"I don't support any park that requires people to pay for its upkeep regardless if they use it."

Wouldn't that be, oh, every public park in the City of New York?

I don't support any park that requires people to pay for its upkeep regardless if they use it. Many taxpayers won't use the park, but every taxpayer has to pay for it. My idea of leisure is going to a rock concert or movie, but I don't ask every taxpayer to help pay for my ticket.

I don't oppose parks. I only oppose parks paid for with blood money. Fortunately, my neighors don't force me to physically clean the park. I just have to pay other people to clean it. That's an improvement compared to other slave states that require direct participation.

Government is not supposed to engage in "false" charity. It's supposed to defend our right to our life, liberty and property. Mandatory park fees infringe on our right to our property.

Do you think that we created a government so that our neighbors could use our money for their leisure activities? No, we created it to help secure our rights to life, liberty and property.

I'm completely in favor of government. But only benign and moral forms of government.

Thanks to both of you for clearing it up. I have problems with Mayor Bloomberg, but his interest in the arts and public spaces like the High Line does endear him to me at times.

The WINS1010 report is a little clearer:

http://1010wins.com/topstories/winstopstories_story_016070940.html

I think you're right. If the mayor decides to demolish it, he doesn't need approval from the Council.

The Post reporter seems to think that Bloomberg wants to demolish the el and put a park in its place, but in reality proponents of the park want to build the park atop the el. Opponents of the park/el want to demolish it and reclaim the air rights, presumably for high-rise office space and residential units.

Now, Bloomberg supports the park, so demolishing the High Line probably isn't an immediate worry, and that means there's still a chance he can put a park up there. But if he doesn't get the ball rolling in his administration, his successor now has the right to knock the High Line down.

See, that's what I don't understand. What I'm taking from the article is that the Mayor can do what he wants with it, and the plan doesn't need to go through the City Council. But I'm just deducing.

I think the Post is mistaken. The plan was to build the park atop the High Line, but if the right of way is demolished, where will the park go?