Tom Thompson asks excellent questions about those who rent public space and their right to privacy and I think I have the answers he is looking for.
I faced this very dilemma about 15 years ago when Bruegger's Run For The Bagels, which was run on the roads of Lake Nokomos, City of Minneapolis Park Land excluded men. An assistant Minneapolis Park Board Commissioner asked me very similar questions, "Are you saying that if the Swedish-American Society or the Jewish War Veterans rented space for a picnic in a City Park they would have to let anyone in? What if Klansmen wanted to attend a NAACP function in the park." He contended that even thou this race was on public land, using massive amounts of City resources, park staff time and energy, park and city police time and resources, it was a "private event" and men could be excluded. At first, I didn't have an easy answer, but I knew there was a distinction, and it took me about a day to figure it out. All of the above mentioned functions; the Swedish-American Society Picnic, the Jewish War Veterans picnic and the NAACP function are all "private" functions because they are intended only for the members of those organizations. However, the Bruegger's Run For The Bagels however was a "public" event, due to the fact that any woman who walked into Bruegger's and plunked down $10 dollars could run in the race. I argued that if anyone can walk in and put down money to participate, it is a "public event" and all persons, male and female, have to be admitted. The counsel for Brueggers, (who had just won a case against "Ladies Nights" in Bars at the Court of Appeals), agreed and immediately conceded I was right and settled. So let's carry the analogy forward to the Farmer's Market. The vendors are at the Farmers Market to sell their goods. They invite the public in to buy their goods. It doesn't matter if Gerten's rents the space from the City. By inviting the public into the space, the renter cannot choose who can come in and who cannot. It is still City land being used for a "public" purpose. Now I will concede that the vendors have the right to their private space in which to sell their goods, but all of the walkways and sidewalk should remain open to anyone with any point of view, so long as they do not unreasonably block access. One last thought. Mr. Thompson writes, "At the same time we should respect those who are trying to do commerce or have a wedding, on public property, to be able to do so with some rights of privacy." I think I have drawn a clear distinction between the wedding and commerce. Clearly, the wedding is a private matter, and should be exactly that, private. However, if someone wants to use MY PUBLIC SPACE / OUR PUBLIC SPACE to try and make a buck, i.e. engage in commerce, they do not have a right to exclude those engaging in First Amendment activities. Would Mr. Thompson argue that the hot-dog vendor who sells his brats and dogs outside City Hall and pays his license, should then be able to restrict people from speaking or collecting signatures outside City Hall? As long as a vendor uses City property and invites the public in, the vendor has to take all comers as long as they remain civil and are on public land. That's the First Amendment and that's what makes us the freest country on the face of the earth. To those sellers of goods who are inconvenienced, I'll give a little "I'm sorry, but gosh darn it, that's the price of freedom." They want their freedom to sell their veggies and I want my freedom to agitate. Dan Dobson Summit Hill "Tom & Elsa Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 07/06/2004 12:11:47 PM Ok, I have a question or two on this; If I or someone else rents public property (Como Park Pavillion, Conservatory, etc) for a wedding, family reunion, company picnic, or any other private event, I or anyone else can walk into that area with full first amendment rights and talk politics or hand out candidate information? Since this is public land, it really can't be rented and used for private functions? Is this the society that we have come to? In order to show our political opponents that we can, so we will? My opinion is that we should respects someone's rights to political free speech. At the same time we should respect those who are trying to do commerce or have a wedding, on public property, to be able to do so with some rights of privacy. Just because it is a commerce oriented function as opposed to a wedding makes the lease or rental payment no less important to the person having the function. Tom Thompson Como Park _____________________________________________ To Join: St. Paul Issues Forum Rules Discussion Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _____________________________________________ NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
