Reply
Fri 30 Apr, 2004 06:36 am
April 29, 2004 by the Associated Press
NYC Denies Permit for Huge Anti-War Rally During GOP Convention
by Sara Kugler
NEW YORK -- An anti-war group planning a massive demonstration at the start of the Republican National Convention in Manhattan has been denied a permit to rally in Central Park because the crowd would be too large.
The parks department denied the request by United for Peace and Justice organizers, who applied last June for a permit to rally in the park's Great Lawn after marching from 23rd Street and Eighth Avenue. The march permit request, submitted separately to the police department, is pending.
The anti-war group was preparing an appeal, which is part of the parks permit process, group leader Leslie Cagan said Wednesday.
"Now we just have to do another piece of organizing, to put pressure on the city to change their mind," Cagan said. "We take on issues like war and nuclear disarmament, so we have to keep a parks permit in perspective."
The permit denial letter said the Aug. 29 event, expected to draw hundreds of thousands of protesters, would exceed the 13-acre Great Lawn's capacity of 80,000 people; only 10 acres of the space is usable because of trees, benches and walkways. United for Peace and Justice indicated on its permit that it expected 250,000 demonstrators.
"In the view of the parks department, an event attended by 250,000 people would cause enormous damage to the lawn," the letter said.
The group plans to state in its appeal that numerous events with more than 80,000 people have taken place on the lawn, including a 1981 Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel concert that drew at least 400,000 fans and a 1982 anti-nuclear demonstration attended by more than 750,000 people, considered the largest protest in the city's history.
The Department of Parks and Recreation maintains that no gatherings of that magnitude have taken place on the Great Lawn since the area was restored in 1996. Organizers of a free Dave Matthews concert last September controlled crowd size by issuing 70,000 tickets, although about 15,000 additional people attended, parks officials said at the time.
"The Great Lawn itself cannot hold more than 80,000 people, and the overflow would be forced onto the adjacent landscape, causing damage to those areas of the park as well," the permit denial said.
Parks department spokeswoman Megan Sheekey said the city has offered to help the group find another location.
United for Peace and Justice, which organized the February 2003 anti-war rally that drew tens of thousands of people to a 20-block stretch of First Avenue, said it planned to appeal in the next few days and hadn't ruled out taking the matter to court.
Another group denied a parks permit during the convention also is considering legal action. Led by the activist Aron Kay, who made a name for himself by throwing pies at public officials, the group last month requested permission to set up a 20,000-person camp in Tompkins Square Park from Aug. 27 to Sept. 12.
The application said the East Village encampment would be for sleeping, eating, protest meetings, poetry readings, bongo-playing, yoga and massage, among other activities. The city denied the request because parks close at 1 a.m. and "a neighborhood park can't accommodate an event of that size," Sheekey said.
In a separate development, a coalition of unions representing police officers and firefighters has requested permits to demonstrate during the convention. Union members claim they are underpaid compared with their counterparts in other cities and are underfunded for fighting terrorism _ complaints they plan to voice when the Republicans come to town.
No decision has been made on those permits, but "the rules of protest will apply to them like everybody else," Republican Mayor Michael Bloomberg said.
"I don't know that I think protesting at the Republican convention is a very intelligent way of getting a better contract," he said.
The four-day convention begins Aug. 30 and is expected to bring about 50,000 people and 15,000 journalists to the city.
Copyright © 2004, The Associated Press
Precisely how do you contend that this is evidence that the Grand Old Party is silencing dissent? Before you appeal to one of the standard defenses of ranters--yes, i did read the entire article. Which is why i ask how you can reasonably claim that it is evidence of the Republicans silencing dissent.
Mayor Bloomberg is a republican. Deny the permit and the planned antiwar rally at the GOP convention becomes much more problematic.
Seems fairly obvious.
It seems fairly obvious that you ignore that the Parks Department has offered to find a different venue, which underlines their contention that they simply wish to protect the Great Lawn. It seems fairly obvious that you are accusing the Parks Department of guilt by association because the Mayor is a Republican. It seems fairly obvious that you are all too eager to leap at any opportunity to paint those whom you percieve as enemies in the darkest hues possible.
It seems fairly obvious . . .
My, but you have all the answers today.
The great lawn isn't an issue when there's a free concert in the park that draws a million or more attendees.
I guess rock concert afficionados have lighter feet than anti-war protesters. LOL!!!!!
You apparently lack sufficient reading skills to understand your own cut-and-paste job:
AP wrote:The group plans to state in its appeal that numerous events with more than 80,000 people have taken place on the lawn, including a 1981 Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel concert that drew at least 400,000 fans and a 1982 anti-nuclear demonstration attended by more than 750,000 people, considered the largest protest in the city's history.
