I do agree about the Supreme Court of today. We're totally screwed and
the amendments to the constitution are now theoretical only- a fading dream!
As I said, the city has pushed this authority to make arbitrary rules
for a long time, but that does not mean it could be supported with
reasoned arguments before a credible court. (I don't know what event
you organized to understand the appropriateness of what you paid.)
The costs of this special events review will eliminate decades of
traditional neighborhood gatherings by fiat. This will raise the cost
many many times beyond most neighborhood budgets and could cost
thousands and thousands of dollars. It's not some simple cost, but
would mean the end of independent neighborhood events. It's not now
proposed for Clark Park only. Like the BID property tax increase, Penn
is now extending this demand beyond Clark Park and the district to the
entire city. That's a big deal!
The key question, if we had a working 1st amendment and a credible
supreme court, would be this. What real security issue can be shown
that proves that this is a legitimate rule and cost, even if it forces
the end to most neighborhood events? It's not like raising the money
for a porto-pottie, that can be reasonably justified as important, and
comes at a reasonable cost. The reality of ending almost all
neighborhood celebrations would demand some conclusive evidence to
demonstrate the need for a rule that would then be equally applied to all.
Someone can say that peaceful protesters walking down the sidewalk is
a safety hazard, but it could never be supported in a fair public
debate. Making all neighborhood events across the city dependent on
UPenn or corporate sponsorship can not really be twisted into a safety
issue! It's clearly taking away the right to assembly by causing
prohibitive expenses, which could never be openly and publicly justified
before a reasonable group of our peers.
I agree that we have lost our rights in this rapidly closing society and
the Koch brothers supreme court would never continue the first amendment
decisions of the past century. This is a bigger deal than you may think
from its surface. But it's consistent with our corporatist plutocracy
that is closing in on the last shreds of our citizen rights.
Glenn
On 2/23/2011 4:51 PM, Lalevic, Darco wrote:
I guess my point is, I don't see what is changing here and now that
you're pointing out with the article on the FOCP website. I certainly
agree with you that government as a whole is encroaching on private
rights -- it's been atrociously bad since 9/11 (everything from the
patriot act to the FCCs recent ruling).
But no, according to Philadelphia code, a permit IS permission -- and
in fact it is against the law to hold an event on public park space
with greater than 75 people without a permit. Of course that's not to
say the police wouldn't harass smaller groups. But it's not like that
never happened before -- remember when the RNC was in town? If you're
going to bring the supreme court into this, you'll lose as almost
every decision in the last 30 years has encroached on personal rights.
And every event I've held has been a non-profit event held under a
501c3, and they still made me pay for police (who often enough weren't
even there).
So, yes, while I agree with you that it does occur, my point is I
don't see evidence of that one article pointing to a particular
crackdown in Clark Park.
*From:*Glenn [mailto:[email protected]]
*Sent:* Wednesday, February 23, 2011 4:02 PM
*To:* Lalevic, Darco
*Cc:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [UC] From the FOCP web site
Hi Darco,
I got a request to report on the Clark Park history, and this permit
issue for newcomers. I'm sorry I don't have a lot of time right now,
but I will get that out soon to fill in some of the blanks.
But, I can briefly answer your questions.
Yes, the "Special Events Review Committee" hearings were to be
conducted by the Fairmount Park Commission and not at the Department
of Recreation. I believe the ordinance was passed in the mid 90's.
(I don't have a code number, but that is the name.)
I can tell that you believe the widely accepted interpretation of the
role of the "permit." It's a widely believed misinterpretation. The
police and FOCP leaders would certainly arrest you if you conducted a
pro democracy rally in Clark Park without a permit. But that would be
an unconstitutional arrest.
No, we do not need a permit to lawfully gather in the park!
The central misinterpretation is that a permit on parkland is actually
a RESERVATION system and not to be abused as a PERMISSION system.
That's the big accepted lie! (e.g. The city tried, a few years ago, to
demand a permit if one sang a song in Rittenhouse Square.).
Government officials can not arbitrarily create rules designed to
impede the right to gather for some people and not others. They can
not design hoops to jump through that can not be justified, except to
deny some people basic rights of assembly.
