Gothamist: The Grass Is Greener For The City: No Central Park Protest

Mogsob

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 10:21:26 -0500

The Parks Dep't is willing to let the protest proceed in the park provided that the protest group fronts a bond to cover any potential damage, just like the promoters behind the Dave Matthews Band does. The only exceptions to this rule are for the NY Phil for concerts in the park, which are cancelled if the weather is poor. The protest group did not agree to these terms, which are applied universally and therefore within the the bounds of the 1st Amendment.

honey2

Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:32:26 -0500

The protestors should have used police math to get their permit. Using police math, they could show that they, the protest groups, really grossly overestimate the the number of attendees at these events and based on a formula using the group's estimation of attendees at their last event compared to the NYPD's estimation of the number of attendees (which is often 1/2 as much as the organizers claim) then, voila, this protest will really only have about 40 thousand people on the grass and the lawn should be able to handle that.

King Hippo

Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:23:40 -0500

John

Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:13:39 -0500

The Paul Simon concert was a good 5 years before the renovation of the Great Lawn. Back then, it was more like the Great Dustbowl. The protestors are gettng more mileage out of this Great Lawn issue than they will likey get from the protest itself. They should be estactic about this controversy and the CIty's position. And, who are the protestors trying to reach in the Great Lawn anyway? All those rabid republicans on the Upper West Side? Don't they want to be closer to MSG?

S.D.

Tue, 24 Aug 2004 13:33:01 -0500

Nah, I don't think they want to Squash it per se, just out of sight (Out of Mind?) a little... The thing about Security: you prepare for the absolute worst. In this case, it possibly runs afoul of the right to Assemble peacfully.

sp

Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:46:07 -0500

"the crowd wouldn't be walking around much on the grass." right, concert goers are able to levitate and therefore will not walk on the grass. When Paul Simon had his concert in the park, there were over half a million people there, more than twice the amount expected for the UP&J protest. The grass excuse is clearly just that: a BS excuse used to try and squash the rally.

Janine

Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:31:58 -0500

clearly you don't remember the Everybody Hurts video

Janine

Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:31:24 -0500

clearly you don't remember the Everybody Hurts video

S.D.

Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:38:07 -0500

Well, it's about Images. A Protest on the great lawn has a powerfull message behind it versus a photo of a crowd on a Highway. In any case, I'm always uncomfortable when any Gov't says "Only protest where I tell you to".

tien

Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:23:09 -0500

if i remember correctly, the difference that the city cited btwn dave and the protests is that there was a set amount of people for dave and the crowd wouldn't be walking around much on the grass.

Zster

Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:14:11 -0500

Not sure why the protestors would want to be in central park, it's kind of out of the way. Having hundreds of thousands clogging the streets and blocking traffic would look much cooler on TV. And isn't that the whole point of all this?

S.D.

Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:11:50 -0500

And I didn't say it was an Indication of one. *However*, a group dedicated to a Peacefull protest is not likely to degenerate into a riot. Our founding fathers didn't trust a large centralized Gov't. That's why they tried a weak Confederacy first and then a stronger Central Gov't that has a Constitution enumerating the right of the people peaceably to assemble as part of the very 1st Amendment. They felt this was so important that it had to come first. If you want to assume it will degenerate into a riot, that's fine. IMO: Give them a chance to voice ligitmate complaints.

Base10Blog

Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:59:35 -0500

In regards to the comparison between a Central Park protest and a Dave Mathews concert, a Dave Mathews concert is not likely to degenerate into a riot. Time, place and manner restrictions on free speech are neither unconstitutional nor indicative of a repressive regime.

Tim A

Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:48:57 -0500

If recent developments are any guide (e.g., the swift boats garbage) the Republicans' goals are going to get served no matter what. The protesters could sit in a big circle around MSG and sing "Kum Ba Yah" and Bush's poll numbers would go up.

Mase

Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:48:09 -0500

as for politicians controlling the weather, when the Republican convention was in Houston in the 1990s (in August) the weather was, somehow, tame. Highs in the low 80s and lows in the 60s (which for Houston in August is unheard of).

S.D.

Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:40:51 -0500

A 'Battle in Seattle' scenario? God, I hope not. It would only serve the RNC's goals...

S.D.

Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:30:16 -0500

... "the city said the lawn could be destroyed by 75,000 if it rained the day before or morning of the protest."? Isn't that also true of a Dave Matthews Concert?!?! Following this "Logic" they should cancel Dave Matthews Next Concert. Oh, Wait. A Dave Matthews Concert isn't embarassing to local and national Politicians. Silly me. IMO: The 1st ammendment doesn't mean you can only Protest peacfully where The CCCP, Sorry, the State tells you too.

Tim A

Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:25:19 -0500

Doesn't this development go some distance toward increasing the likelihood of a 'Battle in Seattle' scenario on the street?