Asymmetrical Information

...Still waiting for the forest products reference.

*sigh*

handfisted?

itym: hamfisted ?? Hamhanded??

in any case, i think that's the best point of the 3 for why it won't happen

The protesters should just be grateful they're being allowed to protest instead of being put in the free-speech bunker like the Dems put the protesters in Boston.

And I'm fairly sure I saw Paul Simon on the great lawn in 1991.

And didn't Dave Matthews do a concert there a few years ago? And I know Survivor has a season finale on the Great Lawn for one of the seasons?

But the point is I'm pretty sure the events were sponsored by corporations who paid for the police and everything.

Kate, I usually agree with you, but isn't there something a bit Orwellian about being "allowed to protest"

handfisted?

AFAIK it's a bit of British slang rather than American (but with a similar meaning as "hamhanded" or similar). Of course, given the various possible meanings of the word, a quick search for it will just as likely turn up a string of lesbian prOn sites.

Kind of like how how "roger" or "sod" in American dialect are more commonly associated with genealogies or landscaping, but in Britain people will snicker.

Spot on.

Central Park is perhaps the prettiest protest option, but it is not necessarily the best. And Bloomberg, as pointed out in this excellent post, has real nonpartisan reasons for not granting a permit.

Still, I do believe an effort is being made to keep the protests as far from MSG as possible.

"For another, the examples that protesters cite of events larger than 250,000 are all very old, the Paul Simon concert in 1981, which drew about 400,000 people, chief among them."

Did they not mention Garth Brooks in 1997? Various estimates in the 900K - 1M range.

Anyway worry about damage to the grounds is a pretty lame reason for denying a protest, but I guess there are no really good reasons, so they've got to come up with what they can find that will sound quasi-legitimate.

As far as letting them protest on the West Side highway, come on, why not just send them over to New Jersey for that matter? I hear there's some nice swamp land over there to march through.. ;-)

As far as letting them protest on the West Side highway, come on, why not just send them over to New Jersey for that matter? I hear there's some nice swamp land over there to march through.. ;-)

The idea being to show them a real quagmire, ABR?

Eamon O Brochain wrote:

Kate, I usually agree with you, but isn't there something a bit Orwellian about being "allowed to protest"

If we were talking about someone being "allowed to protest" on their own property or on someone else’s property who gave them permission, then perhaps because in those cases, you ought to be able to do pretty much whatever you like so long as you don’t violate someone else’s rights in the process.

But since we’re talking in fact about someone wanting to use a publicly-owned piece of property, it is perfectly valid for the public (via their democratically elected representatives) to regulate “time and place” so as to look out for the twenty million or so other New Yorkers who may not want their park trashed.

ABR wrote:

Did they not mention Garth Brooks in 1997? Various estimates in the 900K - 1M range.

Anyway worry about damage to the grounds is a pretty lame reason for denying a protest,

but I guess there are no really good reasons, so they've got to come up with what they can find that will sound quasi-legitimate.

It is a bit misleading to say that the people have spoken on this issue through their elected officials. It is the Parks service,an unelected bureaucracy, which denied the permit. Also, the Parks department appears to have lied in its denial, saying the Great Lawn can't accomodate more than 80 thousand people, when just last Sept., the Dave Mathews Band drew over 100k. The New York Philharmonic claims to have drawn over 135K several times last summer. While there are legitimate concerns about security costs and property damage, I find it disheartening that the bureaucrats feel the need to lie about their reasons for denying the permit.

Anyway worry about damage to the grounds is a pretty lame reason for denying a protest, but I guess there are no really good reasons, so they've got to come up with what they can find that will sound quasi-legitimate.

It sounds ENTIRELY legitimate to anyone who has attempted to maintain a semblance of faunal beauty in any plot of land large enough to hold more than ten people simultaneously.

Eamon O'Brochain wrote:

It is a bit misleading to say that the people have spoken on this issue through their elected officials. It is the Parks service, an unelected bureaucracy, which denied the permit.

Based on the criteria/mandate and authority that were given to them by elected officials. I may not agree with every decision made by the FDA or EPA within their discretion but I recognize that their authority and mandate came from people that were elected which were ultimately chosen by the people being governed.

Also, the Parks department appears to have lied in its denial, saying the Great Lawn can't accomodate more than 80 thousand people,

Actually I believe that they said that the Great Lawn had a capacity of 80,000 people – much like how a restaurant may have a capacity thirty occupants even though you could probably fit a couple of hundred more people inside the building. The Parks Department was probably speaking as to what the capacity is for how many people could be at a certain event before it would create problems such as destroying the greenery. Hardly evidence of a “lie.”

