NO LOITERING

the start of the week, i found myself in a conversation about gentrification, and one of the side effects was an interrogation of loitering. i thought about stoops and sidewalks and the laundromat across the street from my apartment. i considered the underlying logic of a law designed to prevent people from congregating without purpose.

who defines purpose?

as far i can reckon, the "NO LOITERING" sign takes - as a starting point - that the natural state for a person is to be either:

1) in one's own box
2) in someone else's box
3) in transit between boxes

it sounds strange stated this way, but it also appears necessary. loitering as criminal endeavor can only seem commonsensical to a society that embraces (implicitly) the notion of an underlying deviancy to open spaces and social gatherings motivated by purposes other than commerce.

that being said, we could learn a lot from Peter: