The closure of the streets might be driven by a legal concern. If someone continually uses the land of another for a set length of time, and such use is open, notorious, and adverse (those are legal terms that mean, basically, that you are openly doing something that you don't have the right to do), then after the set time period runs the user could claim either ownership of or a right to continue to use that land. In the case of Rockefeller Center, they (rather then NYC) might actually own that street, and you, crossing over it every day to get to work for a bunch of years, might claim that you now "own" the right to keep walking along that pathway, and that the Rockefeller Center owners can't do anything to upset your use (like put up a tree, or a new building, or a kiosk). So, to protect their investment, the owners of Rockefeller Center may occassionally put up a roadblock to preserve the argument later that your use was not continuous. If your use is not continuous, you fail one of the tests for acquiring a legal right to continue walking along that path.

As you walk by buildngs in NYC, you sometimes see little plaques imbedded in the sidewalks. These sidewalks are, in a lot of cases, actually within the boundaries of that building's property line. These plaques say that you have been granted the right (a revokable license) to walk across their property. By giving you permission to walk over their property, the owners are taking away your ability to later say that your use was "adverse", and you will therefor fail in your claim to have acquired the permanent right to walk over that property. (And you thought they were just being nice!)

The closure of the streets might be driven by a legal concern. If someone continually uses the land of another for a set length of time, and such use is open, notorious, and adverse (those are legal terms that mean, basically, that you are openly doing something that you don't have the right to do), then after the set time period runs the user could claim either ownership of or a right to continue to use that land. In the case of Rockefeller Center, they (rather then NYC) might actually own that street, and you, crossing over it every day to get to work for a bunch of years, might claim that you now "own" the right to keep walking along that pathway, and that the Rockefeller Center owners can't do anything to upset your use (like put up a tree, or a new building, or a kiosk). So, to protect their investment, the owners of Rockefeller Center may occassionally put up a roadblock to preserve the argument later that your use was not continuous. If your use is not continuous, you fail one of the tests for acquiring a legal right to continue walking along that path.

As you walk by buildngs in NYC, you sometimes see little plaques imbedded in the sidewalks. These sidewalks are, in a lot of cases, actually within the boundaries of that building's property line. These plaques say that you have been granted the right (a revokable license) to walk across their property. By giving you permission to walk over their property, the owners are taking away your ability to later say that your use was "adverse", and you will therefor fail in your claim to have acquired the permanent right to walk over that property. (And you thought they were jsut being nice!)

There is no conspiracy here, kids. I think ConEd is simply trying to cover its ass, since all that exposed metal on the street is either lethal or will at least give you a serious burn. These icky-sticky manhole covers are scattered throughout the city.

http://www.pulp.tc/html/officials_say_proposed_rules_f.html

See last paragraph:

Michael S. Clendenin, a spokesman for Con Ed, said no statistics were available for the number of burn cases. He said that the utility has increased its efforts to prevent steam hazards by spraying more manhole covers with a coating of polyurethane epoxy, which insulates against excess heat released by steam pipes.

I think CON Ed put that crap on manhole covers for the RNC so that the black anarchists were not pulling them up and mucking up the power grid. I have a co-worker who thinks it's from DJ/hipster/skateborder girl that fell on one of those sizzling hot manholes (sounds pornographic) and had Con Ed burned into her back. i can attest that either way they are mighty slippery when wet. Many a grandma going to bust a hip on those when they get covered with the slushy snow stew in the winter.