Gothamist: Give Us Lawn Or Give Us...Nothing

SP

Fri, 27 Aug 2004 13:56:36 -0500

I went to high school on Madison Ave. There are plenty of delis, granted they are uber snobby and ridiculously overpriced, but there are also pizzerias, diners, and other restaurants, all along the ave. The park also has cart vendors and water fountains so that one might not even need to go to the beast side.

Michael

Fri, 27 Aug 2004 11:03:07 -0500

"Madison isnt a commercial street?" Try finding a deli on Madison. If the protesters want to shop for a new Kate Spade bag, they'll be in business. Anyway, point is moot. Union Square is a great compromise. Very commerical, closer to the confention, history of civil rights protests and very photogenic.

SP

Thu, 26 Aug 2004 20:59:17 -0500

Madison isnt a commercial street?

Michael

Thu, 26 Aug 2004 20:05:33 -0500

"not everyone will know how commercial free this area is and will not bring food, water, bandages..... please do your own research instead of just telling me i'm wrong." So in other words, hijiki, New Yorkers have to sacrifice their lawn, possibly for up to two years while the grass regrows, because the protesters are too stupid to research the area they may be protesting in? Oh, and I hang out in the Great Lawn all the time. It's a good 15 minute walk to any public facility of note, especially if you're on the east side, where the closest commercial street is Lexington.

jspencer

Thu, 26 Aug 2004 14:40:23 -0500

If you're ready to call out the GUARD to protect the LAWN . . . why not just change your name to "Westchesterist?" or "LongIslandist?" You can take the reporter out of the suburbs, but . . .

NY'er

Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:03:34 -0500

Please, I was not implying that there should be no public protests. Of course there should be, but everyone should have to play under the rules (legal or otherwise) set forth. If a rally in Central Park had been approved, I would avoid the park for the day...however it has not been approved. I think all of the protestors just run the risk of making themselves look bad and giving valid ammo to the republicans.

A Fellow NY'er

Thu, 26 Aug 2004 08:36:36 -0500

NY'er, any protest in any public space could potentially disrupt someone else's enjoyment. So are you saying there should be no public protests? Or just none that bother you in particular? What if you wanted to run along the West Side Highway the day of a WSH protest? Wouldn't a protest there also "force you into the fold" and "disrupt your enjoyment" of the piers or Battery Park? Common sense would say to avoid the area for that one day. How do you handle parades, or the NYC Marathon, or bike races, or the Met Opera in the park? Do you have a website with your daily whereabouts that people can check to make sure they aren't forcing or disrupting you? And by the way, many of the protesters will be fellow New Yorkers. (This city is, by a recent count, 4-to-1 Democrats-to-Republicans.)

honey2

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:54:36 -0500

ALso, rally along a linear stretch of spacve doesn't make for a rally--it makes for a gathering where a the vast majority of participants will be marginalized blocks away from the focal point of the rally. A rally on the great lawn allows for a somewhat circular gathering which means that a much smaller precentage of those gathered will be far fromthe heart of the rally. Huge events that are forced into linear spaces during the gathering (as opposed to the marching) portion, are just a recipe for frustration and really do impede people's exercise of free speech and right to peaceably assemble. The park will survive. If not, all you central park refugees should come out to prospect park--it's really convenient--lots of subways nearby along with plenty of delis and such.

hijiki

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:22:11 -0500

sorry larry dvm, i come out to wsh every day. i work here. there are no nearby subways. the closest is the ACE line at 8th ave... easily a 15 minute walk. and there are almost no restaurants or delis. yes, i bring my lunch (but i was also a scout)... not everyone will know how commercial free this area is and will not bring food, water, bandages..... please do your own research instead of just telling me i'm wrong.

larry dvm

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:03:54 -0500

Hijiki, there are delis and restaurants "out there." Many more than you're likely to find on upper 5th Ave or Central Park West. Also, if you're concerned about it, why not pick up something on the way? You don't have to be a scout to think of that. And the subways are within a few blocks--I'm sick of this "inaccessible" argument. The WSH site is a good one, not merely an adequate one.

