|
Sorry, I was reviewing my original posts for the origination of the UC Review strawman passing rumors, and I accidentaly sent one. Here is the relevant portion:
"I think it's important to recognize how vaguely written laws, like most quality of life laws, are abused at later dates. These laws usually depend on an implied promise that repressive rules will be applied unequally, so that the vague language shouldn't be viewed as a problem for the powerful. If you study the permit applications, you will see that these continue to be desinged with vague but threatening language. The structure clearly shows that these are designed to allow violations of the 14th amendment and be applied with unequal standards against different groups of people! (e.g. Study the picnic permit"
In an email sent to an activist group, I also made this statement:
"(Picnic permits are now $30 for any Philadelphia Park. Notice how it is vague and does not exclude the need for a permit for even 1 or 2 people. This allows it to be applied to anyone or small group targeted by the police, special service district, or civic association)"
Clearly, I am not talking about official written city policy, but how vaguely written rules can be abused by those wishing to intimidate by bluffing. The UC Review pretends that the "rumor" about picnic permit requirements claim official city policy. Well that is laughable. But that is a serious misrepresentation of the point being made. I have personally been confronted by fake rules and vaguely written permit requirements. So of course, I stand by my original statements and criticism of the picnic permit documents.
Now, I think it's important to reveal that not only did I give a newstip to the UC Review, but I followed-up my offer to work with them on an investigation of the new city permit rules. I told them that there were serious contradictions that needed followup before a responsible report could be issued!!! I told them that we had more questions than answers.
Now, the UC Review article mocks investigating the serious park permit changes with its strawman. It suggests that these are untrue rumors (aka lies) and uses a laughing session with an anonymous city official to pretend that a responsible report was given. Of course, the representations of the strawman are laughable. I was never contacted by the reporter, even though I had been the one offering a news tip and help on the investigation. I call this strawman technique, sianoedit.
If this kind of mocking a serious issue was done independently by the UC Review, it would be bad enough. But when folks understand that this attempt at ridicule and discredit was done to someone offering to assist the paper, they will think seriously about future news tips with this paper. It's a rotten pretense at journalism, and it's rotten to use a strawman to attempt to discredit or intimidate serious investigations.
Everyone knows that there are new permit requirements, but did UC Review help report these? These rules were a surprise. Did the UC Review report that the FOCP and city were meeting during 2011 about these changes? Did they report on the notification requirements of POLICY meetings required by the sunshine law? Did they report the prohibitively high new rental fees or waivers for some, which the known city documentation makes clear????? Did they report on the process for determining waivers? Did they report on the new definition of "Friends" groups? Did they investigate the new feeding ban, and point out that its requirements completely contradict former picnic rules??? Did they report that groups of 3 or more persons sharing food can now be in violation of the city wide outdoor feeding ban???
The UC Review has engaged in shameful conduct with their "...Rumor..." nonsense! There report is, well, laughable.
Pissed off,
Glenn
-----Original Message-----
>From: Glenn moyer
>Sent: Jun 17, 2012 8:19 AM
>To: Glenn moyer , univcity@list.purple.com
>Subject: Re: [UC] Abusing vague laws, source of permit demands
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Glenn moyer
>>Sent: Jun 5, 2012 10:56 AM
>>To: univcity@list.purple.com
>>Subject: [UC] Abusing vague laws, source of permit demands
>>
>>Neighbors,
>>
>>It's very important that people understand the source of the new permit laws attacking city park users. Parks and recreation has abused a vaguely written ordinance of city council to completely and radically change public parks into exclusive rental venues. The original bill was designed for events which closed streeets and used city services, and was passed in reaction to the Mardi Gras bar crawl on South St.
>>
>>Parks and Recreation has intentionally extended this vaguely written bill which was never meant to be applied to parks. That is why they have avoided public participation or advance knowledge of these new permit laws. It's why they convened secret meetings with selected civic association leaders and now pretend that it was a legitimate process that had broad and diverse "public" participation. It's why they are attempting to fundamentally change the nature of parks and the rights of citizens to gather without engaging in city council debate or hearings and passing a new ordinance.
>>
>>Although the meaning of the original law was clearly meant to be limited, it used the words "public property" instead of "streets/sidewalks" It limited the law only by stating it was not meant to be appllied to "block parties" The intentions of the original law are clearly not meant to apply to Clark Park informal community gatherings, like free and open chess or volleyball often played at community gatherings. This abuse of vague language is why they have done this behind an iron wall of secrecy depending on a tiny group of officers from dysfunctional organizations like the Friends of Clark park for cover.
>>
>>
>>
>>As people are rapidly learning, all of our public spaces are now considered commodities designed around corporate/university interests and visions. For parks, it means transformation into rental facilities, only affordable through corporate sponsorship, and away from the idea of parks as a public common and the center of culture and community for our neighborhoods.
>>
>>The city is using the cover of combining Fairmount park commission and the departmentof recreation to abuse this weakness in the original law. Admininistering permits for events like Mardi Gras was done through the Fairmount park commission, so this radical change is presented as a simple shift of established policy. (Darco once made the case for "established policy" on our list when FOCP was working on this secretly, but failed to provide his example for support)
>>
>>Additionaly, FOCP/UCD and the city are pretending that informal park gatherings, free and open to everyone, are the same as organized leagues, and that parks are designd for the same community purposes as recreation centers. By adding impossible rental charges for informal gatherings and giving special waivers to the allied "Friends" groups, this radical change places FOCP/UCD as a de facto ruling authority and guarantees that parks will be turned into country clubs for an exclusive dues paying upper class, prohibiting free and open use by the entire community through expensive permits.
>>
>>I think it's important to recognize how vaguely written laws, like most quality of life laws, are abused at later dates. These laws usually depend on an implied promise that repressive rules will be applied unequally, so that the vague language shouldn't be viewed as a problem for the powerful. If you study the permit applications, you will see that these continue to be desinged with vague but threatening language. The structure clearly shows that these are designed to allow violations of the 14th amendment and be applied with unequal standards against different groups of people! (e.g. Study the picnic permit)
>>
>>Anyway, that is what has happened with these new permit laws and UCD and FOCP started this demand for Clark Park back in 2001. The merge of the two departments finally gave them the opening for the goal they always had and to extend it to the entire city. What they have done and how they have done it have been shameful.. They are counting on the "Friends" group leaders to use intimidation and the promise of new power for their organization to get their members to buy into this radical transformation of parks and the rights of all. They are counting on keeping this out of the media spotlight, so that everyone is confused as the cops roll into Clark Park and quietly intimidate chess players and volleyball players.
>>
>>I think we need to ask; is this the society we want? Are we willing to risk the wrath of civic leaders by speaking out against these outrages? Are we willing to confront the truth about the new Parks and Recreation department and understand that it is assembled to and committed to the neoliberal privatization agenda? Do we believe in citizen rights for all or only for those with vast money? Do we believe in community and culture or that consumerism is the only reason for human existance? Are we mice or are we citizens?
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>
>>Glenn
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>----
>>You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
>>list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
>>.
>
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.
|
