If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Daily News)   Court orders NYPD to let Occupy Wall Street back into Liberty Plaza with tents   (nydailynews.com) divider line 812
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

11863 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Nov 2011 at 9:39 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



812 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-11-15 10:15:23 AM

Slaves2Darkness: We also have a right to shoot back at the government that keeps us free. The fiery end of the siege of the Branch Dividian compound in Waco TX and the Oklahoma City bombing calmed Janet Reno and her jack booted thugs right the fark down. Timmothy McVeigh is a patriot, as are the OWS people.


Now THIS is a fun post.
 
2011-11-15 10:15:53 AM

urger: WTFDYW: Oh and YES. The park is private property.

This eviction was on behalf of the private owner. However since the rule against camping in the park was created after the protest started it ran afoul of the constitution's prohibition against post ipso facto laws.


The rule against camping was NOT enacted after the protest. The park has always had signs up saying stuff like no sleeping, camping, etc.

Judge will allow them back in, but the NYPD will be allowed to enforce no tents\sleeping bags\etc.
 
2011-11-15 10:16:29 AM

theMightyRegeya: badhatharry:
Apparently, most people are ok with cops tear gassing them, beating them, and destroying their property. They don't consider that it might be them protesting the next time. Americans had a right to complain. It kept us free.

People on the right who cheer this on, yet are mad as hell at the government, really need to be paying attention to all this, in case they get mad enough to actually do something other than hold up badly-spelled protest signs. This is how the police state will treat you, too.

/and if you're cheering this on, you deserve it.
//yes, I went there.


Umm...you assume those on the right give a shiat about their rights. All they really care and are mad about is that their is a Democrat in the White House, for some reason this drives them insane.
 
2011-11-15 10:16:35 AM
I'm torn.

I fully support their right to occupy. I don't even really care that much about their hygiene. They can live in their own stench and piss if they so choose. I resent the cost to the taxpayer, but I see it as the price you pay for the freedom to assemble peacefully.

What I do think is wrong is the refugee tent city they've erected. I think the fire hazard is too great to allow them to return to the park in the same manner. Winter nights in NYC get pretty cold, I'd imagine; they must have been heating their tents somehow. Those heat sources must increase the fire danger.

Does the city have any responsibility to the occupiers to assure their safety? I have to think that they do. Is OWS going to sue for negligence when a bunch of their folks die?
 
2011-11-15 10:17:04 AM

HoboCop: Last night on Fox news they showed a number representing how much in taxes the OWS protest in Philly has cost the city. Thanks, Fox news!


I'm surprised that Philly didn't try the economical solution. Drop off some snacks/small electronics near the protesters, alert a flash mob via twitter, and wait. Problem solved or giant riot created. Either way, the government wins (they always do, somehow).
 
2011-11-15 10:17:38 AM

topcon: CPennypacker: topcon: CPennypacker: vexle: FTFA: "The protesters were defiant at first, chanting: "Whose park? Our park!"

No it's not, you dirty farking hippie. Zucotti Park is privately owned. It literally says this in the first sentence of the park's Wikipedia page.

The land is owned. The park is a public space and governed by law.

Link to laws regarding privately owned land being regarded as "public" by your definition.

Just go to the wikipedia page for the park. The park was a concession US Steel had to provide the city on its land in order to get by zoning laws and make 1 Liberty Plaza Higher.

Yeah, sorry, no, that doesn't really cut it.

The park is still privately owned and maintained.

As I work for a civil engineering and land surveying company, I'm somewhat familiar with how these things work. If it were a truly "public" space by your definition, it would have been deeded over to the local government. This happens fairly frequently, either with a donation of land or payment.

The entity who owns this land, Brookfield Properties, clearly has some reason for not wanting to completely hand it over to the government and let them deal with maintaining it.


NYC is, in this as in many things, a bit unique, I posted the city's page about POPS earlier in the thread but I'll repost it here:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/pops/pops.shtml

Essentially they were created as a way to get more public parks in the city by getting devs that were dying to build anyway to pay for it instead of the govt, perpetually, and that obligation stays with the land deed. It's not that Brookfield doesn't want the city to take it over, it's that they're *obligated* to maintain it as part of their ownership of their building. They want to get rid of the park? They gotta get rid of the building.
 
2011-11-15 10:18:27 AM

CPennypacker: topcon: CPennypacker: topcon: CPennypacker: vexle: FTFA: "The protesters were defiant at first, chanting: "Whose park? Our park!"

No it's not, you dirty farking hippie. Zucotti Park is privately owned. It literally says this in the first sentence of the park's Wikipedia page.

The land is owned. The park is a public space and governed by law.

Link to laws regarding privately owned land being regarded as "public" by your definition.

Just go to the wikipedia page for the park. The park was a concession US Steel had to provide the city on its land in order to get by zoning laws and make 1 Liberty Plaza Higher.

Yeah, sorry, no, that doesn't really cut it.

The park is still privately owned and maintained.

As I work for a civil engineering and land surveying company, I'm somewhat familiar with how these things work. If it were a truly "public" space by your definition, it would have been deeded over to the local government. This happens fairly frequently, either with a donation of land or payment.

The entity who owns this land, Brookfield Properties, clearly has some reason for not wanting to completely hand it over to the government and let them deal with maintaining it.

It doesn't really matter if it "cuts it" for you or not, we have a lot of POPS in New York. They are subject to laws that govern these types of spaces and are created by developers, on their land, as concessions to the city for exceeding building restrictions.


Still yet no one has linked to any concrete legalities on a land owner being able to kick people with tents off. Such a thing might not even exist and will yet go to court.

But, I'll state again: I'll bet a shiny quarter these people won't be there by some point next year. But by then they'll be forgotten anyway.
 
2011-11-15 10:18:59 AM
Paul Kostora, head of the medical tent, said he was working with a patient when police pulled him away.

"They pulled me out stethoscope, white coat and all as I was telling them I have a patient in there," he said. "One girl has a heart condition and wasn't feeling well. They manhandled her and threw her on the ground."


If there was any justice in the world, several police officers would now be facing attempted murder charges. Farking fascists
 
2011-11-15 10:20:11 AM

topcon: CPennypacker: topcon: CPennypacker: topcon: CPennypacker: vexle: FTFA: "The protesters were defiant at first, chanting: "Whose park? Our park!"

No it's not, you dirty farking hippie. Zucotti Park is privately owned. It literally says this in the first sentence of the park's Wikipedia page.

The land is owned. The park is a public space and governed by law.

Link to laws regarding privately owned land being regarded as "public" by your definition.

Just go to the wikipedia page for the park. The park was a concession US Steel had to provide the city on its land in order to get by zoning laws and make 1 Liberty Plaza Higher.

Yeah, sorry, no, that doesn't really cut it.

The park is still privately owned and maintained.

As I work for a civil engineering and land surveying company, I'm somewhat familiar with how these things work. If it were a truly "public" space by your definition, it would have been deeded over to the local government. This happens fairly frequently, either with a donation of land or payment.

The entity who owns this land, Brookfield Properties, clearly has some reason for not wanting to completely hand it over to the government and let them deal with maintaining it.

It doesn't really matter if it "cuts it" for you or not, we have a lot of POPS in New York. They are subject to laws that govern these types of spaces and are created by developers, on their land, as concessions to the city for exceeding building restrictions.

Still yet no one has linked to any concrete legalities on a land owner being able to kick people with tents off. Such a thing might not even exist and will yet go to court.

But, I'll state again: I'll bet a shiny quarter these people won't be there by some point next year. But by then they'll be forgotten anyway.


Maybe you should read seek3r's posts, as he's posted a link to a NY government website describing POPS twice.
 
2011-11-15 10:20:37 AM
it's pretty sad that the police had to wait for a court to tell them "you police are a bunch of morons" before they stopped, you know, doing what people do in china to crackdown on dissidents (but slightly less violently)
 
2011-11-15 10:20:40 AM

badhatharry: moonscatter: As distasteful as many people find it, protesting is one of the most important rights we have. Let them do their thing.

Frankly, I find them cute and amusing. I really liked it when they marched on my building in Houston. This scraggly guy carried a old, manual typewriter to our building, sat down and typed something, tied it to balloons and yelled "I hope this gets to the top!"

OWS is extended street theatre. Enjoy it.

Apparently, most people are ok with cops tear gassing them, beating them, and destroying their property. They don't consider that it might be them protesting the next time. Americans had a right to complain. It kept us free.