hijiki

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:59:23 -0500

"As is typical on these comment boards, a lot more arguing than research." uh, larry, aren't we talking about the post-march rally? not the march itself. there are almost no restaurants or delis out here. and certainly no subways. check yourself. and NY'er... protesters will not be allowed into the cordoned MSG area. ufpj are looking for a spot that does not interfere too much with people like you. for example, the great lawn which is out of the way of traffic and most of the city. the GOP was allowed to impose themselves over a swath of midtown. shutting down a good chunk of our city. ufpj is asking far less. as you say, the park is multi-use. now wouldn't you think the request of 250,000 people to use a portion of the park, trumps your lonely run in the park for just one day?

Kevin

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:58:45 -0500

As another NYer, I welcome any and all who come to my backyard who want to stand up for civil liberties and human rights the world over. As a US citizen, I am ashamed of how my country has imposed its will on others in the world in a way that makes inconveniencing Central Park joggers, softballer players and NYC beach-goers pale by any comparison. At the end of the day, it is our moral obligation to oppose one of the most destructive regimes ever to hold power. All the grass-huggers out there can bury their heads in the sand--I'll meet true patriots (from NY or otherwise) in the streets, in the park or whereever we can get truth and justice spoken and heard.

Kevin

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:57:59 -0500

larry dvm

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:57:19 -0500

SP, I don't get your point. Was I unclear in my post that I was referring to the assembly area? No, I was abundantly clear. I also don't get how my post was a "flame." I was only noting what the UFPJ themselves are reporting on their website. The "Hard to get to" argument is a straw-man, as both the assembly area and rally area are well-served by public transit. The entire route is easy to reach from all directions. The "WSH is a barren wasteland" argument is also false, as the highway is in fact a landscaped parkway well-served by nearby businesses. The "Sticking us out of sight" argument doesn't hold up, as the march passes by the convention site and its way through Midtown and on to the WTC site. The "Penning in the crowd" argument won't work, because the rally site (not including the march route) is 4 miles long with exits at every block. The "Everybody has a right to use the Park" argument is twisted here; the reason the Park requires permits for groups of more than 20 is because, indeed, everybody has a right to share in the Park, not to have it monopolized and damaged by big groups. All the arguments about Dave Matthews's concert are ill-informed: the DMB event was smaller by 200,000 people, and access was controlled--the rally group could easily swell to much larger numbers. Despite the facts, protesters apparently want to be seen as trampled-upon victims.

NY'er

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:38:07 -0500

Central Park is a multi-use park, that must serve a wide variety of interests. While I fully support the rights of protestors, I get the feeling that the protesters are trying to impose themsevles on us New Yorkers by holding htier protests in our backyard. If you want to protest the GOP convention, then go do it...at MSG...don't force me into the fold because I happen to want to go for a nice run in the park. Disrupting my enjoyment of the park is not going to make me join your cause...it is going to make me wish that all you protestors would go home.

SP

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:37:38 -0500

"As is typical on these comment boards, a lot more arguing than research." larry, you're a victim of your own arrogance. The assembly area is the place where the march BEGINS. The assembly area is a square around 7th avenue where people will join the demonstration. Maybe you should do some research yourself before you flame the people posting in this thread.

Dave H.

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:18:40 -0500

A few observations on the respective locations: The Great Lawn really has no convenient facilities to speak of. I go there all the time and can't remember seeing a water fountain or anything like that around. I believe there's one public restroom located on the southwest corner of the lawn behind the Delacorte Theater, but it tends to be so skanked out that I've run home to use my own bathroom instead--and I don't live that close. As for the West Side Highway, I'm a little puzzled about the complaints. I go down there all the time, especially when it's brutally hot. There are few breezier places to be on a hot summer day than on the Hudson. I certainly didn't feel oppressed when I went to the BBQ and Blues Festival two weeks ago that was held on the pier that will be used as the police detention center. A lot of great improvement work has been done along the WSH in the past few years. A lot of the piers are public parks and there are a good number of clean public restrooms. If the area is such a wasteland, it's odd that I see so many families and pedestrians enjoying their weekend afternoons there. Shoot, I took my Mom and Dad (both in their sixties) over there along with my sister and her five-year-old son after a Mother's Day brunch and they thought it was pretty sweet. I think UPJ is missing out on a good opportunity to march right past the Garden and have a decent rally. The Great Lawn is nowhere near the convention and completely secluded from both the East and West Side streets.

