As promised, a concise problem statement: Clark park (A park) is about to be closed for a secret period of time. Despite overwhelming community opposition expressed in 2002-03, the closing is portrayed and justified as a need for a complete infrastructure redesign to upscale the popular public park.
Permits: FOCP leaders have long insisted that special event permits are a tool for them to violate the rights of other park users. They insist that the park is a recreation center primarily for them, under their iron rule. They insist that no permit rules or other rules apply to their exclusive fee required activities, but to outsiders only. Since their leaders insist that the park will never be shared, they have recently decided to violate the rights of another stakeholder group which offers a monthly event, free and open to all. After the FOCP decision to snuff out the monthly event, they crafted a dishonest "opinion survey" and claim damage to the grass is the real motivation. (FOCP has given permission to move the event to Malcolm X Park or outer Mongolia.) 1st Amendment of the US Constitution: The supreme court has upheld the first amendment right to public assembly. Our public parks are actually considered to function like a village commons or square, free and open to all. IMPORTANTLY,permit and other rules must apply equally to all or none. (FOCP has insisted that the city use a constitutionally invalid permit structure for ten years. FOCP leaders have ignored all permit rules, at their weekly exclusive fee based activities, for the same period.) This introduction copied from the firstamendmentcenter.org will help to introduce neighbors to the concepts that will form the basis of a likely lawsuit against the city department of recreation. (I sincerely apologize to the community for not initiating legal action many years ago.) Introductory Note on Supreme Court Rulings: Overview from the firstamendmentcenter.org by Adam Newton “License or permit requirements that favor or discourage certain groups, or that vest total discretion in officials to grant such permits, are usually struck down. Shuttleworth v. Birmingham (1969), for instance, struck down a parade ordinance that "conferred upon the City Commission virtually unbridled and absolute power to prohibit any 'parade,' 'procession,' or 'demonstration' on the city's streets or public ways." Procedural safeguards must protect the rights of all speakers or none — even members of the Nazi party who intend to march through a predominantly Jewish section of an Illinois city, as the 1977 U.S. Supreme Court ruled in National Socialist Party v. Skokie.” (Municipal permit regulations must be constructed to apply equally to all or to none.)" After folks are familiar with the 1st amendment of the US Constitution and relevant supreme court decisions, we can use this popular public forum to discuss the problems: the latest dishonest FOCP survey and the decade to change the public park into a private fee based recreation center under the iron fist of the FOCP/UCD "community" university partnership. Sincerely, Glenn, a US citizen ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.