events ?. Obviously their employees have Workers Compensation, but would not cover attendees.

I think they should use sportsgrounds, and for free (and we have many) and not use the Parliamentary triangle or other parks.

Taking the points one by one:

Balloonists are not using public spaces owned, used and maintained by taxpayers to make money, so that is irrelevant.

Tourist operators do not run their businesses on publicly owned and maintained land, so ditto.

The ‘little girl down the road who runs a dog-walking business’ (oh, be still, my beating heart! what about the children?) had better hope one of her charges doesn’t bite someone or attack another dog. If that happens, we will find that it is not a business at all. Otherwise, she should get an ABN and appropriate insurance. She is like a taxi driver on a public road, not a bunch of grunting dorks taking over quiet enjoyment of a public park.

If the local jogging group wants to run around the lake, no-one is going to stop them – as long as they don’t restrict the amenity of other users.

If Jog To Look Cool and Get More Chicks and be Like, Environmentally Aware Pty Ltd start using space and annoying people to the detriment of other users, the fact that they have a Higher Cause is neither here nor there.

creative_canberran said :

I think so depending on the location. A group of them take over a paved area outside one of the buildings in New Acton. Another group frequently takes over Reconciliation Place. Yet another group takes over the National Library podium and damages the walls with their chalk, before doing laps around the place running over people. There’s plenty of open spaces, if they want to use these ones which interfere with others, then f-ing well pay for it.

[nods] Fair point – and encouraging them to use less heavily used parks would “spread the load” and benefit everybody.

And now that you’ve alerted me to these nasty special pleaders Breda, I see them everywhere!

What about the balloon people? They are using public airspace. For profit! Then there is the tour companies – using national monuments to entice people onto their nasty tour buses. And don’t get me started on the little girl down the road who runs a dog-walking service on our public footpaths. By God- these parasites are shameless!

I’ll certainly sleep safer tonight knowing that people like you have spent their careers protecting us from this kind of exploitation.

breda said :

The Boot Camp owner certainly has captured most of the perennial elements of special pleading used by lobbyists to get public assets converted to private use at no charge since time immemorial.

….

Sport, this town is full of public servants who have spent their careers protecting Ministers and the public from attempts to shave off just a little piece of the commonwealth (in the old sense) for their personal benefit, using these sorts of specious claims. We haven’t always won, but we can smell this stuff coming from a mile off.

Wow, are you actually writing this stuff with a straight face? ‘Protecting Ministers and the public’? ‘Public assets converted to private use’? Anyone would think that on any given day that the boot camp operators set up razor wire enclosures around the lake, with guards on towers making sure that nobody encroaches on their patch of grass.

Thank god we have the likes of yourself to stand up to the poor, oppressed people of Canberra, too fearful to speak out against the scourge of people exercising together in public spaces.

I thought this whole debate was getting pretty ridiculous when creative_canberran was claiming that boot camper chalk was somehow damaging the stone podium of the National Library, before the participants in some type of frenzy took off doing laps and running over innocents, but you’ve managed to take it to another level of paranoia. Congratulations!

thatsnotme said :

If the criteria is whether the space is being used to generate a profit, then I think chuggers should be way higher up the list of targets than boot camps.

What about free parking in the parliamentary triangle? 😉

breda said :

……Sport, this town is full of public servants who have spent their careers protecting Ministers and the public from attempts to shave off just a little piece of the commonwealth (in the old sense) for their personal benefit, using these sorts of specious claims. We haven’t always won, but we can smell this stuff coming from a mile off.

Thank god for you and your sense of smell breda! Imagine the shambles this country would be in if we didn’t have people like you watching out for just this kind of thing. Thankyou. Thankyou!

(and here’s me thinkin’ they were just people getting fit in the park)

.

The Boot Camp owner certainly has captured most of the perennial elements of special pleading used by lobbyists to get public assets converted to private use at no charge since time immemorial.

– the last thing any small business needs is more taxation – but, (a) it is not taxation, it is paying for what you use as an input to your business; and (b) every other small business, restaurants that use footpaths being an obvious example, already pays for this.

