Judge rules AGAINST OWS

Discussion in 'Politics' started by RetiredGySgt, Nov 15, 2011.

  1. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,584
    Thanks Received:
    5,906
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +9,010
  2. tinydancer
    Offline

    tinydancer Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    41,536
    Thanks Received:
    9,368
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Sundown
    Ratings:
    +21,071
  3. paulitician
    Offline

    paulitician Platinum Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    38,401
    Thanks Received:
    4,137
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +11,976
    It's a privately owned public space. Huh? Only in New York. Is it private or public property? Come on New York,get it together. SHEEESH!
     
  4. paulitician
    Offline

    paulitician Platinum Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    38,401
    Thanks Received:
    4,137
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +11,976
    Yea New York is a very confused place. Zucotti Park is a privately owned public space. It's pretty confusing and stupid. The owners of the park are required by law to keep the park open 24/7 to the public. But they have the right to set up rules on how the park can be used. These owners have become very concerned with the poor sanitary conditions at the park. Therefore they have decided to ban all tents and camping equipment. They will also now require the protesters to use proper sanitation procedures. These owners have actually been very reasonable throughout this whole thing. Their main concern is keeping the park clean and undamaged. And that's why this ruling went down this way. I think it was a fair ruling.
     
  5. martybegan
    Offline

    martybegan Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Messages:
    29,495
    Thanks Received:
    4,017
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +11,046
    Privately Owned Public Space - New York City Department of City Planning

    See the attached. The POPS program allows builders to exceed building height limits by trading for space near ground level. The ground level space is public access, but maintained and controlled by the private owner.

    Most of these are simply plazas with benches, and some plants, but some are more complex. One property owner added seating on the roof of a smaller building of thier property, another added a plaza in a skylight covered sublevel, and even added resturant kiosks for people to have lunch. For a while there was a guy playing piano for tips (yes, they had a grand piano in the space)

    Most of them are used by workers in NYC for lunch, breaks, etc.
     
  6. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,568
    Thanks Received:
    8,171
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,206
    That seems to be the general idea of the more radical members of the group. Hopefully they wont actually make attempts. They are trying to make the Judge's life a living hell though. Seriously messed up people.
     
  7. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    41,543
    Thanks Received:
    8,933
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +23,869
    The politics of it likely kept it from happening sooner.

    In Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984), the Court ruled that a content-neutral regulation prohibiting sleeping in Washington, DC parks was not a violation of the First Amendment and was narrowly focused on a substantial governmental interest: keeping parks ‘clean’ and ‘intact.’
     
  8. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,568
    Thanks Received:
    8,171
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,206
    BTW This likely wont be the final ruling against them.
     
  9. Lovebears65
    Offline

    Lovebears65 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2011
    Messages:
    6,259
    Thanks Received:
    1,468
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Georgia
    Ratings:
    +2,043
    Yeah but it was the cities tax dollars paying for all that security too.
     
  10. Inthemiddle
    Offline

    Inthemiddle BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,354
    Thanks Received:
    674
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +674
    I agree. This is going to be appealed. I think it's going to be an interesting legal showdown. I thought the initial ruling was a little odd, viewing the park as a strictly private area. That's when I did a little more digging and now understand a little better the dual nature of the park. At the same time, I think the latest ruling, at least what little I know about it, is also a little odd. I can't think of any kind of precedent that puts any kind of time limit on people's first amendment rights. So, as this works its way up the appellate ladder it seems a new precedent is inevitable either way, either affirming or rejecting that the government can put a time limit upon first amendment rights.

    I have a feeling this will go all the way to the SCOTUS. The state supreme court will become instrumental in laying out the definition of the park's status regarding it's dual public/private status and the government's jurisdiction over it versus the private ownership's jurisdiction to expel individuals. And the federal Supreme Court will decide whether the first amendment does indeed have time limits or not.
     

Share This Page