--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "bluebishop82"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
>
If I assumed wrong I am sorry, but I also don't Werner is saying
that with regard to al parks as well. I also believe that Bradley
should be a passive park. In some places there has to be limits
because we have to decide if we want it to look a certain way or not
and who is going to pay for the maintenance to keep it that way.
Overuse can and will damage a park. There is no reason why sport
fields cannot be provided for active use with certain parkland for
passive use. I am also not suggesting that an impromptu game of
frisbee or football requires permits, however, for league use, I
think that should be the case and I don't think that that is
uncommon, especially with regard to liability.
>
> --- 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/
