Hmmm.. Did not know that.. Makes the issue even more important then. Thanks
Glenn!
On Jun 23, 2012, at 7:11 AM, Glenn moyer wrote:
> "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 .
>
>