I would protest without breaking existing, unrelated laws. If I'm specifically protesting a law, I might break *that* law.

I'm not a lawyer, but now that they have a court order, it sounds like it might be legal to camp out. But prior to this court order, it wasn't. Since they are not protesting the closing of public parks at night; I fail to see any good reason why they can't respect that law.
 
2011-11-15 10:21:58 AM

CPennypacker: IamKaiserSoze!!!: veale728: Bloomberg said the city planned to let the anti-greed movement return to Zuccotti as soon as it was cleaned, but without the trappings of the tent city.

"Unfortunately, the park was becoming a place where people came not to protest, but rather to break laws, and in some cases, to harm others," he said in a statement.

Bullshiat. The classic "we're doing it for their protection" excuse.

OK, breathe.

There is no camp ground or other housing concept in the US that would allow the living standards that OWS has adopted. Even refugee camps in Africa have safer and more sanitary facilities.

Meet each day in the morning somewhere and protest all you want, then go home. Come back the next day and do it again.....repeat.

This isn't Burning Man

Have you been to Zuccotti park?


I went by there last week and the one thing I was thinking of was how do they put up with the smell? The place was turning into a pig sty and possible health hazard for the protestors. The company that maintains the park had wanted to clean it up before but OWS wasn't letting them. They are supposed to be letting the protestors back in so let's wait and see if that happens before rushing to judgement,
 
2011-11-15 10:22:09 AM
If the NYPD tells the Court "Fark you", what specifically can happen?

/picturing riot-geared police showing up on the steps
 
2011-11-15 10:22:16 AM

seek3r: topcon: CPennypacker: topcon: CPennypacker: vexle: FTFA: "The protesters were defiant at first, chanting: "Whose park? Our park!"

No it's not, you dirty farking hippie. Zucotti Park is privately owned. It literally says this in the first sentence of the park's Wikipedia page.

The land is owned. The park is a public space and governed by law.

Link to laws regarding privately owned land being regarded as "public" by your definition.

Just go to the wikipedia page for the park. The park was a concession US Steel had to provide the city on its land in order to get by zoning laws and make 1 Liberty Plaza Higher.

Yeah, sorry, no, that doesn't really cut it.

The park is still privately owned and maintained.

As I work for a civil engineering and land surveying company, I'm somewhat familiar with how these things work. If it were a truly "public" space by your definition, it would have been deeded over to the local government. This happens fairly frequently, either with a donation of land or payment.

The entity who owns this land, Brookfield Properties, clearly has some reason for not wanting to completely hand it over to the government and let them deal with maintaining it.

NYC is, in this as in many things, a bit unique, I posted the city's page about POPS earlier in the thread but I'll repost it here:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/pops/pops.shtml

Essentially they were created as a way to get more public parks in the city by getting devs that were dying to build anyway to pay for it instead of the govt, perpetually, and that obligation stays with the land deed. It's not that Brookfield doesn't want the city to take it over, it's that they're *obligated* to maintain it as part of their ownership of their building. They want to get rid of the park? They gotta get rid of the building.


I understand that much. What I'm saying is, do the owners still have the right to tell people to leave, NOT temporary protesters, but the ones intent on camping there with structures. Legally it could be argued that the situation is creating liabilities for the property owner.

Since this is a "public" private piece of property, who has the liability for accidents on it?
 
2011-11-15 10:22:34 AM
I never knew a judge could order you back onto private property to trespass.


I guess thats sets precedent for the 1% when they want to order themselves onto your private property?


Thanks for the help with the law of unintended consequences librul activist judge.
 
Puo
2011-11-15 10:23:21 AM
It's like sit-ins. Remember in the 60s? People would courteously stage their sit-ins at bus terminals and restaurants from 9-5 and they'd promptly clear the area at 5PM. Those were halcyon days that we should use as a model for modern protests.

This is very true. And those worked, because back in the 60s it was about civil rights and anti-war protests. It worked for civil rights because blacks were segregated from certain locations or from doing certain things, and sit-ins were a peaceful way of saying "fark this." Physical beatings, videos of people getting hit with hoses - that only made

Same went for the anti-war protests, but only because we were in an already losing war (both literally and in terms of policital/worldwide support. The Kent State shooting, the scandals, the mounting death tolls and constant media coverage - that all fueled the support and eventually fed support to get us out of the war. (Obviously there were more factors, but I'm just simplifying it.)