The Department of Parks and Recreation maintains that no gatherings of that magnitude have taken place on the Great Lawn since the area was restored in 1996. Organizers of a free Dave Matthews concert last September controlled crowd size by issuing 70,000 tickets, although about 15,000 additional people attended, parks officials said at the time.
"The Great Lawn itself cannot hold more than 80,000 people, and the overflow would be forced onto the adjacent landscape, causing damage to those areas of the park as well," the permit denial said.
Parks department spokeswoman Megan Sheekey said the city has offered to help the group find another location.
The S & G concert was in 1981, the lawn was restored in 1996. The Parks department offered to find a different location.
I guess political fanatics have lighter minds than Parks department employees . . .
LOL, LOL, LOL . . .
is right.
What setanta has intentionally ignored is the Garth Brooks concert on Aug. 7 Wednesday, March 26, 1997, a year after the great lawn was restored.
The Garth Brooks concert was attended (according to the Parks Department) by 1.1 million.
Next?
infowarrior wrote:Seems fairly obvious.
Will it seem as obvious when the mayor of Boston refuses to issue a protest permit to the Boston Police and Fire Unions for their planned protest at the Dem's convention here in Boston? The mayor is a a Democrat after all...
Don't know the details on that one, fishin.
Perhaps, you could post a link for review on a new thread?
infowarrior wrote: is right.
What setanta has intentionally ignored is the Garth Brooks concert on Aug. 7 Wednesday, March 26, 1997, a year after the great lawn was restored.
The Garth Brooks concert was attended (according to the Parks Department) by 1.1 million.
Next?
First, that is not a part of your cut-and-paste job, so if you wish to adduce that as an example of a disingenuous response on the part of the Parks Department, then you are practicing ambush posting. Second, you do not contend here, nor have you provided any evidence that the Brooks concert took place on the Great Lawn--Central Park is quite large, and consists of a great deal more than the Great Lawn. Third, i won't try to decipher the meaning of: ". . . on Aug. 7 Wednesday, March 26, 1997 . . ."--but only refer once again to what may be reading comprehesion problems on the part of political fanatics.
Next . . .
My cut and paste job offered a logical response countering your specious claim that the issue here was not to silence dissent, but to protect the precious great lawn from large crowds.
You threw up tiny concert crowd numbers as proof no large crowd had gathered since the great lawn's restoration.
That was a lie.
My cut and paste job proved it.
Next?
infowarrior wrote:Don't know the details on that one, fishin.
Of course you don't know anything about it. It has no "Bush-bashing" value so I'm sure it never came up on your radar.
"Of course you don't know anything about it. It has no "Bush-bashing" value....." fishin
LOL!!!!
fishin is a moderator and a psychic!
infowarrior wrote:My cut and paste job offered a logical response countering your specious claim that the issue here was not to silence dissent, but to protect the precious great lawn from large crowds.
You threw up tiny concert crowd numbers as proof no large crowd had gathered since the great lawn's restoration.
That was a lie.
My cut and paste job proved it.
Next?
Your cut-and-paste job shows no evidence that the Parks Department issued a permit for any event projected to draw more than 80,000 people to the Great Lawn since the 1996 restoration. Therefore:
"My cut and paste job proved it."
is, in fact, a lie.
Next . . .
The Garth Brooks concert was played in something called the north meadow in central park because the great lawn was still under contruction. So, in my opinion, in the interest of saving time, those wanting to hold the protest should give up on the great lawn and ask for permission at the north meadow armed with the reference of the Garth Brooks concert in 1997. Then we will see.
http://www.planetgarth.com/gbnews/garth092.shtml
The Westminister City Council tried a smiliar tact in response to the huge anti-war protest planned the very month Bush launched the USA into war with Iraq.
The local papers were cheek-by-jowl with nasty references to PM Tony "Poodle" Blair using his influence with the sitting councillor members -- 48 of whom are Conservatives and 12 are Labour.
One, rather hysterical Conservative councillor member by the name of Pamela Batty (no pun intended) said no permit should be issued to the anti-war group because the Mall had been recently repaved and it had to be protected!
Another Conservative councillor member by the name of Frixos Tombolis concurred with Batty, but gave the following reason: "The Queen's favourite flowers -- Mums, had been planted for the spring viewing season in Hyde Park, and shutter to think if any were trampled by the expected large crowds."
Councillor Tombolis was very nearly laughed out of London!
Chrysanthemums don't bloom in the spring.
Dissent in America happens in the spring - for example,
May Day.
I read the beginning of this topic too, and I agree with Setanta. There was no mention of a million plus crowd in the copied article, Revel says that concert was in a different area of Central Park anyway, and with the park service offering to help find a different venue, the entire argument seems blown out of proportion. Are they just looking for a fight here?
What was the GOP thinking when they decided to have their love fest in New York City?
This is so funny to me. Why not play it safe and have it in a city located in Bushcountry?
Say, Houston, TX, or Richmond, VA?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace