I agree Glenn but I see the very sad NO FEEDING the HOMELESS injunction as more of a specific 'bill of attainder' rather than being connected directly to the permit stuff, though there is certainly overlap and commonality.
On Jun 22, 2012, at 6:46 PM, Glenn moyer wrote: > 1) No picnic permit is required for a dozen people. By the same token, an > unpérmitted group cannot reserve a specific space for a picnic unless it > applies for a "Picnic Permit". But you'll have to pay P&R a fee for this > reservation. If you don't want to pay a fee to reserve a particular site ... > then spread out your blanket anywhere in the park, and enjoy your picnic with > no bureaucracy or cost, if your group is under 50. If your group is larger > than 50, a Picnic Permit is required and P&R will specify a site for your > affair > > > Rick, > > Here is the conflict with the outdoor feeding ban! The city should lose its > case against homeless advocates (for violating their 14th amendment rights) > because of these policy assurances. And this should send a shiver down > everyone's back, instead of being viewed as an expected middle class double > standard. There is absolutely no difference between a middle class picnic > and a violation of the outdoor feeding ban except that "undesireables" are > eating at one of them. That slippery slope is very dangerous. > > The picnic permit itself does not state this non-requirement for groups less > than 50 people. It should, but has no limitation included at all. ( This was > the issue that prompted that ridiculous propaganda piece in the UC Review.) > This exception for groups under 50 people is only stated in the separate > special events package, which has nothing to do with the picnic permit. But > Parks and Rec staff maintained to me as well, that middle class picnicers > don't need a permit even with a larger number than the outdoor feeding law. > > > In addition to cleansing the BF Parkway of the homeless, this 50 person > middle class rule is aimed at pro-democracy gatherings. There is only one > thing the corporate state fears and that is massive assemblies of people in > public squares, and general strikes. The outdoor feeding ban is just one > other way for our rulers to use the brutal forces of the police state, to > destroy any hope of ever restoring a functioning republic. > > But they want to assure the middle class that all is fine, as they proceed > with the privatization of our parks. I don't know if the city's disregard > for the 14th amendment is more frightening than the general disregard for it > by the middle class, even as the nooses tighten around their way of life. > > > " if someone wants to post them on ucneighbors (I can't since Kyle banned me > from that list) please feel free to do so" > > The purpose of censorship and UC Neighbors was to chill serious discussions > of important topics. People on the UC Neighbors certainly understand that > nothing on a censored site can ultimately be trusted. They can have the > appearance of normal communication, but you always know that the full story > can never be assumed to come out. > > Kyle wants the list to be accepted as the place for the cool consumers to > babble about cool gossip, or make good neighbor posts. Most everyone at UC > Neighbors is afraid to post something truthful that Cassidy has banned. That > chilling of speech was a primary purpose that Mel and Cassidy had for > starting UC Neighbors. It would still be hosted by the powerful Penn > network, if Amy Gutless hadn't wanted to accept a bogus award for Penn's Open > Expression policy. > > I'd use your example to encourage people to join a public list, if they want > to support the free exchange of ideas and value their duties as citizens and > neighbors. We have FOX News and MSNBC for the same reason as UC Neighbors > was started. I've turned away from all that mindless nonsense. > > Oh, I didn't get a response from the city clarifying the insurance process. > The official draft presentation I received stated the umbrella policy "at no > cost" Did that mean "no cost" or no additional fee added by the city? > > All the best, > > Glenn > > > > . > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Conrad > Sent: Jun 20, 2012 2:43 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: Anthony West > Subject: [UC] Fwd: Answers to park questions > > Tony West sent these very clear and useful answers to my Park questions... > if someone wants to post them on ucneighbors (I can't since Kyle banned me > from that list) please feel free to do so. Thank you again Tony West! > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> >> 1) No picnic permit is required for a dozen people. By the same token, an >> unpérmitted group cannot reserve a specific space for a picnic unless it >> applies for a "Picnic Permit". But you'll have to pay P&R a fee for this >> reservation. If you don't want to pay a fee to reserve a particular site ... >> then spread out your blanket anywhere in the park, and enjoy your picnic >> with no bureaucracy or cost, if your group is under 50. If your group is >> larger than 50, a Picnic Permit is required and P&R will specify a site for >> your affair. >> >> 2) Picnics are not required to carry insurance. >> >> 3) 2012 picnic fees look like they're relatively fixed, compared to the >> other kind of permit ("Event Permit"). It is unlikely you can negotiate them >> much. >> >> 4) There is no language in the new P&R regulations pertaining to political, >> religious or socialization purposes. >> >> 5) Costs/mandates for films or concerts vary widely according to their size, >> scale of City services required, and sponsorship. For details, read >> http://www.fairmountpark.org/pdf/Special_Event_Application.pdf. >> >> 6) Insurance is required for events larger than 50. Applicants who do not >> possess general liability insurance may be eligible to acquire the >> appropriate insurance through the City's Office of Risk Management. > > ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named > "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see .