larry dvm

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:05:10 -0500

the west side highway is far more difficult to get to than the park It's a good thing this doesn't matter, since UFPJ says the assembly area stretches from 14th to 23rd Streets, between 5th and 9th Avenues. That's 36 square blocks encompassing 8 subway stations. So, it shouldn't be too hard to get to. What remains in debate is where the march will end after passing directly in front of MSG. No matter what, the march will go directly past the convention site. As is typical on these comment boards, a lot more arguing than research.

hijiki

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 16:36:00 -0500

wynardo, don't you think that 250,000 largely static protesters would do less damage to the precious grass than 75,000 concert-goers dancing spinning about to dave matthews? you have no evidence that this event would harm the lawn as much as you say. also, the west side highway is far more difficult to get to than the park. not to mention one of the most inhospitable areas of the city for a person on foot. i know, i work on the wsh.

Max

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 16:31:35 -0500

Could someone clear something up for me? With this "Westside Highway" spot, did the city actually offer to close the entire highway? From where to where? Seems mighty inconvienent to commuters trying to get in/out of the city. Another reason the protesters were right to blow off the offer.

SP

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 16:09:34 -0500

wynardo: - UFPJ asked for the the great lawn site over a year ago - they offered to post a bond to pay for potential damages - they offered volunteers to re-seed the lawn post demonstration - the city backed out of a promise to provide water, port-a-potties and buses to the WSH site

Tim N.

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 16:03:42 -0500

Oh, man. I tried so hard to stay out of this. I really did. But what the hell... (of course, now Sterling will come out of his spot in the woodwork as well...) Bottom line, people, as I see it, it doesn't have to do with the lawn, or the park, or the uber-rich CPC not wanting to see the Great Lawn trashed. This is about denying protesters a great photo-op (quarter million people marching through midtown to the park) and about letting them gather in a place that it will be hard to clear later. Anyone who things Bloomberg or Ray Kelly or anyone else who lives in NYC is calling the shots on this is nuts. Everything about this RNC mess is coming straight out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And the denials of such only reinforce the perception that the White House thinks the country is made up of agreeable dopes and/or total idiots. UPJ should not have made an agreement that they were not prepared to keep, but the attitude of mistrust and cynicism created when elected officials say "This is our decision" and in fact it is NOT their decision, but someone else's directive, goes a long way in creating a stalemate. Personally, I'll be on the beach Sunday.

wynardo

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 16:01:47 -0500

The Dave Matthews concert was a ticketed event that only allowed 75,000 people. It took 12 days to plan the logistics for it and the organizers posted a bond - something which to my knowledge the protest group has not been able to do so far.

Erin

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:32:33 -0500

There was an editorial in Newsday by Jimmy Breslin a few weeks ago pointing out that the WSH location would put the protest awfully close to Chambers St. and Ground Zero... which is kind of playing into Republican hands, if you think about it: hot, thirsty, angry protestors stretched out along the highway all clamoring to get near a stage at Chambers St. increase the likelihood of a riot breaking out near Ground Zero (at which point, Bush and his ilk can point and say "look at these crazy radicals who would desicrate the site of a tragedy... vote for us!"). Some people I've talked to figure UFPJ figured that out and decided to move the protest accordingly. Not to mention that the Great Lawn is a better location for everyone - much easier to handle crowds there, it's a litte bit farther from the convention proper, etc. I'm all for keeping the Park in good shape, too, but... how would 250,000 protesters cause substantially more damange than, say, a Dave Matthews concert? I think the "Central Park or nowhere" stance UFPJ is taking now is a bit extreme, and I thought they were being ridiculous at first, too, but Central Park really does make more sense and I can see why they are fighting for the space.

S.D.

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:25:53 -0500

Well, Granted it's been a Long time since I so much as walked a picket line at City Hall protesting increased tuition (Damm! When did I get Old?!?!) but I just can't Visualize the WSH as being better Crowd Control wise. In any case, I'm certsainly not an Expert.

paul

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:16:54 -0500

And for all the grass lovers out there, there are also beautiful parks to enjoy in Queens and in the Bronx--why all this focus on Central Park??? : )

paul

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:09:38 -0500

SD, it's actually easier to control crowds on the West Side Highway. It is much easier to barricade a city block than an open meadow. Anybody who has been to the foregoing protests in 03/04 would realize that the WSH is desirable to the city because of the potential to create maximum discomfort and to antagonize protestors. UPJ is not a bunch of babies. After seeing older people and families with children being harassed for their participation in past rallies, I think UPJ is just trying to look out for everyone who wants to attend. The city has utterly failed to reach out to protest groups to find any reasonable compromise. I agree with Phil--it's really too bad that Gothamist is caught up in the anti-protest hysteria!

wynardo

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:03:36 -0500

Guys - come on. It is clear that if 250,000 people converge on the park it will ruin the lawn for an indeterminate amount of time and become an organizatioal nightmare. I don't see what the big deal is. The city proposed an alternate location, which is easier to get to, and closer to the convention. They even went as far to provide facilities and buses to help people get to the location. How is this trampling free speech? Free speech doesn't mean the right to do whatever you want. You can't stand up in a movie theater and yell fire. And you can't ruin an expensive public space for the entire city. For a gathering that big, they have to work with the city and be willing to make some sacrifices. This is something they are clearly not willing to do. This story makes me lose even more respect for these protest groups.

S.D.

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:58:25 -0500

While I'm certainly Not advocating breaking the law: What does the City Intend to do if 40,000 to 100,000 people just show up on the great Lawn?? Arrest them all? Call in the National guard?

tien

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:49:51 -0500

look, i'm not saying that the only way to change things is by voting. all the other ways you mentioned have influence. and in the end, the city has given the protesters a location, crappy or not, and it looks like if UPJ wants to have an organized protest, it's going to have to be in that location.

dr. glassees

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:32:58 -0500

take a look at savethemall.org/moments/index.html. it's got some great pictures and stories from past mass gatherings at the national mall in washington. geez, i hope the >200,000 protesters who gathered for MLK, Jr's speech, or the >500,000 Vietnam protesters didn't hurt the grass. and if they did, shame on them. there were plenty of available strips of highway to protest on. they just did it out of some craven desire for a photo op. /hyperbole but really.

Janine

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:31:52 -0500

I'm saying if you're going to protest you should be ready to be up to any conditions.

King Hippo

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:22:33 -0500

Wasn't the 2003 First Avenue rally before the war considered successful? They estimated attendance at around 400k to 500k. If the Great Lawn were the only available option to voice dissent, then the free speech vs. public oasis argument would definitely be a more convincing argument for the UPJ. But there are other areas to go to, and it was mega events like the Paul Simon concert that put the Lawn into the horrendous state it was. And even if they do raise the money to re-seed it, it'll mean that the Lawn will be off limits again, while it recovers, again. If I remember correctly it was off limits from 1995 to 1997, and softball wasn't allowed again until 1998.

hijiki

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:19:59 -0500

ok tien, you're right. if we want to, we could vote for a new mayor when the time comes, but we're talking about the protest in the park this weekend, not replacing the mayor.

jen h

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:17:56 -0500

Tien, I don't even know where to begin with this. Are you saying that the only way to voice ones dissent is via voting? What about during the years in between Election Day? What if one wants to influence/change the position of a currently elected official (i.e., "petition the Government for a redress of grievances")? If voting were enough, why would anyone publically protest anything? Why publish op/ed pieces or political blogs? Why support political organizations or form PACs? Good thing you weren't a Founding Father...

tien

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:48:53 -0500

hijiki, i'm not saying that they shouldn't protest, but that if they (being nyc residents) are unhappy with this, they can just vote him out.

J

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:45:32 -0500

Ironic that a Central Park Conservancy that allows thousands of cars to go through the park per week on the main park loop - which was not the intention of the park's creators - cares about one day of a giant protest and lots of people gathering on the grass - which is closer in spirit to the park's intended use. Thousands of protesters might damage the park in one day, but no less than thousands or millions of cars over the years that spew out exhaust, tear up roads and cause dangerous conditions for runners, walkers, cyclists, etc. I'll believe that the CPC is serious about protecting the park from misuse when it once and for all gets the city to ban cars from the park so that there is at least one place in the city where one can go to escape traffic.

S.D.

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:45:16 -0500

Wow, This is great! What discussion this turned into! Really, I think this is cool although a little too heated at times. Back On topic: Well, I think the security issues re: the park are over stated. IMO: The park is held in trust for the people. I think it is better suited than the West Side Hwy for a number of reason, not the least of which is: It will be less disruptive to Other people. Central Park:It's by far easier to control a Crowd in the Parkoffers checkpoints/chokepoints to possibly screen peopleHas public FacilitiesPeople won't get run over by civiliansIs near Hospitals in case Stuff does HappenDoesn't have people living in it (well, not officially) The West Side Hwy:Will disrupt any buisness in the areaWill disrupt the people living near thereHas no easy checkpoints/chokepointshas stores with Windows that might be destroyed if it does goes nuts (I pray it doesn't)Has no public facilities So, given the options: I'd rather the lawn got trampled. (Sometimes, Gotta love html coding!)

joe

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:36:29 -0500

When UFPJ agreed to the WSH site, it was with the understanding that the City would provide water, bathrooms and shuttle buses from the rally site to public transportation. The site the City offered is desolate, not a good place for 250K people to assemble, a bad location not just for photo-op purposes. The City reneged on this agreement forcing UFPJ to back out. The City has been nothing but disingenuous throughout the entire process that was started, as mentioned above and contrary to what the City would have you believe, well in advance of the date set for the demonstration.

barry

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:29:50 -0500

Janine, the West Side Highway is a terrible location. What if it's 90 degrees that day? There is no shade, there are very few stores there for water or food. Are you arguing that only people that are up to being there under those conditions should protest?

Janine

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:24:08 -0500

The West Side Highway is NEARER to the convention. Central Park is 25 blocks away. I am for the protest and I will go. I feel that I have to. However, there is no need to morph geography and stretch the truth to out of towners. The West Side Highway is actually closer. Summary: I don't care where it is. I do think UPJ is a bunch of babies. I'm marching. btw, does anyone think that protesters in the 60s would have just gone home or complained when they didn't get everthing exactly the way they wanted it? No. That's why it's called fighting for your rights. (but no violence, please)

hijiki

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:18:41 -0500

yes tien, elected officials may be un-elected next time there is an election... but i'm not understanding how this relates to the topic at hand? or are you just saying that there should be no protest at all because we can vote?

barry

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:17:28 -0500

"Honest question": To argue that voting is enough activism doesn't make a lot of sense to me, after watching the NY senators for for the Patriot Act and the Iraq War. I'm going to be there because I want the rest of the world to see that not all Americans are sheep who think what we're doing in Iraq is OK, that Abu Ghraib is OK, or that holding people without charges for years is OK. Given they way people wave flags and say we "have to support the president" in time of war, the rest of the world would be justified thinking most Americans don't care about any of those things.

