From A Walk in the Park:On Saturday artists were allowed to sell their wares on the High Line without incident for the first time. The day before the Parks Department reversed its position which had resulted in three arrests. Their previous vending policy only permitted selling items which included designer muffins, exotic teas, coffee and gelato. Unlike the "expressive matter" vendors, commercial concessions bring in revenue to the city. The City is currently negotiating a sole source concession agreement with the Friends of the High Line (FOH) which would allow the group to keep revenue from items sold on the park property. Since its opening in the Spring, the City has allowed 29 different permitted commercial vendors on the High Line but no art vendors...
According to Mr. Lederman's account, Parks Commissioner Benepe started the meeting by apologizing for the arrests.
"Believe it or not, he said, ‘I guess we didn’t know what we were doing.’ And then he said, ‘We’d like to discuss this whole issue with you, and apologize to you for not returning your e-mails, your calls.’
“They told me, ‘We know you’re going to be going back there, and that’s not a problem, we’re not going to arrest you.’ Amazingly enough, they were very agreeable to the things I had to say, but the one thing they drew a line [saying], “That we’re not going to be able to do” — you won’t believe what it was," Mr. Lederman recalled.
“I said, ‘I would like you to write a letter that says artists have a First Amendment right to sell in the parks subject to the limitations in the Park rules.’ They said, ‘We cannot do that.’ Unbelievable. That’s already what the consent decree says and what the lawsuit says and what the laws of the City of New York say — that they wouldn’t do. It fits in with their whole agenda of trying to deny that this was a First Amendment case, which is nonsense.
10 comments:
Thanks for posting...a victory
Great victory, Mr. Lederman.
Too bad the victory was corrupted by lickspittle Benepe who detached list lips from the Commissar's anus just long enough to deny there is such a thing as the First Amendment.
As for the agreement with FOH, you, Mr. Lederman have no requirement to concern yourself with it.
It is unconstitutional for two parties to agree in such a way as to deny a third party the free exercise of all Constitutional rights.
Neither the Commissar nor Benepe can enter into any such agreement if your rights are denied.
You are free to sell your art on public property and keep all the proceeds without having to pay any kickback to either Benepe or the Commissar.
"The double-standard of allowing 29 commercial vendors while arresting and re-arresting the first free speech vendor at the High Line is beyond contempt. It shows not only a blatant disregard for the law but disrespect for the core values and principles of our country. For more than 150 years, public parks have served as the primary stage for free speech activity, including public dissension. One may not always like what is being said but protecting the right to say it is paramount in a democracy."
===============================
And this is where the author hangs himself, as with the Lederman cause, with his own warped logic and reason. The First Amendment is not beholden to peddling rights - "free speech vendor."
The author makes conjecture of the Parks Dept.'s axe grinding of Lederman. The truth is most likely projection by a failed artist. Lederman holds the axe and cares to wield it at the City which he perceives as the monster who has squashed his hopes of an successful artistic endeavor.
I yet another ill-informed didactic -ism "taxpayer" said:
"You are free to sell your art on public property and keep all the proceeds without having to pay any kickback to either Benepe or the Commissar."
The issue at hand is whether Parks can license one type of concession and not another.
Tell ya what, go to a park near you and try to set up a concession selling food, trinkets etc. these sorts of endeavors require a -license- do it without one and watch what happens. Go ahead. Parks BTW are -not- like city streets. For one case, under normal conditions you may walk on any street at any time --parks have curfews.
In case you missed it: "The difference is, unlike the permitted concessionaire, the money generated by the artists does not go into city coffers. But that may soon change. The city is currently negotiating a sole source concession agreement with the Friends of the High Line, the group that manages the city property. The agreement would allow the group to keep concession revenue generated on the High Line."
-That- is at the heart of the matter.
"but First Amendment rights are not equivalent to hot dog carts. So the number of food carts you have has nothing to do with how many artists can or can’t set up in a public park."
