How the City Blocked Protests in Central Park

2006_07_cpview.jpg

Nice: Court papers have been released showing how the city successfully blocked protests in Central Park, most notably protests during the Republican Convention. You might remember from two years ago that the some of the city's excuses for not having the protests on the Great Lawn were to protect the lawn (which had been renovated) and that the police might not be able to secure the lawn. But it turns out everyone's conspiracy theories were true: It seems that some police officials actually supported havng rallies at the lawn and that the city just wanted to tamp down politicial rallies during the convention and so close to Bloomberg's re-election. Last week, the NY Sun raised the issue in a story about a John Lennon tribute concert being rejected by the Parks Department, and today the NY Times looks at court papers; both papers find that the mayor was more involved with the permit-blocking that he previously admitted and that the Parks Department did everything possible to prevent events at the Great Lawn. From the NY Sun:

An e-mail from the Parks and Recreation Department's head marketing officer, Elizabeth Smith, said, "This [music of John Lennon] event does look great but we had to admit that it was going to be difficult, right after all our problems with the rally requests for the park, and right before Mike's re-election (this is for Oct 05) that this is likely to happen on the Great Lawn."

...[The email] offers an unusual look at how politics factored into a decision by an agency in the Bloomberg administration, which prides itself on making decisions on the merits, not politics. The concern appeared to be that if the department granted permission for a musical concert but not to political protesters, Mr. Bloomberg's claim that his denial of the protest permits was based on concern for the well-being of the park's turf would be proven false, and that it would hurt him politically.

The NY Times also has an email from Parks Commissioner Adrian Benepe to Mayor Bloomberg about the Parks Department rejecting National Council of Arab Americans' permit request. This is definitely a bad month for Bloomberg - fallout from his terribly slow reaction to the Queens blackout and now this. He'll have to arrange for a subway terror threat very soon!

Here's a link to Partnership for Civil Justice, which has all the documents as part of a lawsuit that the National Council of Arab Americans and ANSWER Coalition has agains the city (both were denied permits for protests in Central Park).

Email This Entry


Comments (7) [rss]

user-pic

Guess it's a good thing he's not seeking higher office.

user-pic

so, where are those right winger assholes who were so vehement at the time? Heres a big fat I TOLD YOU SO, you douche bags.

user-pic

"He'll have to arrange for a subway terror threat very soon!"?
Depends on how Republican he really is...

user-pic

Animals don't wanna hear your whining. Save it for the streets.

I read the NYT story late last night, and just couldn't wrap my brain around how the evidence was supposed to all fit together. Parks dept. wants one thing, cops think the opposite, parks people lobby cops before meeting with Bloomberg so that they will win. Bloomberg testified that he didn't make the decisions, but he got a memo on it. The Lennon people are told no because Parks had just said no the previous month. Parks dept writes in 2003 that they don't want any rallied on their lawns.

There's lots of stuff there that makes the Parks Dept. look like assholes (which is what you would expect!), but not much that sticks to Mayor Mike.

5/bklynd I agree that most of this appears to land on the Parks Dept. And while the skeptic in me retorts "well of course Bloomberg isn't going to put his name in the paper trail" that doesn't qualify as evidence.

Still, the Parks Department answers to the Office of The Mayor, and if the Parks Department is denying access based on political speech under the Mayor's watch that's at least a serious case of neglect and mismanagement, and is plausibly something more sinister.

I agree that there is possibly something there - but the more I think about it I really don't think this is very good evidence (or a well-written NYT article.)

Ultimately, only one of the bits definitely indicates they were thinking politically - the Lennon email (which is also last chronologically.) The rest could conceivably be a "not on our pretty lawn" agenda. I'm sure that's what the lawyers will argue, anyway.

Post a comment (Comment Policy)

Tips

Get your daily dose of New York first thing in the morning from our weekday newsletter, now in beta.

About Gothamist

Gothamist is a website about New York. More

Editor: Jen Chung
Publisher: Jake Dobkin

Newsmap

newsmap.jpg

Contribute

Latest Tip:

years of isiah thomas stories in chant form http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/college/2009/11/14/20
[more]

Latest Photo:

Subscribe

Use an RSS reader to stay up to date with the latest news and posts from Gothamist.

All Our RSS