lana

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:14:23 -0500

HQ: Protesting IS important, because it demonstrates to the civilized countries we've alienated since September 11th that a hell of a lot of people in this country are pissed off about what's going on. Getting that message out is the best way to repair the tarnished ties once we get these assholes out of office! The Bush administration won't care about a protest [they'll be thrilled if things get out of hand!], but it's good to stand up and be counted if you have a problem with what our government is doing both here and abroad. It's a right that was given to all of us in the Bill of Rights, and we should use it! "Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

cb/CityRag

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:13:44 -0500

see you all out there! hope to be posting some protest photos on CityRag next week. RNC Activist and Protest Guide

barry

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:10:51 -0500

There aren't a million people in Times Square on New Year's Eve. That's tourism hype, as that many wouldn't fit there. It's not that big. Jen, you're acting like the city negotiated in good faith. UFPNJ asked for Central Park a year and a half ago, and the city waited until July to say "take the West Side Highway or nothing." Be pissed at the stupid NYPD and Bloomberg who would rather have chaos apparently. The organizers have offered a bond to pay for park damage, plus at least a thousand volunteers to reseed the park if necessary. I find it revolting to have people say a Disney film is OK for the Great Lawn, but not a political event. There just aren't that many places big enough for hundreds of thousands of people in NYC. Look at the chaos of the anti-Iraq war demos when the police were unprepared and hostile.

Phil

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:08:23 -0500

"I guess I wasn't clear enough on my issues with the UPJ, mainly that they agreed in principle to the West Side Highway as a location. This down-to-the-wire business certainly seems like a pubilcity move." Actually, after the leadership of UPJ made the decision to approve the WSH site, it created a major rift in the coalition (those who accepted the concession and those who did not) that threatened to undermine the protest as a whole. To preserve the integrity of the event (and their own integrity, if you ask me) they backed out of the agreement.

tien

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:08:04 -0500

hijiki, i was only speaking towards the "citizens of new york own the park" statement you made. and no, i'm not even going to suggest that elected officials always make the correct decision. but since they are elected (albeit indirectly), logic does dictate that they can be un-elected too. unless ballot boxes go missing or something or ballots are voided, etc, etc.

Jen W

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:03:29 -0500

Since the city is dragging its feet on this, I move for disorganized dissent. What would happen if thousands of people just happened to have the same independant idea to go to the park anyway--under the guise of recreation? It's a dumb idea to have the convention here in the first place (tho' they have every right to choose NYC). Why wouldn't the RNC choose somewhere more politically aligned with conservative values? Or at least with more parking?

hstencil

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:01:57 -0500

why was Times Square never proposed as a site? Because of the businesses there? It seems to me if the NYPD can handle a million people there every December 31st, why not use it for this rally?

hijiki

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:57:10 -0500

no tien, i didn't suggest that only new yorkers should be allowed in the park. that would be silly, wouldn't it. the park is for public use. we (new yorkers) do pay for it to be that way. it would be understandable for the conservancy to be protective of sensitive plant and wildlife habitats within the park, but we're talking about kentucky bluegrass here. is your logic suggesting that elected officials are always correct on the basis that they are elected?

Jen

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:56:06 -0500

I definitely think protesters should be heard - but right to speech is not necessarily right to use whatever location they want...technically, City Hall is a public space, but for security purpose, the park is now closed (another semi-contentious issue). I'm just not convinced the protest MUST BE AT the Great Lawn. It's not that near MSG - it just seems like a more beautiful photo op. I guess I wasn't clear enough on my issues with the UPJ, mainly that they agreed in principle to the West Side Highway as a location. This down-to-the-wire business certainly seems like a pubilcity move. And arguing that the park is used for concerts - when concerts come, there are sponsors/organizeres who pay the city, who in turn use those funds to clean up the park.

hijiki

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:55:32 -0500

honest question

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:45:54 -0500

what is the point of protesting? this is an honest question, not meant to be snide or apathetic. isn't the best way to show you disagree with the current administration to simply NOT VOTE for bush in nov?

tien

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:36:12 -0500

hijiki, so if the citizens of new york own the park, should only citizens of new york who want to protest be allowed in the park? and in theory, don't the citizens of new york vote for the officials that put the people in charge of the park, and (if you're following my logic), aren't those people doing what's best for the people of new york?

