THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 2014
PAGE 3
CAMPUS
十
Longboarders struggle with on-campus restrictions
CODY KUIPER news@kansan.com
While many people like to take their cars, the bus, a bike or simply walk to campus, a small group prefers to take a different approach.
Students like Derek Orfanos, a junior from Chicago, like to cruise to class on a longboard.
"It's just a fun way to get around," said Orfanos, who's been using the skateboard-surfboard hybrid for about three years. "It's a lot easier than other ways of getting around, like if you're on a bike and have to lock it up and all that."
But longboarders like Orfanos run into a bit of a problem once they reach campus on their boards: it's outlawed. According to a city ordinance, it is illegal to use a skateboard, rollerblades, rollerskates or another similar device on sidewalks from the area of Jayhawk Boulevard from West Campus Road to Thirteenth Street, including 1,000 feet on either side of that area.
Violators of the ordinance are subject to a citation up to $90 and are summoned to appear in municipal court according to Article 17-702.2(B) the Code of the City of Lawrence. The violators longboard could also be impounded. The law has been in effect since July 1996.
Although Orfanos has never been issued a citation, he
has been pulled over twice by campus police for violating the rule, one that he disagrees with because the differences between a skateboard and a longboard aren't considered in the law, he said.
"A longboard is kind of like a bike because it's flat and doesn't have a lip like a skateboard, so you can't do tricks and jump up and do damage to school property," he said. "You just kind of cruise on the streets, so it's a bit different than skateboarding. It's a means of getting around more as opposed to having fun and jumping around."
Colby Killinger, a senior from Silver Lake, has also been longboarding to class since he arrived at the University in 2009. He said he's been told to stop on campus multiple times as well, and always tries to convince officers why he sees longboarding as a different and safer means of transportation compared to skating.
"You don't get off the ground, that's the big difference between it and skating," he said. "Skateboards are touchier too, you might hit a small rock or twig and it will knock you over, but on a longboard you just cruise right over that stuff." Killinger transferred to the University from Graceland University in Lamoni, Iowa, and one of the biggest differences he noted was what he sees as a lack of respect for longboarders from Lawrence
citizens.
"Lamoni was just a very longboard-aware town," he said. "We could bomb a hill and there's a car cruising right behind us, whereas here a car might try and pass you and get around you. There was more of an acceptance there, and here it's more looked down upon, where people think it's kind of a nuisance."
"Safety is a concern as it deals with a large pedestrian population," said KU Public Safety Captain James Anguiano. "This would also be the case if someone was riding in the street as it would deal with vehicular traffic."
While damage to campus property is one of the reasons the ban on skateboarding exists, another motivating factor is the safety of those walking on sidewalks as well.
Killinger said he understands longboarding at the University could potentially be dangerous. He thinks some sort of balance needs to be struck that allows students to longboard near campus, but keeps other pedestrians safe.
"You have to know your limits and skate within them," Killinger said. "Boarders have to be respectful of other students and campus goers, so I could understand no longboarding between the booths during school hours."
GEORGE MULLINIX/KANSAN
— Edited by Jamie Koziol
Colby Killinger, a senior from Silver Lake, rides his longboard on campus. Longboards, like skateboards, are illegal on campus sidewalks.
Students can still receive free assistance preparing their 2014 taxes through Legal Services for Students. Check out their workshop schedule at legalservices ku.edu.
at legalservices.ku.edu.
Kansas now able to strip Planned Parenthood funds
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WICHITA, Kan. — A federal appeals court on Tuesday ruled that Kansas can strip two Planned Parenthood clinics of federal family planning money while the organization moves forward with its legal challenge of a state law it says is retaliation for its advocacy of abortion rights.
At issue in Tuesday's ruling is money distributed to states under Title X, a federally financed family planning program. The Title X money targets low-income individuals seeking reproductive services such as birth control, pregnancy testing, cancer screenings and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases. It cannot be used for abortions.
ly be overturned. He ordered Kansas to continue funding Planned Parenthood until the case was resolved. He also found the state law violates the U.S. Constitution's supremacy clause, saying states cannot impose additional requirements for entities to qualify for federal programs.
This photo shows the Planned Parenthood at 2226 E Central Ave. in Wichita, Kan. A federal appeals court on Tuesday, March 25, ruled that Kansas can strip two Planned Parenthood clinics of federal family planning funds while the organization moves forward with its legal challenge of a state law.
U. S. District Court J. Thomas Marten blocked enforcement of the state law in 2011, ruling that it unconstitutionally was intended to punish Planned Parenthood for advocating for abortion rights and would like-
A divided panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver overturned Marten's rulings, saying Kansas can halt the funding. Tuesday's decision is not a final ruling on the merits of the case itself, and the appeals court sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings. Given the split 2-1 ruling and the issues at stake in the litigation, it is also likely that the panel's decision could be appealed to the full court for a rehearing.
ASSOICATED PRESS
The appeals court panel rejected Planned Parenthood's claims that losing the family planning money amounted to a violation of free-speech rights for associating with
abortion providers. It also said that the supremacy clause does not necessarily entitle Planned Parenthood to a court order forcing the state to continue the family planning funding.
The panel rejected the notion that Planned Parenthood can challenge the state law as unconstitutionally "solely on the ground that its passage was motivated by a desire to penalize Planned Parenthood's protected speech and association." Judge Carlos Lucero wrote that Marten's ruling was "well-grounded" in its findings of fact, had correctly applied court precedent and was free of error.
Kansas had argued Marten's ruling "emasculates the state
Planned Parenthood's lawsuit challenged a Kansas law that requires the state to fire allocate Title X money to public health departments and hospitals, which leaves no funds for specialty family planning clinics like Planned Parenthood.
of Kansas' autonomy and sovereignty rights" in the Constitution's 11th Amendment. The state contends the law restricting the distribution of federal family planning funds does
in vicinity and rays, member of which provides abortion services.
not target Planned Parenthood because the statute itself does not name the group or mention abortion.
The entities affected are Planned Parenthood's clinics