– competition is stiff, and prices are cheaper than in other places – so what? Nobody forced you to set up your business, you will keep the profits if it succeeds, so what does this have to do with giving you rent free premises at taxpayers’ expense?

– cold winters make life tough for operators – well yes, they make life tough for ice-cream vendors, bikini retailers and sunscreen sellers as well. What does this have to do with whether you should get free stuff, courtesy of the taxpayer? Do you think that people who sell snow gear in Queensland are also entitled to special consideration at public expense?

– we are highly qualified, make almost no money, and are doing a service for the community (and our competitors are irresponsible) – oh, please.

Sport, this town is full of public servants who have spent their careers protecting Ministers and the public from attempts to shave off just a little piece of the commonwealth (in the old sense) for their personal benefit, using these sorts of specious claims. We haven’t always won, but we can smell this stuff coming from a mile off.

Everyone training is individually using the public space for their public recreation. The fitness trainer is there for motivation and to ensure they are doing their individual exercise correctly. Just so happens there are a number of people individually training at the same time at the same place getting advice and motivation from the same trainer.

Some ovals you do pay to get into. Public spaces are there for the public to use. These ovals etc can also be booked at which the space becomes a user pay system and they can ask others to leave (including bootcamps)

“As a Co-owner of a local Canberra Boot Camp called Battle Camp Fitness, I have some serious concerns about this topic. The last thing any local small business needs right now is another form of taxation.” 8:23 pm, 05 Dec 11

This is not another form of taxation. For you it is an input cost.

creative_canberran said :

I think so depending on the location. A group of them take over a paved area outside one of the buildings in New Acton. Another group frequently takes over Reconciliation Place. Yet another group takes over the National Library podium and damages the walls with their chalk, before doing laps around the place running over people. There’s plenty of open spaces, if they want to use these ones which interfere with others, then f-ing well pay for it.

Arnt you ntalking about Public Servant Places? Maybe it will Catch on and they might Harden The F*^k up, and look less like Soft C*^ks. Nothing is worse than a Fat Cat! That has too many wobbly bits.

If the criteria is whether the space is being used to generate a profit, then I think chuggers should be way higher up the list of targets than boot camps.

As a Co-owner of a local Canberra Boot Camp called Battle Camp Fitness, I have some serious concerns about this topic. The last thing any local small business needs right now is another form of taxation.

The competition in the fitness industry in the ACT is huge. Prices for your average Boot Camp class in the ACT can be half or even less than that of classes held in Sydney or Melbourne. Also, Canberra Boot Camps have to deal with Canberra’s winter! Participants should get a government rebate for training in such nasty weather 😉 Seriously though, Sydney and Melbourne get no where near as cold as Canberra and hold much better client numbers through winter. A lot of Canberra Boot Camps would have as few as 6 or 8 participants over winter.

My business partner and I have close to 20 years experience as fitness instructors combined, and whilst we do see a lot of other Boot Camps doing the right thing, unfortunately we have seen others who do not. All it takes is one group to not take the general public into consideration and we all get painted with the same brush.

I can understand how some people might think that running Boot Camps is an easy way to make a lot of money, I can tell you right now it isn’t. We have to start work at 6.00am, finish at 7.30pm (or later) and once you have all your expenses covered you might be lucky enough to afford some extra advertising or buy some new equipment.

Surely if everyone is being respectful, a group fitness class being run on public land is doing so much more good than harm. Lets all take a deep breath 🙂

Spykler said :

Canberra has tons of open space, as long as they aren’t inconveniencing others what’s the issue?

Do other for-profit orgainsations have to pay if they use the open space as part of their business? If the answer is yes – and I don’t know the answer – then so should the boot camp people.

I don’t mind them using parks and whatnot, but the mob using the Crawford St carpark in QBN get in the way a bit.

Canberra has tons of open space, as long as they aren’t inconveniencing others what’s the issue?

If they stop/disturb the flow of foot or cycle traffic, i vote yes.

matt31221 said :

You can buy the boot camp book off amazon for $5 and it will tell you how to motivate yourself to run around ovals and do push-ups.

