Wisconsin county wants 'Pokemon Go' to pay for use of parks

Feb. 21 (UPI) -- A Wisconsin county's new ordinance seeks to force the makers of Pokemon Go to keep their digital monsters out of public parks unless they pay for permits.

Milwaukee County officials said the ordinance was inspired by the large crowds the augmented reality game brought to the country's parks last summer and the messes they left behind.

The new ordinance requires Niantic, the San Francisco company behind Pokemon Go, and the makers of similar games to keep their virtual content out of parks unless they apply for permits using the same process as any group seeking to host events at parks.

County Supervisor Sheldon Wasserman, who authored the proposal signed by County Executive Chris Abele Feb. 10, said fees range from $100 to $1,000, depending on how much of a park will be used and the expected size of the crowd.

"We're prepared for all of them now," Wasserman told WISN-TV.

Wasserman said the county could pursue legal action if Niantic doesn't comply with the ordinance.

County Supervisor Eddie Cullen, who voted against the ordinance, said people should be responsible for their own behavior.

"If someone crashes their car while using [Google Maps] it's not Google Maps' responsibility to pay for the damages. That falls on the user," he said. "If a Pokemon Go player litters or damages something in the parks, it should be the responsibility of the player, not the corporation to pay for damages."

A St. Clair Shores, Mich., couple filed a lawsuit against Niantic in August of last year, alleging the game caused an influx of visitors to Wahby Park, which is located near their home.

"In early July, shortly after the release of Pokemon Go, Plaintiffs noticed a significant increase in the number of visitors to Wahby Park, from an estimated 15 to 20 visitors at any given time to at least several hundred, most of whom were visibly using their mobile phones," Scott and Jayme Dodich's lawsuit states. "Plaintiffs soon learned that Defendant Niantic had placed a Pokemon Gym and at least seven Pokestops on the park, and had placed Pokemon on Plaintiffs' property as well."