Re: [UC] Fwd: Answers to park questions

[Glenn moyer]

"I agree Glenn but I see the very sad NO FEEDING the HOMELESS injunction as more of a specific 'bill of attainder' rather than being connected directly to the permit stuff, though there is certainly overlap and commonality" But it is directly connected.  The only thing that explicitly limits the "feeding ban" is stated as a special event or picnic permit.  While I agree the feeding law is intended to be a bill of attainder, the overlap is complete and explicitly stated.  Sadly, I believe the middle class would have a different level of concern, if they didn't believe laws would be enforced unequally. Here in the paradise district, school teachers, immigrants, the homeless, and other viscious animals don't deserve human rights or equal protection of the laws.     -----Original Message----- From: Richard Conrad Sent: Jun 22, 2012 11:32 PM To: univcity@list.purple.com Subject: Re: [UC] Fwd: Answers to park questions I agree Glenn but I see the very sad NO FEEDING the HOMELESS injunction as more of a specific 'bill of attainder' rather than being connected directly to the permit stuff, though there is certainly overlap and commonality. On Jun 22, 2012, at 6:46 PM, Glenn moyer wrote: 1) No picnic permit is required for a dozen people. By the same token, an unpérmitted group cannot reserve a specific space for a picnic unless it applies for a "Picnic Permit". But you'll have to pay P&R a fee for this reservation. If you don't want to pay a fee to reserve a particular site ... then spread out your blanket anywhere in the park, and enjoy your picnic with no bureaucracy or cost, if your group is under 50. If your group is larger than 50, a Picnic Permit is required and P&R will specify a site for your affair   Rick, Here is the conflict with the outdoor feeding ban!  The city should lose its case against homeless advocates (for violating their 14th amendment rights) because of these policy assurances.  And this should send a shiver down everyone's back, instead of being viewed as an expected middle class double standard.  There is absolutely no difference between a middle class picnic and a violation of the outdoor feeding ban except that "undesireables" are eating at one of them.  That slippery slope is very dangerous.  The picnic permit itself does not state this non-requirement for groups less than 50 people.  It should, but has no limitation included at all. ( This was the issue that prompted that ridiculous propaganda piece in the UC Review.)  This exception for groups under 50 people is only stated in the separate special events package, which has nothing to do with the picnic permit.  But Parks and Rec staff maintained to me as well, that middle class picnicers don't need a permit even with a larger number than the outdoor feeding law.      In addition to cleansing the BF Parkway of the homeless, this 50 person middle class rule is aimed at pro-democracy gatherings.  There is only one thing the corporate state fears and that is massive assemblies of people in public squares, and general strikes.  The outdoor feeding ban is just one other way for our rulers to use the brutal forces of the police state, to destroy any hope of ever restoring a functioning republic. But they want to assure the middle class that all is fine, as they proceed with the privatization of our parks.  I don't know if the city's disregard for the 14th amendment is more frightening than the general disregard for it by the middle class, even as the nooses tighten around their way of life.   " if someone wants to post them on ucneighbors (I can't since Kyle banned me from that list) please feel free to do so" The purpose of censorship and UC Neighbors was to chill serious discussions of important topics.  People on the UC Neighbors certainly understand that nothing on a censored site can ultimately be trusted.  They can have the appearance of normal communication, but you always know that the full story can never be assumed to come out. Kyle wants the list to be accepted as the place for the cool consumers to babble about cool gossip, or make good neighbor posts.  Most everyone at UC Neighbors is afraid to post something truthful that Cassidy has banned.  That chilling of speech was a primary  purpose that Mel and Cassidy had for starting UC Neighbors.  It would still be hosted by the powerful Penn network, if Amy Gutless hadn't wanted to accept a bogus award for Penn's Open _expression_ policy. I'd use your example to encourage people to join a public list, if they want to support the free exchange of ideas and value their duties as citizens and neighbors.  We have FOX News and MSNBC for the same reason as UC Neighbors was started.  I've turned away from all that mindless nonsense. Oh, I didn't get a response from the city clarifying the insurance process.  The official draft presentation I received stated the umbrella policy "at no cost"  Did that mean "no cost" or no additional fee added by the city? All the best, Glenn       .         -----Original Message-----  From: Richard Conrad  Sent: Jun 20, 2012 2:43 PM  To: univcity@list.purple.com  Cc: Anthony West  Subject: [UC] Fwd: Answers to park questions  Tony West sent these very clear and useful answers to my Park questions...  if someone wants to post them on ucneighbors (I can't since Kyle banned me from that list) please feel free to do so.  Thank you again Tony West! Begin forwarded message: 1) No picnic permit is required for a dozen people. By the same token, an unpérmitted group cannot reserve a specific space for a picnic unless it applies for a "Picnic Permit". But you'll have to pay P&R a fee for this reservation. If you don't want to pay a fee to reserve a particular site ... then spread out your blanket anywhere in the park, and enjoy your picnic with no bureaucracy or cost, if your group is under 50. If your group is larger than 50, a Picnic Permit is required and P&R will specify a site for your affair. 2) Picnics are not required to carry insurance. 3) 2012 picnic fees look like they're relatively fixed, compared to the other kind of permit ("Event Permit"). It is unlikely you can negotiate them much. 4) There is no language in the new P&R regulations pertaining to political, religious or socialization purposes. 5) Costs/mandates for films or concerts vary widely according to their size, scale of City services required, and sponsorship. For details, read http://www.fairmountpark.org/pdf/Special_Event_Application.pdf. 6) Insurance is required for events larger than 50. Applicants who do not possess general liability insurance may be eligible to acquire the appropriate insurance through the City's Office of Risk Management. ---- 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 .