Gothamist: Plans for Union Square Pavilion Restaurant Get Punk'd

Spiritof76

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 17:55:24 -0500

[16] I have no problems with protest. I even oppose the restaurant. But dirty tricks are dirty tricks, and I have no love for them whatsoever. Call me puritanical, but some of us have a little thing called "conscience." If you want to say that the park got to its current sad state because of dirty tricks, that's fine. But two wrongs do not make a right.

skowen

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 15:18:06 -0500

with everyone railing against Danny Meyer it's probably important to note that he's filed a court affidavit stating that he will not bid on the concession for the pavilion.

yoplay

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 14:36:32 -0500

Thank you #13 and #16 your views of the world around us are much healthier than the views of others commenting on this that have no satirical funny bone, or don't understand the difference between a public space market and a private space restaurant.

Wildman

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 13:58:33 -0500

I'm a little taken aback by the humorless and puritanical tone, and the animosity towards people who protest. The site is satirical, in the long and venerated tradition of satire. Cheap Tricks? Do you have any clue as to how this crappy plan got put in place in the first place? Talk about cheap tricks- the Union Square Partnership (and Danny Meyer in particular) wrote the book on it. Before you spout off against "cheap tricks" try and find out the back story here. And "putting back a restaurant where it once was?" there's never been a restaurant in the Pavilion. In 1994, in another backroom deal that took away more than 5,000 feet of playground space for kids, the city allowed the first private restaurant in Union Square Park, Luna Café. That move incurred the ire of many many moms and dads who used that playground. This time around, the Union Square Partnership "compromised" by offering to "increase the playground space" by giving back what they essentially stole from the public 14 years ago. But now they want to essentially trade up, by turning the Pavilion- a public building, built in a public park with public money for public use-into a private, expensive restaurant. I'm not opposed to every kind of commerce in the park. I'd like to be able to buy a sandwich and a beer and sit down. Some kind of arrangement that allows that to happen, and provides some income for the city, would be fine with me. But I don't think I should be FORCED to purchase something in order to use public space. Taxpayer dollars built the parks and the buildings in them. They are for EVERYONE, and shouldn't be restricted to "paying customers."

legend92

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 13:43:38 -0500

is fraudulant misinformation... true information then?

smokedgouda

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 13:30:01 -0500

The fact is that cheap tricks or not, this is just a fringe group of people selectively protesting putting back a restaurant where it once was. What they don't say is that a "yuppie" restaurant isn't what they personally want to see there. As if the green market with it's high prices wasn't as yuppie as any restaurant will be.

weatherman2012

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 13:27:12 -0500

Danny Meyer's new restaurant plans for Union Square = A private enterprise using public space for a commercial enterprise. The Green Market and the other vendors represent a democratic community that are allowed to use Union Square in the very spirit of the park's founding, namely community and commerce. The difference is that Meyer operates like a special interest group because of his ability to bypass typical procedure when it comes to getting a project like this completed. It's similar to what he did with the Shake Shack in Madison Square Park. There is a precedent for a business operating in public space, so that's not the question here. The question is whether or not a restaurant is the best option for that site. That question shuold be answered by both the city and by the communituy and the fake press release is effectively part of the dialogue between the community and the Park's dept. Dissent and Activism are forms of communication that are most certainly acceptable tactics in this city and this country. One can certainly argue how affective they are but one cannot argue that no one has a right to use such tactics.

megs

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 13:20:33 -0500

Cheap tricks are fine, particularly when you're battling a mayor with limitless money, ego, and sociopathy. Convincing arguments haven't prevented him from subsidizing the Yankees to more than a billion dollars, while claiming senior citizen centers aren't cost-effective, so he's cutting their 150 million dollar budget. Cheap tricks that work, however, would be much better.

ptwnbkr

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 13:10:44 -0500

natis, just to clarify my posting, i am referring specifically to edEx's last sentence which i should have quoted, so i am doing it here: "These are the same people that feel their civil rights are worth more than mine and yours." my point is that that i find it unnecessary to belittle other people's fight for civil liberties. one should note that union square has played an important role in the first amendment right to assemble, etc. etc. with its hosting so many important gatherings since the 19th century.

Spiritof76

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 13:06:19 -0500

No one should consider the activists' side if they need to use cheap tricks rather than providing a convincing argument and data to back up their views. Exactly right. As I read this article, my immediate reaction was that I will never trust Rev Billy and his flock again. You want to fight something, at least do it on the up and up.

dhex

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 12:45:04 -0500

have you tried walking through the market lately? unfortunately, reverend billy's whole schtick takes away from the actual weight of eminent domain abuses and complaints against them. oddly enough, being a clown can actually hurt a cause. go figure.

Outter Burrougher

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 12:39:28 -0500

There's a good point about protesting any use of that space, but I do think there is a difference between the market and the restaurant. The use of the pavilion as a restaurant means that I can never use that space unless I am paying for it; with the market, I can still walk through, and it isn't there every day.

natis

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 12:24:53 -0500

I think ptwnbkr is misunderstanding edEx's statement, but edEx should be the one to elaborate. What is kind of unnerving me is that Gothamist tends to make incidents like this come off as "cool" or "hip" when it's not. This was not a "clever ploy" but a pure act of stupidity. First, the idiot activists impersonating the Union Square BID does nothing more than cause confusion and lessen the value of their own beliefs. No one should consider the activists' side if they need to use cheap tricks rather than providing a convincing argument and data to back up their views. With Reverend Billy going on whatever hiatus he's going on, hopefully Gothamist can put away the kneepads. They're getting a bit worn out anyways. Thankfully the reporting of graffiti has lessened significantly.

ptwnbkr

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 12:09:50 -0500

ed ex, it sounds like you are one those proverbial frogs that wont pay attention to the rising water temperature thinking it is only "other" peoples' problem. if you get your civil liberties infringed upon, don't expect anyone to be around to assist you. how one person's civil rights are handled impacts us all. just ask any Black person or woman.

edEx

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 11:48:26 -0500

*...but they should protest any commercial activity there - not just the ones they don't particularly like.* That's the problem I have with some protesters they're not protesting for the community, they're doing it for they're own selfish reasons "I hate restaurants", "I hate construction", "I hate progress", "I hate this", "I hate that...". These are the same people that feel their civil rights are worth more than mine and yours.

dr zippy

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 11:47:15 -0500

I still don't understand. The artists and t-shirt vendors who set up shop in the park, pay no fees, no taxes and hence no revenue to the park, essentially using public space for private gain, get Reverend Billy's approval, but a restaurant that would bring income to the park is bad?

natis

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 11:40:41 -0500

Hope there is a criminal charge for the group that sent out the fake release. Idiots.

camera_club

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 11:38:15 -0500

not bad, I love it

smokedgouda

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 11:34:43 -0500

There are plenty of parks without restaurants. If you get rid of the restaurant, you should get rid of the market too. I'm sure none of the protesters don't make the connection but they should protest any commercial activity there - not just the ones they don't particularly like.