Dan I think you may inadvertantly be assuming an extreme to my
argument, when in fact it is Werner who is extreme here. I don't
mind a permit for a large scale operation like a carnival that will
charge money for things (so long as the approval process isn't
burdensome). I don't think something like a planned series of
infromal football games should have any government OK, period.
It is Werner's postion on the other hand, that neither of those
functions, the carnival or the football games, should be in the park
at all, whether there is bonding, permits, insurance, the pledge of
first borns, etc.
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "dfsavgny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "jerseyjohn99"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > I'm with BB on this. Public parks are for public use, whether
that
> > use is growing dandelions, racing monster trucks, or holding
anti-
> > globalization rallies. As long as the proper permits/insurance
are
> > in place & the city is getting a piece of the action from any
money
>
>
> JJ, you differ from BB because he thinks there should be no
hassle of
> permits, insurance etc. In Central Park they have recently stopped
> approving events on the Great Lawn, even though events needed
permits,
> clean up, etc., as it was causing too much long-term harm. It
caused
> tens of millions of dollars to bring back to life years ago after
much
> abuse and to allow it to be destroyed would simply waste taxpayers
> money. The city was laid out with public and formal parks. Some of
> that should be for the future. There's plenty of room to provide
other
> recreational fields, which many have said are needed.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
