-----Original Message-----
>From: Glenn moyer <[email protected]>
>Sent: Jun 5, 2012 10:56 AM
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: [UC] Abusing vague laws, source of permit demands
>
>Neighbors,
>
>It's very important that people understand the source of the new permit laws
>attacking city park users. Parks and recreation has abused a vaguely written
>ordinance of city council to completely and radically change public parks into
>exclusive rental venues. The original bill was designed for events which
>closed streeets and used city services, and was passed in reaction to the
>Mardi Gras bar crawl on South St.
>
>Parks and Recreation has intentionally extended this vaguely written bill
>which was never meant to be applied to parks. That is why they have avoided
>public participation or advance knowledge of these new permit laws. It's why
>they convened secret meetings with selected civic association leaders and now
>pretend that it was a legitimate process that had broad and diverse "public"
>participation. It's why they are attempting to fundamentally change the
>nature of parks and the rights of citizens to gather without engaging in city
>council debate or hearings and passing a new ordinance.
>
>Although the meaning of the original law was clearly meant to be limited, it
>used the words "public property" instead of "streets/sidewalks" It limited
>the law only by stating it was not meant to be appllied to "block parties"
>The intentions of the original law are clearly not meant to apply to Clark
>Park informal community gatherings, like free and open chess or volleyball
>often played at community gatherings. This abuse of vague language is why
>they have done this behind an iron wall of secrecy depending on a tiny group
>of officers from dysfunctional organizations like the Friends of Clark park
>for cover.
>
>
>
>As people are rapidly learning, all of our public spaces are now considered
>commodities designed around corporate/university interests and visions. For
>parks, it means transformation into rental facilities, only affordable through
>corporate sponsorship, and away from the idea of parks as a public common and
>the center of culture and community for our neighborhoods.
>
>The city is using the cover of combining Fairmount park commission and the
>departmentof recreation to abuse this weakness in the original law.
>Admininistering permits for events like Mardi Gras was done through the
>Fairmount park commission, so this radical change is presented as a simple
>shift of established policy. (Darco once made the case for "established
>policy" on our list when FOCP was working on this secretly, but failed to
>provide his example for support)
>
>Additionaly, FOCP/UCD and the city are pretending that informal park
>gatherings, free and open to everyone, are the same as organized leagues, and
>that parks are designd for the same community purposes as recreation centers.
>By adding impossible rental charges for informal gatherings and giving special
>waivers to the allied "Friends" groups, this radical change places FOCP/UCD as
>a de facto ruling authority and guarantees that parks will be turned into
>country clubs for an exclusive dues paying upper class, prohibiting free and
>open use by the entire community through expensive permits.
>
>I think it's important to recognize how vaguely written laws, like most
>quality of life laws, are abused at later dates. These laws usually depend on
>an implied promise that repressive rules will be applied unequally, so that
>the vague language shouldn't be viewed as a problem for the powerful. If you
>study the permit applications, you will see that these continue to be desinged
>with vague but threatening language. The structure clearly shows that these
>are designed to allow violations of the 14th amendment and be applied with
>unequal standards against different groups of people! (e.g. Study the picnic
>permit)
>
>Anyway, that is what has happened with these new permit laws and UCD and FOCP
>started this demand for Clark Park back in 2001. The merge of the two
>departments finally gave them the opening for the goal they always had and to
>extend it to the entire city. What they have done and how they have done it
>have been shameful.. They are counting on the "Friends" group leaders to use
>intimidation and the promise of new power for their organization to get their
>members to buy into this radical transformation of parks and the rights of
>all. They are counting on keeping this out of the media spotlight, so that
>everyone is confused as the cops roll into Clark Park and quietly intimidate
>chess players and volleyball players.
>
>I think we need to ask; is this the society we want? Are we willing to risk
>the wrath of civic leaders by speaking out against these outrages? Are we
>willing to confront the truth about the new Parks and Recreation department
>and understand that it is assembled to and committed to the neoliberal
>privatization agenda? Do we believe in citizen rights for all or only for
>those with vast money? Do we believe in community and culture or that
>consumerism is the only reason for human existance? Are we mice or are we
>citizens?
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Glenn
>
>
>
>
>
>
>----
>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>.
----
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>.