Moreover as Jane pointed out, the Parks Department seems to make an exception for concerns since the concerts pay for the damages done to the greenery. In which case the capacity may actually be different for an event in which they know or have a reasonable exception that any damages will be paid for.

Anony-mous wrote:

It sounds ENTIRELY legitimate to anyone who has attempted to maintain a semblance of faunal beauty in any plot of land large enough to hold more than ten people simultaneously.

handfisted? AFAIK it's a bit of British slang rather than American (but with a similar meaning as "hamhanded" or similar)

Not as far as this Brit knows: the word is "hamfisted" here, which makes slightly more sense, even if the sound is pretty much the same.

"Still, I do believe an effort is being made to keep the protests as far from MSG as possible."

The United For Peace and Justice folks were to march right past it on their way to the Westside Highway rally.

Besides which there are protestors who have permits to be right outside MSG; the NYC Police and Firefighters' Unions. Locals get first crack at the politicos, the uitlander peaceniks can travel down to DC for their marching.

How about approaching this problem in a free-market sort of way and charge a users-fee?

Ten buck a head X 250,000 pax = resodding the law that the sods uproot.

Just set up a ticket booth at each entrance to the park. You could even get the subway system to staff the booths as they seem pretty good at not letting gate-jumpers through.

where they're likely to be seen by a lot more people than they would be in Central Park on a weekday

I thought it was to take place on Sunday.

Also, I'm a bit curious about why they are so adamant about Central Park. Is it because they are afraid that not too many people will want to come out to stand on the West Side Highway for a few hours, while they think they can attract a lot more people to come to the Park?

John wrote:

How about approaching this problem in a free-market sort of way and charge a users-fee?

Ten buck a head X 250,000 pax = resodding the law that the sods uproot.

Just set up a ticket booth at each entrance to the park. You could even get the subway system to staff the booths as they seem pretty good at not letting gate-jumpers through.

Actually there are some communities in Georgia (click on my name for the cached link) that did something quite similar:

With protests at past summits marred by violence, Savannah and Chatham County revamped their rules governing public demonstrations in February. Brunswick and Glynn County followed last month.

The laws require protest groups to pay deposits or fees to cover costs associated with maintenance, cleanup and potential property damage. In Savannah, the fee is $1.50 per person for groups of 150 or more. Deposits in Brunswick are determined on a case-by-case basis.

Seems rather fair to me. Someone has to pay for the police and the cleanup after these events and it makes sense that it ought to be those holding the event rather than local taxpayers.

If people want to engage in juvenile activity (i.e., a pointless protest -- we already know how they feel, what more can they accomplish but annoy people), they should pay for the privilege. After all, I don't get any of my hobbies for free.

Central Park is something like 30-40 blocks from Madison Square Garden. A West Side highway location could be less than 1/4 the distance from MSG (depends on where on the road, of course, as it goes up the length of Manhattan, but I think its possible that you could actually see MSG from the road (and vice versa), while Central Park would solely be for television media--you couldn't possibly see or hear it from MSG.

Ben, Are you paying for your juvenile activity here? After all, your post was rather pointless as well.

As a Republican, what I am hoping for is a riot right outside Madison Square Garden featuring black clad anarchists throwing rocks and grenades at the Garden while the Delegates are inside.

Thorley Winston says, "Jane specifically said that the Parks Department made an exception for concerts since (according to Jane) they appear to pay for the re-sodding."

Jane also 'specifically said' "For another, the examples that protesters cite of events larger than 250,000 are all very old, the Paul Simon concert in 1981, which drew about 400,000 people, chief among them. If they had grown up here, as I did, or spent a little more time in the park, they would know that This Is Not Your Father's New York City Parks Department."

Her entire next paragraph goes on with this "things have changed" refrain. By raising my one example, I was attempting to refute the relevance of this third of Jane's post. However, let's devote attention instead to the _one phrase_ in the post you refer to relating to sodding, since you are right, it does still remain unrefuted.

This is a more complicated area, we need to look back at the records for Garth Brooks and others to determine actual damages done, expenses incurred, etc.. I don't have the time to do this now, but I strongly suspect that: 1) full resodding might not be necessary; 2) the protest groups would be willing to put up funding for this but were not negotiated with in good faith by the City; and 3) the protesters are partly proposing Central Park in order to avoid the alternative of marching on public streets and causing disruptions to traffic and other aspects that would cost the city far more to deal with than a little bit of grounds repair.

Winston also writes, "Actually, governments usually have pretty wide latitude to coordinate the time and place of events on public property particularly when they have to consider the rights and interests of the other twenty million or so New Yorkers who would have to pay for this damage and the expense of the police and such (to say nothing of the security concerns). No doubt the courts would side with NYC on this one, particularly since they appear to have offered then an alternate location."

