I guess my point is, I don't see what is changing here and now that you're pointing out with the article on the FOCP website. I certainly agree with you that government as a whole is encroaching on private rights - it's been atrociously bad since 9/11 (everything from the patriot act to the FCCs recent ruling). But no, according to Philadelphia code, a permit IS permission - and in fact it is against the law to hold an event on public park space with greater than 75 people without a permit. Of course that's not to say the police wouldn't harass smaller groups. But it's not like that never happened before - remember when the RNC was in town? If you're going to bring the supreme court into this, you'll lose as almost every decision in the last 30 years has encroached on personal rights.
And every event I've held has been a non-profit event held under a 501c3, and they still made me pay for police (who often enough weren't even there). So, yes, while I agree with you that it does occur, my point is I don't see evidence of that one article pointing to a particular crackdown in Clark Park. From: Glenn [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 4:02 PM To: Lalevic, Darco Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [UC] From the FOCP web site Hi Darco, I got a request to report on the Clark Park history, and this permit issue for newcomers. I'm sorry I don't have a lot of time right now, but I will get that out soon to fill in some of the blanks. But, I can briefly answer your questions. Yes, the "Special Events Review Committee" hearings were to be conducted by the Fairmount Park Commission and not at the Department of Recreation. I believe the ordinance was passed in the mid 90's. (I don't have a code number, but that is the name.) I can tell that you believe the widely accepted interpretation of the role of the "permit." It's a widely believed misinterpretation. The police and FOCP leaders would certainly arrest you if you conducted a pro democracy rally in Clark Park without a permit. But that would be an unconstitutional arrest. No, we do not need a permit to lawfully gather in the park! The central misinterpretation is that a permit on parkland is actually a RESERVATION system and not to be abused as a PERMISSION system. That's the big accepted lie! (e.g. The city tried, a few years ago, to demand a permit if one sang a song in Rittenhouse Square.). Government officials can not arbitrarily create rules designed to impede the right to gather for some people and not others. They can not design hoops to jump through that can not be justified, except to deny some people basic rights of assembly. When I first got involved with the Clark Park festivals, I discovered that many families were being forced to get a permit for birthday parties if they played a radio! The number of hours of this amplified sound were then being used to demand denial of a permit for the Clark Park festivals. This is exactly the type of arbitrary use of state power that the supreme court held as unconstitutional since the civil rights era. I'm forgetting the name of the famous case, right now, from Bull Conner's town. (I published it a few years ago on the list). Marchers were denied a permit to lawfully walk down the sidewalks and not block the streets. When they were arrested, they had broken no laws or safety regulations. The permit was denied on the basis of a safety risk. Of course, it was a transparent lie, and it was actually denied because local people wanted to deny rights to black marchers. The marchers had obeyed all laws that applied EQUALLY TO ALL. The court decided that this type of arbitrary power to create barriers for some can not be applied, EVEN IF a city official approves it. Over the years, the city of Philadelphia has increasingly turned the park permit from its original purpose, as a RESERVATION system, into a method of erecting barriers desired by powerful interests. The only reason for the city police to demand a permit from any gathering on parkland is if some other person obtained a permit earlier, for the same date and time- (a reservation system for special uses makes a lot of sense as a service by the government). But demanding payments for police, insurance, and an EMT is just such an arbitrary unjustifiable barrier to the people's right to assemble. Think of the difference when an organization is requesting street closures for a for profit purpose! The original code for the special events hearing emphatically and explicitly indicates that it is not to be applied to the community block fair, which also closes streets. (The actual code makes sense!) It is absolutely clear that open park land, used for non-profit citizen gatherings, was never to be restricted through the use of this code and its requirements. Do you see the major difference between costly street closings driven by profit, and a pro-democracy rally in the park of 76 or 200 citizens? I'll organize the history of the UCD/FOCP Quality of Life Task Force later, all the best, Glenn On 2/23/2011 2:06 PM, Lalevic, Darco wrote: Actually Glenn, the Fairmount Park permit policy dates at least back to 1979, but probably back to the 1967 formation/reformation of the commission. As for the right to assembly, permits are generally only required for groups of 75 people or more. And Fairmount Park has actually required insurance coverage since at least 1998 (when I permitted my first large event), whether they enforced that regularly I don't know, but all my events had to have it. Which ordinance are you referring to? When was the Mardi Gras occurrence, because I remember having to pay for police presence for every event I've done. From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Glenn Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 3:27 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [UC] From the FOCP web site Neighbors, I warned people about this many years ago. Please understand, what they are attempting is an unconstitutional method of taking away our right to assembly on any public space in this city. They are using an ordinance originally designed to reimburse the city for police deployment after the south street Mardi Gras occurrences sponsored by for profit bars on South St. Originally, this ordinance was not intended to curb our rights. The FOCP and city's view of permit regulations for public parks has always been unconstitutional. Moreover, only Penn/UCD will be able to comply with this insurance requirement! This will apply to any gathering needed for citizens in defense of democracy. Wake up!!!! No Permit Policy Yet from Rec<http://www.friendsofclarkpark.org/?p=278> Posted on February 14, 2011<http://www.friendsofclarkpark.org/?p=278> by briansiano<http://www.friendsofclarkpark.org/?author=2> As the City merges the Fairmount Park Commission and the Recreation Department into a single, unified Parks and Recreation Department, many park issues remain unresolved. Among these issues is the issuing of permit for large events. In the past, the Rec department would issue permits for events of more than - people, or events where amplified sound is used. As of February 2011, Parks and Recreation has not developed its new permit processes and requirements yet. One matter of concern is the possibility that permitted events will have to meet an insurance requirement. Some of our Large Events are run by organizations which have existing insurance policies. However, many of our long-standing community events, such as the Best Fest and the Music and Arts Festival, do not have the same degree of organizational support, and may find it difficult- if not impossible- to meet this requirement should it come to pass. As we said above, we do not yet know if these will be requirements for large events. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3463 - Release Date: 02/23/11 06:32:00