Mumbles

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:34:48 -0500

Jen, you have really pissed me off today. Have you ever protested for any cause, Jen? Will you sit mutely while the GOP pisses on our fair city? If this was the South in the 1960's you would be complaining about how black protest folks were making the Woolworth counter "inconvenient".

winnerofthesat

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:34:42 -0500

If people want to play on the lawn, they should join Sunday's croquet game in Central Park with the peaceful and proper Billionaires for Bush. I think all must come dressed in proper billionaire attire--no angry liberal attire allowed.

hijiki

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:25:41 -0500

it's a lawn, not a fragile native ecosystem. the whole point is for people to use it. is it better to have 250,000 angry people roaming the streets to make their point? honestly... call it a gift if you want, it really doesn't matter, the citizens of new york do own the park.

Phil

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:24:15 -0500

Wow, I wish people who stand up for their right to peacefully assemble and express political dissent would just quit being such babies. Am I kidding you? Yes, I am. The notion that protest groups should quit whining about having their rally exiled to the West Side Highway - out of sight of both the convention and the city at large - is utterly insulting. As a few previous commentators have said above, the notion of preserving a public lawn while stifiling political dissent is reprehensible (not to mention disingenuous, in my opinion, on the part of the city). You "want the protesters to have a place to protest as much as they conceptually do"? Well, I'm afraid "conceptually" isn't really going to do it. We need an ACTUAL rally space reasonably near the site of the covenvenion in response to an administration that has ACTUALLY invaded our city in order to exploit the deaths of thousands our neighbors for their political gain (unless you can offer some other reason why they chose NYC). Shoving protesters out to where they cannot be heard by the so-called "leaders" of this country does not constitute the exercise of free speech. But then, why take a stand for the first amendment when it's so much easier to echo the NY Post and joke about the police carting people off to jail? I'm really disappointed in you, Gothamist.

jen h

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 10:59:22 -0500

Jen, the quote from the lawyer sounds a lot less hysterical when you include the previous paragraph: "However the judge rules, lawyers for the group say they hope to keep the issues of free speech and the stewardship of public parks alive. In court, they argued that in denying permits for protests on the Great Lawn and North Meadow, the Parks Department, along with the Central Park Conservancy, its private partner, were unfairly applying rules that had never been made public." Even if you don't want the protest on the Great Lawn, wouldn't you like to know what those rules are, too? The park is not only a "gift," but a right -- it is public after all. As far as I know, The UPJ people rejected the WSH location because of technical reasons (lack of a proper sound system for the space, lack of bathrooms/waterfountains in the area, etc.), not because they are "huge, huge babies."

S.D.

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 10:52:05 -0500

There is a Editorial at The Republican that I thought summed my opinion up quite nicely. As it says "We wish the city would show as much respect for dissent as it does for a green lawn." In any case, I don't think they shoulc cancel the Rally.

james

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 10:43:18 -0500

good for the city. Screw the protestors, they were given a more then viable alternative that gave them a path to MSG and then a large open, safe area to protest. If that's not good enough....tough!

Kevin Lawrence

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 10:37:38 -0500

People, please. What should be more readily trampled on: grass or your given right to assemble and voice dissent? I am astounded how many well-meaning people think that preserving a well-kept lawn outweighs meaningfully demonstrating dissent against a regime systematically dismantling hard-won civil and human rights. I don't want to see the Great Lawn trashed, but I can live with that any day of the week given what we've seen coming out of Iraq (the tortured Abu Ghraib Iraqi with electrodes to his extremities is now known as "The Statue of Liberty" throughout the Middle East). God only knows how torn up the incommunicado prisoners are in Gitmo. Lets get our priorities straight.

sam

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 10:33:01 -0500

It should be pointed out that the money raised to "restore" the park over the past dozen or so years has actually been raised by the Central Park Conservancy, a private charitable organization, and the restoration was not originally paid for by public funds. Just wanted to point that out. I agree though - they spent many years raising the money, and it would take quite some time to both raise the money and do the work to "re-restore" the park.