|
Rick, this may help to reveal the serious inconsistencies.
http://www.phila.gov/health/pdfs/Proposed%20Reg%20on%20Outdoor%20Feeding_2_9_12.pdf
"SECTION 1. No person, group, or organization shall engage in Outdoor Feeding, except
as provided in Sections 2 and 3. For purposes of this regulation, “Outdoor Feeding” means the
distribution of food free of charge to the public, in groups of three or more people, on any public
highway, on any public sidewalk, or in any outdoor public place; except that “Outdoor Feeding”
shall not include the distribution of food as part of a special event recognized by the Managing
Director’s Office pursuant to the Mayor’s Special Event Policy or a permit of the Department of
Parks and Recreation;"
The city is currently being sued over this 3 person picnic policy. The media tends to use the vague "large group" description, when it talks about the picnicing law.
And there exists an extraordinary vail of secrecy over the numbers of park users impacted, and over all the new permit POLICY schemes which appear to be hidden from SUNSHINE.
The picnic permit documentation available to the public has no limit of people explicitly noted before it becomes mandatory. The vagueness of permit documents has been witnessed by this reporter to lead to intimidation of unsuspecting park users by bullies. Journalists and attorneys understand the potential for abusing vaguely written rules. (How would a group of five people be positioned, when a civic leader shows a cop that there is no minimum limit written in the documents before a permit is required?) When you've been attacked by vague poorly written rules, you learn the way these are abused!
This reporter also discussed these new permit requirements with a Mr. Bessler, who is noted as the city contact person on the permit changes. First, he told me that the city continues to respect our constitutional rights, and that permits continue to be a voluntary reservation system. When pressed, he said that a group of twenty needs a permit. Essentially, Mr. Bessler maintained that there are no important changes to permit policy, which is absurd given the written 2012 permit policy changes we can inspect. As a good journalist, it is obvious that requests under the open records law will be the only way to pry the truth from city officials.
To be clear, the special events package referred to above, which includes the park rental fees, puts the number at which permits become mandatory at 50 people. Is it, 1, 3, 20, 50 picnicers; or do we have Constitutional rights? I wouldn't ask the UC Review story tellers!
While Contesta was having her laughing session with the unnamed city official she cites, she failed to note these discrepencies about picnics or make any report of the other massive changes like the prohibitive rental fees, who gets waivers, the new definition of a friends group, who decides if a friends group gets waivers, what activities are included, etc.
Contesta's pathetic pretense as a reporter doing investigation should be entirely dismissed. When I return to Philadelphia, I do plan to give her propaganda piece to litigants addressing this picnic issue. Actual investigaters always suspected that these new permit rules were designed to violate the 14th amendment and allow for unequal enforcement against undesireables. If Contesta's pro-FOCP propaganda piece has value, it would be her pathetic laughing session with the city, revealing the city's intention of unequal standards for different people. Unfortunately, the UC Review story will not be taken as credible journalism.
Calling religious picnics "outdoor feeding" is an attempt to dehumanize citizens before attacking their rights. In Clark Park, the FOCP/UCD have long called citizens "criminals" to similarly dehumanize them in order to justify excluding them and grabbing power over their rights.
As I continue my investigation, I will seek journalist partners. I made the mistake of giving a news tip to the UC Review about the forced relocation committee. They didn't attend. I told them I was investigating this matter and that too many descrepencies existed for a proper news story for this week. Since I was never contacted by Contosta, I was shocked to see such a pathetic pretense at an investigation appear in the UC Review. People often understand that small weekly papers have limited resources for investigation of serious local matters. But the level of unprofessionalism shown with this Contosta report indicates that UC Review has descended into the realm of pathetic propaganda rags.
I would recommend against giving the UC Review future news tips or offers to investigate in partnership with them. Their behavior was unbelievably atrocious as is their inability to understand responsible investigative journalism.
I expect that other investigaters will be working independently to uncover the truth from the darkness. I will continue to report new discoveries about the privatization of our parks and the permit abuses on the public listserv. Our public listserv is the last source of truth available in this corner of the plutocracy.
Journalism remembered,
Glenn
-----Original Message-----
>From: Richard Conrad
>Sent: Jun 14, 2012 10:14 PM
>To: Brian Siano
>Cc: univcity , UCNeighbors
>Subject: Re: [UC] Contrary to the rumors...
>
>Thank you Brian.
>
>Your post was helpful, eminently responsible, and well thought out + explained.
>I would be interested in a few clarifications if it would be alright, and if you have access to such info....
>
>How much would a picnic permit for oh let's say a dozen people be?
>Would there be some insurance cost or mandated regulation(s) regarding having insurance?