First of all, 1.5M live in Manhattan, and maybe another 3M commute in for work. So we're talking about a 10% / 90% split assuming the life of every one of those 4.5 million is disrupted (assuming 450K protesters altogether similar to 02/2003). Now, how does another "event on public property", the Democratic convention in Boston, stack up to this? Rail lines were shut down, roads were closed, and people who worked downtown were basically told to take a week off. I suspect dividing the convention size by the population thus far more severely affected than people who would have to put up with some groundskeepers in the background would result in a much smaller fraction. Greater disruption than these NYC protests would cause occurs for the New York City Marathon, for that matter! Are these 30,000 runners really right to hold 8M New Yorkers hostage, with roads closed and uncrossable, etc. for hours on end?!

We are all victims of our rationality being affected our political views, but one should try to limit this if one can..

I am totally opposed to the idea of charging people to protest because you are singling out only one group of people. They aren't the only ones that cause damage,litter and increased police costs. If we are going to charge protesters by the head, why not charge commuters, Times Square revelers on New Years Eve, Tourists, college students, St. Paddy's Day and Thanksgiving Day Parade goes, Marathon Runners, etc.?

ABR: My understanding is that at peak times, Manhattan contains about 6 million people.

No one is asking the protesters to march through the city streets. They are being asked to assemble 4 blocks west of the convention center, rather than several miles from it.

OB, most of the people you mention already pay taxes which are supposed to cover the ongoing expense of their visits. Commuters, for example, pay sales and parking taxes, and their companies pay property taxes. (I don't think there is currently a NYC commuter income tax, tho there has been in the past.) Tourists pay a hefty hotel tax. My impression is that parade organizers pay fees to the city; dunno if that's true of the NYAC (which runs the Marathon).

The main money issue here comes when people become concentrated in one area. A million commuters spread out from Wall Street to 59th street are not the problem that those same million would be if they gathered in Central Park.

Here's a bit on the Great Lawn, including its former life as the Great Dustbowl. It says the oval itself is 33 acres, which works out to 566k sq ft. Figuring 2 sq ft per person, the lawn is jam-packed once you get to 250k people. In real life, I suppose people just spill over onto the rest of the area (I'm guessing the softball fields aren't counted, for example) as the numbers rise.

An article in yesterday's Times suggests that the protest organizers are most concerned about the number of people who show up: "Organizers said they rejected the West Side site after failing to secure amenities from the city like shuttle buses and water, and learning that many of their member organizations and individuals simply would not attend." Presumably a Central Park protest would be more attractive, plus you can count all those dog-walkers as part of the crowd!

There's an editorial in today's NY Times about this issue. The conclusion is that the city should try to make changes in Central Park to accomodate larger protests. Well, the Mall in DC can accomodate large protests, but it's not an especially nice place to picnic, since the lawn's not kept up.

The Times thinks the city should supply medical equipment and water for the protest on the West Side Hwy; apparently they agree with Jane that supplying shuttle buses is over the top.

Oh, and an article today quotes Bloomberg as saying "the decision to reject the permit was not based on politics, or concern that the grass would get trampled. 'The issue is, you just can't put that kind of crowd together where you can't make sure that ambulances can get in,' he said."

Jane: where do you get your figure of "6 million" people in Manhattan at peak from? The number of full-time residents at 1.5 mill sounds right, but I seem to recall that the number of commuter workers peaks at about 2.5 mill daily: which also includes tourists. Even so, 4 million folks milling around an island of only 22 square miles is plently crowded enough!

PJ, actually most of the people I listed don't pay any tax that is supposed the costs of their activities in NYC. Commuters do pay sales tax, assuming they buy something, but that tax is simply a general revenue raiser that anyone who buys something from a merchant in NYC has to pay. Residents, tourists, commuters, students, guests, etc. all have to pay it at the same rate. There was a commuter tax until a few years ago, but the state legistlature killed it off. Other groups I listed like college students and Times Square Guests on New Years pay nothing at all, except maybe the sales tax, yet their activities result in increased crime, police expenses, litter etc.
As the the Bloomberg quote, I guess you are saying that since a politician says its not about politics, then its not about politics? I for one don't take statements like that at face value. Remember this is a guy who called the GOP convention a "non partisan event."

I'm hoping that this complaining by the protesters isn't largely under the category of "looking for an excuse." I say this in spite of the fact that the sight of thousands of ABB moonbats wreaking havoc in NYC on national TV and the (hopefully still well-trained) cops having to kick some ass to restore order would definitely be a plus for GWB's re-election effort. I'd be quite happy if the dimwits would quietly and peacefully get on with their protests, and the convention ended without any major incidents.

Scott, The problem is the dimwits are busy preparing their convention speeches.