Here Mr Ledeman may find himself on shakier ground. Selling hot dogs or art --they still are products and commerce and -that- can be regulated. If Mr Ledeman just sets up and nothing is for sale..that would clearly be a free speech issue but possibly still subject to rules of conduct in that park.
Where High Line and Parks have f'ed up on this is in not clearly codifying what and how -all- activities can be conducted there.
"Whatever “fair use” is, it should not include arresting people before the Parks Department has finished "actively exploring all options."
--That right there is what you call a costly mistake. Arrogance or incompetence..which is it.
You all might want to read these:
http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_about/rules_and_regulations/rr_1-04.html
http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_about/rules_and_regulations/rr_1-05.html
It looks like both Klink and Lino are Siamese twins whose only skill is to convert their own brain farts to written comment.
Replying to what they wish someone had written makes replying far easier.
Referring to what someone actually wrote is more difficult. That requires the ability to read, comprehend and then form an opposing thought based on fact.
And it requires a point-by-point rebuttal. It's an effort a little more difficult than name calling.
Lino, try reading something more complex than bumper stickers.
Lederman is selling art. You don't even know if he ever ate a hot dog in his life, much less sold one. Or ever tried to sell one.
The First Amendment protects him.
The courts agreed with that idea repeatedly. Though the Commissar cannot bring himself to utter the words that he is controlled by the court decisions, Benepe did form the words.
You call yourself Lino the Liberal. Free exercise of our Constitutional rights is a liberal notion.
The US Constitution forms a LIMITED government. A limited government cannot infringe on our Constitutional rights.
(By the way, the US Constitution does not refer to hot dogs in any of the amendments, but, there IS a commerce clause; acquaint yourself with it after you finish your next bumper sticker.)
It is a Fascist government that infringes on the sovereign people's God-given (natural), inherent rights.
So, are you a Fascist or a liberal?
Taxpayer said...
It looks like both Klink and Lino are Siamese twins whose only skill is to convert their own brain farts to written comment.
===============================
Nah. I'm just a conservative who's mastered sing-along flatulence to the tune of Yankee Doodle.
Toot-toot!
" Taxpayer said...
It looks like both Klink and Lino are Siamese twins whose only skill is to convert their own brain farts to written comment."
Would it be too much a strain on your gray matter to -read- the links I provided.
You are obsessed with Bloombag and your remarks vary from smarmy to vicious.
Three facts:
1)Every municipality has the right to limit the size, location and type of events going on within it. That may even include "free speech" and "free expression".There are no absolutes in either case.
2) Bloombag is Mayor for another four years.
3) There is nothing you can do about it.
1) "Every municipality has the right to limit the size, location and type of events going on within it."
That's not what happened here. What happened here was censorship prohibited by the constitution and was further rebuked by the court decision.
2) Scandal will take Bloomberg down if running for president doesn't.
3) Written like a sheeple.
"That's not what happened here. What happened here was censorship prohibited by the constitution and was further rebuked by the court decision"
Ok, let's be specific here, the 1998 ruling in which the Supreme Court declined to accept arguments is predicated on a 1982 City Counsel law that says:
"It is consistent with the principles of free speech and freedom of the press to eliminate as many restrictions on the vending of written matter as is consistent with the public health, safety and welfare."
Note, it does not issue an absolute right here to turn parks or public space into a peddler's bazaar for art.
And referring to that in a 2001 decision:
A federal judge has ruled that the Giuliani administration's requirement that art vendors in parks have permits is a violation of the --city code--, which unconditionally prohibits mandatory licensing for those who sell art and books."
Licenses are out, as they should be, but the City retains the right to limit what goes on in public spaces. Again read the links I provided earlier.
The Parks Department didn't tell him there was an area where he could sell his artwork. It told him that he couldn't sell his artwork without a permit on the High Line and had him arrested on that basis. Your argument is baseless.
Post a Comment