>Would it be a price that was fixed or would the charges be meted out more or less in an arbitrary fashion?
>What about the costs/mandates etc. if a group wanted to hold a political meeting or rally (or another type - eg. religious, or social gathering)?
>What about the costs/mandates etc. for a music concert or film group?
>
>When I hit "reply all" the Mail Delivery Subsystem will tell me: "We're writing to let you know that the group you tried to contact (ucneighbors) may not exist, or you may not have permission to post messages to the group." Kyle banned me from UCNeighbors; so only the less dictatorial group will see this response to your posting.
>
>Peace and Love,
>
>Rick Conrad
>
>On Jun 14, 2012, at 8:51 PM, Brian Siano wrote:
>
>> http://ucreview.com/contrary-to-the-rumors-new-regulations-issued-from-parks-rec-do-not-aim-p3445-73.htm
>>
>> Contrary to the rumors, new regulations issued from Parks & Rec do not
>> aim to privatize public parks
>> Clark Park in University City, which has recently formed an activities
>> committee in response to new rules passed from the Department of Parks
>> and Recreation. Photo: Nicole Contosta
>> UC Review
>> • Wed, Jun 13, 2012
>>
>> By Nicole Contosta
>> Staff Reporter
>>
>>
>> Rumors, whether juicy or titillating to hear, often skew the facts.
>> They’re either completely untrue, or they’re wildly exaggerated. And
>> there’s one rumor buzzing throughout the city that our publications
>> would like to squash. And that pertains to the new rules implemented
>> by the Philadelphia Department of Parks and Recreation concerning
>> permits for picnics and special events. Some seem to think that the
>> new rules result from a conspiracy between certain institutions and
>> community organizations as a way to make public parks private. Some of
>> these rumors have even alleged that certain park associations will use
>> the picnic permit laws to force an individual eating a sandwich or
>> group of individuals playing chess from the park because those people
>> are considered "undesirable."
>>
>> For the record, those rumors are both untrue and wildly exaggerated.
>> After first hearing them, this reporter made a quick call to the
>> city’s Special Events Office for clarification. After asking the
>> representative if a park user would need a permit to either eat a
>> snack or play chess, the representative laughed before issuing a
>> resounding, "No!" The representative then went on to clarify that the
>> ways that a picnic permit could affect those without one. And that
>> would occur if a group of people, who had received a permit to host a
>> picnic in a designated area, asked those not invited to the picnic to
>> leave that designated area within the park.
>>
>> Frank Chance, a former President of Friends of Clark Park (FoCP),
>> echoed that explanation in an over the phone interview.
>>
>> "None of this [the new rules] applies to four people who want to sit
>> in the park, have sandwiches and soda. That’s fine," Chance said.
>>
>> "It only gets complicated when people want to reserve an area to do
>> different things. And we [the FoCP] want to make that fair to
>> everyone."
>>
>> That’s one of the reasons why the FoCP has formed an Activity Location
>> Committee, which met for the first time on June 7th. The committee’s
>> formation came in response to new rules issued after the merger
>> between Fairmount Park and the city’s Rec Department. The Department
>> of Recreation will now designate certain areas of city parks for
>> either picnics, sporting activities and special events, Chance
>> explained. As a result, the FoCP formed the Activity Location
>> Committee as a way to make recommendations to the Department of Parks
>> and Recreation for where those designated areas will be in Clark Park.
>> While the Department of Parks and Recreation will make the final
>> decision, the FoCP, "did not like the idea of Parks and Recreation
>> making a decision without community input. And Parks and Rec does not
>> like that either," Chance explained. "They want community input."
>> Chance, then went on to encourage those engaged in the park’s use to
>> join the Activity Location Committee, which has many future meetings
>> planned before it finalizing any recommendations.
>>
>> Thus far, it’s proved a complicated process. For instance, when it
>> comes to making recommendations for areas designated for picnics, some
>> people suggested the seating section set up in the park’s plaza.
>> However, many opposed that suggestion because it would deny the
>> general public access. When it came to sporting activities, concern
>> was also generated over designated sporting areas. For instance, if
>> the "bowl" was designated as the sport activities area, some expressed
>> concern over where park users would be allowed to play spontaneous
>> "pick-up" soccer games, Chance explained, adding that the
>> recommendations the Activity Location Committee plans to make on
>> sporting activities "are farther down the line."
>>
>> In the interim, the FoCP, "would love to hear the community’s
>> response," Chance said.
>>
>> For more information on the new picnic and special event permits
>> throughout the city to to www.phila.gov/recreation.
>> ----
>> You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
>> list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
>> .
>
>----
>You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
>list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
>.
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.
|