I think you’ve missed the point of boot camp – people need verbal and financial motivation. Also, the internet should have solved the obesity crisis if that was the case, plenty of free information on there.

dave__ said :

If this was anything else I would say tax the hell out of them. But as it is a health and fitness thing, and people are getting fat and lazy, I think it’s a good thing.

What better use could there be for public spaces. This is the kind of behaviour the government should be encouraging.

If there is a problem with them interfering with other users of public spaces, perhaps that should be regulated. However, governments can rarely content themselves to regulate just one thing. They would create burdensome regulation that will drive up costs and inconvenience boot campers driving them away from what can only be desirable behaviour.

I think enrique nailed it. If it’s for-profit use then they should pay.

Ex Warrior said :

Definitely Yes. Not only that they should only be allowed to use space designated for group training ie sporting ovals. Why should junior footy teams etc have to pay and profitable businesses not pay???

good point, though the payments do, admittedly, go to a government tasked with maintaining the public space to a suitable standard and ensuring that such space is available to the users at the time they need it and so duly restricted to other would-be users at that time…

but a point to consider…

Full Metal Jacket type language/noise levels should not be encouraged.
But I speak as a very lazy person who likes to sit in parks and read. I call it book camp.

Snarky said :

If they aren’t blocking the public from using a public space I have no problems with them.

This. +1.

We should be doing as much as we can in every way possible to encourage people to get active and exercise on a regular basis.

Having said that however, most other sporting codes around town that use government provided facilities usually have to pay a fee of some sort. E.g. Football/Cricket/Soccer/Athletics have to pay ground (and sometimes lighting) fees to use the irrigated ovals, Tennis clubs pay court fees, Netball/Basketball also pay court fees, etc. It all goes toward making the facilities available and keeping them maintained.

Why is this type of sporting/excercise activity any different? In some way, given that these groups are essentially commercial for-profit enterprises I’d say there is probably more of a case to ask that they chip in a bit.

You’d have to assess it on a case by case basis. It would cost a lot more to keep the lush green lawn of federation place maintained than say a local patch of parkland that gets mown once in a while.

Hmm, but then again – isn’t that why we pay taxes to have parks in the first place? As a place we can go to exercise, relax, etc…?

I’m split on both sides of the fence on this one.

I think that they should pay up the second that they inconvenience the public in terms of preventing normal access or use by their activities, but only when that happens. I’ve got no problems with them utilising space that nobody else bothers with.
I have even less of an issue with attractive female participants seeing how tight they can get their lycra.
I think that calling it “boot camp” when it was nothing LIKE boot camp is pandering a bit though.

Definitely Yes. Not only that they should only be allowed to use space designated for group training ie sporting ovals. Why should junior footy teams etc have to pay and profitable businesses not pay???

Absolutely not! Not to use public space! But they should lower their prices a bit towards customers – some of them are a bit of a rip-off. You can buy the boot camp book off amazon for $5 and it will tell you how to motivate yourself to run around ovals and do push-ups.

The article states that other park users are intimidated. What a bunch of wingers. What about all the annoying loud children and dogs running around. What about the football A-holes kicking balls at you not to mention the golf enthusiasts hitting balls around the parks and ovals narrowly missing you. Perhaps they should be taxed too. Geez what a police state.

Why would you want to send your boots on a camp?

If they aren’t blocking the public from using a public space I have no problems with them.

I think so depending on the location. A group of them take over a paved area outside one of the buildings in New Acton. Another group frequently takes over Reconciliation Place. Yet another group takes over the National Library podium and damages the walls with their chalk, before doing laps around the place running over people. There’s plenty of open spaces, if they want to use these ones which interfere with others, then f-ing well pay for it.

I don’t think they should.

If this was anything else I would say tax the hell out of them. But as it is a health and fitness thing, and people are getting fat and lazy, I think it’s a good thing.

They are already paying income tax, most of the companies are getting charged ludicrous amounts to work and advertise at gyms, pay insurance and on top of that there is a new company or gym opening every 5 seconds in Canberra, if the government want’s to get rid of yet another local business, then go for it.