But this protest? The media isn't in full support of the movement (its either "Hey, these people are still here." or "Look at all the garbage these groups are leaving behind." The sit-ins are in public locations. The protests aren't really effecting the businesses, or the huge corporations that these groups are trying to fight against. They're just sitting in a park. What is that really going to accomplish. If anything, its just making the corporations breathe a sigh of relief, because its not really hitting them hard (or directly), so what do they care?
 
2011-11-15 10:24:21 AM

CPennypacker: topcon: CPennypacker: topcon: CPennypacker: topcon: CPennypacker: vexle: FTFA: "The protesters were defiant at first, chanting: "Whose park? Our park!"

No it's not, you dirty farking hippie. Zucotti Park is privately owned. It literally says this in the first sentence of the park's Wikipedia page.

The land is owned. The park is a public space and governed by law.

Link to laws regarding privately owned land being regarded as "public" by your definition.

Just go to the wikipedia page for the park. The park was a concession US Steel had to provide the city on its land in order to get by zoning laws and make 1 Liberty Plaza Higher.

Yeah, sorry, no, that doesn't really cut it.

The park is still privately owned and maintained.

As I work for a civil engineering and land surveying company, I'm somewhat familiar with how these things work. If it were a truly "public" space by your definition, it would have been deeded over to the local government. This happens fairly frequently, either with a donation of land or payment.

The entity who owns this land, Brookfield Properties, clearly has some reason for not wanting to completely hand it over to the government and let them deal with maintaining it.

It doesn't really matter if it "cuts it" for you or not, we have a lot of POPS in New York. They are subject to laws that govern these types of spaces and are created by developers, on their land, as concessions to the city for exceeding building restrictions.

Still yet no one has linked to any concrete legalities on a land owner being able to kick people with tents off. Such a thing might not even exist and will yet go to court.

But, I'll state again: I'll bet a shiny quarter these people won't be there by some point next year. But by then they'll be forgotten anyway.

Maybe you should read seek3r's posts, as he's posted a link to a NY government website describing POPS twice.


Yeah, and that article doesn't really go into any kind of detail. I'm sure there are statues somewhere with more interesting legalese, probably here:

http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi?COMMONQUERY=LAWS

Link (new window)
 
2011-11-15 10:24:39 AM

Giltric: I guess thats sets precedent for the 1% when they want to order themselves onto your private property?


They have no reason to, but seeing as the police and security forces can and have go onto people's property for bullshiat reasons already, I'm sure they could if they felt like bothering.
 
2011-11-15 10:24:46 AM

Utter Genius: Complete List of OWS Achievements:

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


- Got you talking about them.
 
2011-11-15 10:24:55 AM

Giltric: I never knew a judge could order you back onto private property to trespass.


it's not trespassing if the landowner allows you there
 
2011-11-15 10:25:15 AM

topcon: Still yet no one has linked to any concrete legalities on a land owner being able to kick people with tents off. Such a thing might not even exist and will yet go to court.


Err, it's called trespassing.
 
2011-11-15 10:26:04 AM
I REALLY like the idea that they get to clear them out all over again...

So much win
 
2011-11-15 10:26:11 AM
statutes, even.

charlespaolino.files.wordpress.com
 
2011-11-15 10:26:27 AM
I say let the hippies back.

The fleabaggers seem to enjoy their little drum circles so I think that it would be a good thing if the NYPD gave them more of what they enjoy.

Encircle the park with high power loudspeakers and from sundown to sunrise play nonstop drum music. Imagine how happy the hippies would be all snuggled up in their new tents while listening to the likes of drum line performances from every college and high school's marching bands at high volume. Then they could throw in some other gems like the solo from "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida" and the Buddy Rich catalog.

Add to that some high intensity lighting and strobes to flood the park and it would be a good thing.

Night after night after night.

The judge said that they could return to the park with their stuff, he didn't say that they could get a good night's sleep while there.

Hell, Manuel Noriega liked it.
 
2011-11-15 10:26:31 AM

Anavrinman: Utter Genius: Complete List of OWS Achievements:

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

- Got you talking about them.