PJ, actually most of the people I listed don't pay any tax that is supposed the costs of their activities in NYC. Commuters do pay sales tax, assuming they buy something, but that tax is simply a general revenue raiser that anyone who buys something from a merchant in NYC has to pay. Residents, tourists, commuters, students, guests, etc. all have to pay it at the same rate.

I notice you carefully ignore my mention of the hotel tax.

It's true that most governments don't dedicate their tax streams to particular programs. But a commuter isn't using the city's schools (which is around half the budget for many localities), or the parks (much), while a resident does. A place like NYC collects a lot of sales tax at restaurants, and a good chunk of it is from tourists and commuters. This is also true of the parking tax, which I think is up around 17%.

Although I sympathize with your defense of protesters, I find the current obsession with numbers and media coverage unproductive. If groups like UPJ want to stage mass protests to scream slogans at the cameras, I'm all in favor of them paying for the privilege.

OingoBoingo, commuters are the cost of doing business in New York City. Believe me, if the city didn't want them, it could take steps to discourage their presence. But having the commuters gains more than it loses, in corporate tax and so forth.

I get six million from an estimate I've heard that the rail systems carry 4.5 million people into Manhattan each day. Of course, some of those people are ultimately headed for the boroughs, but on the other hand, there's also substantial car traffic in that we're not counting.

Of course commuters are the cost of doing business, I have never argued otherwise. But they are non New Yorkers who consume NY services and pay little to offset their costs. There really isn't anything NYC could do to discourage commuters. It can and has taxed, but that hasn't had a major impact on their willingness to come here to work. Any severe steps it took would no doubt be held unconstitutional as a violation of Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce.

Actually, the city has considered a number of strategies for reducing commuting, from congestion pricing to a payroll tax on the wages of non-residents. Ultimately, however, it was concluded that since New York couldn't house any more workers, the net result would be companies leaving the city, costing the city much more in lost taxes than it would make up in reduced service provision.

The city's own horticulturist stated that there is no grass problem, that the lawn was constructed with precisely this in mind.

Bloomberg's primary reason is discredited.

Discrimination? Heck no. New York City treats everyone badly. Just ask Mike Wallace.

"Greater disruption than these NYC protests would cause occurs for the New York City Marathon, for that matter! Are these 30,000 runners really right to hold 8M New Yorkers hostage, with roads closed and uncrossable, etc. for hours on end?!"

Isnt the marathon usually run on the weekend as opposed to the middle of a workweek?

I'd think commuters contribute more than their fair share to NYC's coffers, albeit mostly indirectly in the form of taxes on the businesses they work at.

Bloomberg: "The issue is, you just can't put that kind of crowd together where you can't make sure that ambulances can get in."

Putting that kind of crowd where the ambulances can't get in sounds perfect to me.

I'm against people protesting unlessthey do it in a dignified respectful way. The protesters will be present ed by the TV news to the viewing ublic as representatives of all anti-Bush people. If they behave badly, they help Bush.
But I wonder a little about Jane's contention that the Mayor is a closet Democrat who is playig fair. There was a piece on this on NPR about a month ago. The Mayor spoke and he was snarky and angry sounding. he also made the statement that the protesters were not following procedures and were creating unnecessary problems in the licensing and getting permission process. Specifically he said the leaders had not applied for permits.
That was a lie. The leader of the biggest calition group (sorry, can't remember the name) faxed a copy of his permit application to the NPR reporter. He had filed for a permit in the proper manner months a go, Feb. I think.
Maybe there have been more developments on this that show bad faith on the part of the protest leadership. But the evidence of bad faith on the mayor's part was plain.
By the way, I can see why the Park is not a good location.

Im pretty liberal, but I dont think it would violate free speech to not let protestors assemble at all near the convention. Peaceful or not, dont you have to get a permit to assemble any large group of people in NY? And if so, isnt lack of security available because of previously schedeled events reason enough to postpone or move the protest? Im all for free speech, but the web and international media has made the need to protest in person at the event nothing more than a pr stunt. I hate this administration, but you beat them with better ideas, not a mass, public, temper tantrum.

"The problem is the dimwits are busy preparing their convention speeches."

Wasn't the time to do this before they delivered them in Boston?

Bloomy is a Democrat!? :^D

Him and John McCain - or is it just that the Pubs don't have room for there own moderates anymore?

What needs repeating is that the restoration of Central Park over the last 20 years has been one of the most spectacular feats of architectural restoration in the history of the United States, and ranks, together with the creation of the park in the first place in the 1850s and 1860s, as one of the most monumental accomplishments in New York's history. Years--yes, years--of hard work on the park could be undone by allowing the protesters to use the park. Besides which, protesters with environmentalist agendas almost always do more environmental damage than do concert audiences.

Comments are Closed.