Gothamist: SoHo Art Vendors Face City Hall

SohoTimmy

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 09:12:41 -0500

Some important facts: 1. NONE of the "artists" or the other illegal vendors are reporting their income to the IRS or collecting sales taxes. Have you ever seen any of the vendors use receipts? Why should they get a free ride? 2. The "artists" are trying to make this an issue of the BIDs against the vendors. In the case of Soho I can tell you it's the local residents that are complaining. 3. The proposals DO NOT eliminate vending they simply say that you can't vend around things like subway entrances or set up so many stands that it creates a wall down a block.

mocanlagunas

Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:41:28 -0500

pashmina anyone? cheap... I'm ok for artist selling on the street, but some (most) are basically regular businesses without having to pay rent.

kapusta

Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:20:07 -0500

ok,ok I give up! you guys win. The constitution is not relevant, nor is Hitler. My apologies. What's important is who gets to make money off of public spaces. Currently I do. The B.I.D. proposals mean B.I.D. does, not me. This is unfair, but fuck me, I can go to hell in a boat.

thefacts

Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:03:37 -0500

"B.I.D.'s illegal and anti-constitutional proposal will sterilize the streets of the public... much like Hitler sterilized Germany..." For #1 to compare people who do not want peddlers selling schlock in front of their homes or businesses to Hitler and the Nazis trivializes the Holocaust and should be condemned. It shows the mentality of the average street peddler. Shame on you.

Thespis

Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:25:33 -0500

@1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum We're talking about a content-neutral restriction on the time, place, and manner of speech, instituted in support of a substantial governmental interest (regulation of pedestrian traffic). That type of restriction is almost always constitutional. On the other hand we have speech that is partially, if not primarily, commercial in nature (selling art). That type of speech enjoys lesser constitutional protection, and is routinely regulated (e.g. requiring business licenses for art galleries). Put simply, this is not a violation of constitutional rights. It might (or might not) be nice to have more street artists selling their work -- and there are definitely arguments pro and con there. But they don't have a constitutional right to the space.

breaknight

Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:13:31 -0500

SoHo is crowded for a number of reasons. Prince Street is a mess, but to blame it all on vendors isn't fair. They should shut Prince between Broadway and West Broadway to traffic on weekends. Leave the vendors alone, they provide a nice atmosphere, and many of them (esp. in SoHo) have really interesting/unique stuff.

kapusta

Mon, 17 Nov 2008 11:57:09 -0500

B.I.D.'s objective is the removal of street venders and replacing them with cluttering planters and such. Of course, on the cluttering planters B.I.D. will sell advertising...let me spell it out...B.I.D. wants to make money off of a public space. As a street artist that's what I'm doing now. The difference is B.I.D.'s illegal and anti-constitutional proposal will sterilize the streets of the public... much like Hitler sterilized Germany...