-Got the world talking about them
 
2011-11-15 10:27:15 AM

CPennypacker: IamKaiserSoze!!!: veale728: Bloomberg said the city planned to let the anti-greed movement return to Zuccotti as soon as it was cleaned, but without the trappings of the tent city.

"Unfortunately, the park was becoming a place where people came not to protest, but rather to break laws, and in some cases, to harm others," he said in a statement.

Bullshiat. The classic "we're doing it for their protection" excuse.

OK, breathe.

There is no camp ground or other housing concept in the US that would allow the living standards that OWS has adopted. Even refugee camps in Africa have safer and more sanitary facilities.

Meet each day in the morning somewhere and protest all you want, then go home. Come back the next day and do it again.....repeat.

This isn't Burning Man

Have you been to Zuccotti park?


I wish we could stop calling it a park. It's a concrete plaza with some benches and some trees sticking out of it. It's not like they're picnicking under a maple tree.
 
2011-11-15 10:27:34 AM
foo monkey: I'm at Zucotti Park right now and am getting a kick out of these replies.

It's empty and barricaded off. Lots of cops. Most street traffic is being diverted down Liberty St. A few sign holders. Lots of media. All on sidewalks outside park, on Broadway.
 
2011-11-15 10:27:48 AM

topcon:
I understand that much. What I'm saying is, do the owners still have the right to tell people to leave, NOT temporary protesters, but the ones intent on camping there with structures. Legally it could be argued that the situation is creating liabilities for the property owner.

Since this is a "public" private piece of property, who has the liability for accidents on it?


From what I have heard, its a grey area, which is why the protesters picked the park, and why the owners were hesitant to kick them out. At the minimum, someone getting their head bonked at least opens up brookfield to potential lawsuits. If those actually amount to anything is anyone's guess, but they would at least kick around the courts for a while costing money.

Like I also said, the rules about tents, camping, sleeping, etc in the park have long been in place, before the protesters showed up, just like the rule that says it needs to be open 24\7 to the public.

So what the reasonable thing, and what i suspect the court will say, is that the protesters should be allowed back in the park, but the owners and the NYPD are within their rights to enforce the given rules of the park.
 
2011-11-15 10:27:52 AM

bhcompy: topcon: Still yet no one has linked to any concrete legalities on a land owner being able to kick people with tents off. Such a thing might not even exist and will yet go to court.

Err, it's called trespassing.


Yeah, normally, but with this whole unique concept of public private spaces, there could be specific written law for NYC regarding it.

That's what I'm trying to figure out.
 
2011-11-15 10:28:27 AM

Puo: But this protest? The media isn't in full support of the movement (its either "Hey, these people are still here." or "Look at all the garbage these groups are leaving behind."


Why should they be? The media should report the news, not support movements.
 
2011-11-15 10:28:31 AM
As annoying as they are, they'll be gone when it gets cold. The problems won't go away, but the people will leave.
 
2011-11-15 10:28:36 AM

topcon: CPennypacker: topcon: CPennypacker: topcon: CPennypacker: topcon: CPennypacker: vexle: FTFA: "The protesters were defiant at first, chanting: "Whose park? Our park!"

No it's not, you dirty farking hippie. Zucotti Park is privately owned. It literally says this in the first sentence of the park's Wikipedia page.

The land is owned. The park is a public space and governed by law.

Link to laws regarding privately owned land being regarded as "public" by your definition.

Just go to the wikipedia page for the park. The park was a concession US Steel had to provide the city on its land in order to get by zoning laws and make 1 Liberty Plaza Higher.

Yeah, sorry, no, that doesn't really cut it.

The park is still privately owned and maintained.

As I work for a civil engineering and land surveying company, I'm somewhat familiar with how these things work. If it were a truly "public" space by your definition, it would have been deeded over to the local government. This happens fairly frequently, either with a donation of land or payment.

The entity who owns this land, Brookfield Properties, clearly has some reason for not wanting to completely hand it over to the government and let them deal with maintaining it.

It doesn't really matter if it "cuts it" for you or not, we have a lot of POPS in New York. They are subject to laws that govern these types of spaces and are created by developers, on their land, as concessions to the city for exceeding building restrictions.

