As promised, a concise problem statement:
Clark park (A park) is about to be closed for a secret period of time.
Despite overwhelming community opposition expressed in 2002-03, the closing is
portrayed and justified as a need for a complete infrastructure redesign to
upscale the popular public park.
Permits: FOCP leaders have long insisted that special event permits are a tool
for them to violate the rights of other park users. They insist that the park
is a recreation center primarily for them, under their iron rule. They insist
that no permit rules or other rules apply to their exclusive fee required
activities, but to outsiders only.
Since their leaders insist that the park will never be shared, they have
recently decided to violate the rights of another stakeholder group which
offers a monthly event, free and open to all. After the FOCP decision to snuff
out the monthly event, they crafted a dishonest "opinion survey" and claim
damage to the grass is the real motivation. (FOCP has given permission to move
the event to Malcolm X Park or outer Mongolia.)
1st Amendment of the US Constitution: The supreme court has upheld the first
amendment right to public assembly. Our public parks are actually considered
to function like a village commons or square, free and open to all.
IMPORTANTLY,permit and other rules must apply equally to all or none. (FOCP
has insisted that the city use a constitutionally invalid permit structure for
ten years. FOCP leaders have ignored all permit rules, at their weekly
exclusive fee based activities, for the same period.)
This introduction copied from the firstamendmentcenter.org will help to
introduce neighbors to the concepts that will form the basis of a likely
lawsuit against the city department of recreation. (I sincerely apologize to
the community for not initiating legal action many years ago.)
Introductory Note on Supreme Court Rulings: Overview from the
firstamendmentcenter.org by Adam Newton “License or permit requirements that
favor or discourage certain groups, or that vest total discretion in officials
to grant such permits, are usually struck down. Shuttleworth v. Birmingham
(1969), for instance, struck down a parade ordinance that "conferred upon the
City Commission virtually unbridled and absolute power to prohibit any
'parade,' 'procession,' or 'demonstration' on the city's streets or public
ways."
Procedural safeguards must protect the rights of all speakers or none — even
members of the Nazi party who intend to march through a predominantly Jewish
section of an Illinois city, as the 1977 U.S. Supreme Court ruled in National
Socialist Party v. Skokie.”
(Municipal permit regulations must be constructed to apply equally to all or to
none.)"
After folks are familiar with the 1st amendment of the US Constitution and
relevant supreme court decisions, we can use this popular public forum to
discuss the problems: the latest dishonest FOCP survey and the decade to change
the public park into a private fee based recreation center under the iron fist
of the FOCP/UCD "community" university partnership.
Sincerely,
Glenn, a US citizen
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