When I first got involved with the Clark Park festivals, I discovered
that many families were being forced to get a permit for birthday
parties if they played a radio! The number of hours of this amplified
sound were then being used to demand denial of a permit for the Clark
Park festivals.
This is exactly the type of arbitrary use of state power that the
supreme court held as unconstitutional since the civil rights era.
I'm forgetting the name of the famous case, right now, from Bull
Conner's town. (I published it a few years ago on the list).
Marchers were denied a permit to lawfully walk down the sidewalks and
not block the streets. When they were arrested, they had broken no
laws or safety regulations. The permit was denied on the basis of a
safety risk. Of course, it was a transparent lie, and it was actually
denied because local people wanted to deny rights to black marchers.
The marchers had obeyed all laws that applied EQUALLY TO ALL. The
court decided that this type of arbitrary power to create barriers for
some can not be applied, EVEN IF a city official approves it.
Over the years, the city of Philadelphia has increasingly turned the
park permit from its original purpose, as a RESERVATION system, into a
method of erecting barriers desired by powerful interests. The only
reason for the city police to demand a permit from any gathering on
parkland is if some other person obtained a permit earlier, for the
same date and time- (a reservation system for special uses makes a lot
of sense as a service by the government).
But demanding payments for police, insurance, and an EMT is just such
an arbitrary unjustifiable barrier to the people's right to assemble.
Think of the difference when an organization is requesting street
closures for a for profit purpose! The original code for the special
events hearing emphatically and explicitly indicates that it is not to
be applied to the community block fair, which also closes streets.
(The actual code makes sense!)
It is absolutely clear that open park land, used for non-profit
citizen gatherings, was never to be restricted through the use of this
code and its requirements. Do you see the major difference between
costly street closings driven by profit, and a pro-democracy rally in
the park of 76 or 200 citizens?
I'll organize the history of the UCD/FOCP Quality of Life Task Force
later, all the best,
Glenn
On 2/23/2011 2:06 PM, Lalevic, Darco wrote:
Actually Glenn, the Fairmount Park permit policy dates at least back
to 1979, but probably back to the 1967 formation/reformation of the
commission. As for the right to assembly, permits are generally only
required for groups of 75 people or more. And Fairmount Park has
actually required insurance coverage since at least 1998 (when I
permitted my first large event), whether they enforced that regularly
I don't know, but all my events had to have it.
Which ordinance are you referring to? When was the Mardi Gras
occurrence, because I remember having to pay for police presence for
every event I've done.
*From:*[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Glenn
*Sent:* Tuesday, February 22, 2011 3:27 PM
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* [UC] From the FOCP web site
Neighbors,
I warned people about this many years ago. Please understand, what
they are attempting is an unconstitutional method of taking away our
right to assembly on any public space in this city.
They are using an ordinance originally designed to reimburse the city
for police deployment after the south street Mardi Gras occurrences
sponsored by for profit bars on South St. Originally, this ordinance
was not intended to curb our rights. The FOCP and city's view of
permit regulations for public parks has always been unconstitutional.
Moreover, only Penn/UCD will be able to comply with this insurance
requirement!
This will apply to any gathering needed for citizens in defense of
democracy. Wake up!!!!
No Permit Policy Yet from Rec
<http://www.friendsofclarkpark.org/?p=278>
Posted on February 14, 2011 <http://www.friendsofclarkpark.org/?p=278>
by briansiano <http://www.friendsofclarkpark.org/?author=2>
As the City merges the Fairmount Park Commission and the Recreation
Department into a single, unified Parks and Recreation Department,
many park issues remain unresolved. Among these issues is the issuing
of permit for large events.
In the past, the Rec department would issue permits for events of more
than --- people, or events where amplified sound is used. As of
February 2011, Parks and Recreation has not developed its new permit
processes and requirements yet.
One matter of concern is the possibility that permitted events will
have to meet an insurance requirement. Some of our Large Events are
run by organizations which have existing insurance policies. However,
many of our long-standing community events, such as the Best Fest and
the Music and Arts Festival, do not have the same degree of
organizational support, and may find it difficult-- if not
impossible-- to meet this requirement should it come to pass.
As we said above, we do not yet know if these will be requirements for
large events.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG -www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3463 - Release Date: 02/23/11 06:32:00
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3463 - Release Date: 02/23/11
06:32:00