Still yet no one has linked to any concrete legalities on a land owner being able to kick people with tents off. Such a thing might not even exist and will yet go to court.

But, I'll state again: I'll bet a shiny quarter these people won't be there by some point next year. But by then they'll be forgotten anyway.

Maybe you should read seek3r's posts, as he's posted a link to a NY government website describing POPS twice.

Yeah, and that article doesn't really go into any kind of detail. I'm sure there are statues somewhere with more interesting legalese, probably here:

http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi?COMMONQUERY=LAWS

Link (new window)


http://www.dnainfo.com/20111010/downtown/occupy-wall-street-puts-spot l ight-on-privately-owned-public-spaces
 
2011-11-15 10:28:39 AM

ringersol: HoboCop: "Last night on Fox news they showed a number representing how much in taxes the OWS protest in Philly has cost the city. "

If a city chooses to spend its taxes on paramilitary suppression of the freedom to speak and assemble, that's hardly the fault of the citizenship.
The only implicit costs associated with these occupations are a side effect of many people gathering -- something that's reasonable to believe is covered by the taxes they pay. If cleaning up after concerts, festivals and parades is covered, this doesn't seem like a stretch. (Why, if sanitation is the primary concern, have they not approached one of these occupations and asked them to rotate out of sections of the space so that it can be cleaned?)

The rest of the costs reflect a *choice* made by those in power to confront and illegally combat their own citizens.


I wonder if FOX-News ever showed how much it cost in taxes whenever the tea baggers held a protest somewhere?
 
2011-11-15 10:29:51 AM

Giltric: I never knew a judge could order you back onto private property to trespass.


I guess thats sets precedent for the 1% when they want to order themselves onto your private property?


Thanks for the help with the law of unintended consequences librul activist judge.


If and when I have the luxury of having to deal with the *downside* of owning a privately owned public space, perhaps I'll look back to this post and gnash my teeth a little.

Until then I'm just going to laugh at you, making an obnoxious "hep hep hep hep!" sound.
 
2011-11-15 10:29:54 AM

King Something: Milo1974: Gestapo=KGB=Syrian Regime=Chinese PLA=NYPD

You know, you really shouldn't say things like that. It's mean.

Now apologize to the Gestapo, KGB, Syrian Regime and Chinese PLA for comparing them to the NYPD.


Come on, at least he didn't compare them to the LAPD. That would just be excessive.
 
2011-11-15 10:30:01 AM

HoboCop: Last night on Fox news they showed a number representing how much in taxes the OWS protest in Philly has cost the city. Thanks, Fox news!


Actually, it's the violent actions of the police force that has done that, not the protesters.

But keep on derpin'.
 
2011-11-15 10:30:28 AM

Compact Travel Size: HoboCop: Last night on Fox news they showed a number representing how much in taxes the OWS protest in Philly has cost the city. Thanks, Fox news!

I'm surprised that Philly didn't try the economical solution. Drop off some snacks/small electronics near the protesters, alert a flash mob via twitter, and wait. Problem solved or giant riot created. Either way, the government wins (they always do, somehow).


probably cheaper to just drop off food with salmonella in it, wont be too many people sitting around in tents when they have explosive diarrhea every 10 minutes.
 
2011-11-15 10:30:42 AM
Judge must like rape.
 
2011-11-15 10:30:43 AM

CPennypacker: topcon: CPennypacker: topcon: CPennypacker: topcon: CPennypacker: vexle: FTFA: "The protesters were defiant at first, chanting: "Whose park? Our park!"

No it's not, you dirty farking hippie. Zucotti Park is privately owned. It literally says this in the first sentence of the park's Wikipedia page.

The land is owned. The park is a public space and governed by law.

Link to laws regarding privately owned land being regarded as "public" by your definition.

Just go to the wikipedia page for the park. The park was a concession US Steel had to provide the city on its land in order to get by zoning laws and make 1 Liberty Plaza Higher.

Yeah, sorry, no, that doesn't really cut it.

The park is still privately owned and maintained.

As I work for a civil engineering and land surveying company, I'm somewhat familiar with how these things work. If it were a truly "public" space by your definition, it would have been deeded over to the local government. This happens fairly frequently, either with a donation of land or payment.

The entity who owns this land, Brookfield Properties, clearly has some reason for not wanting to completely hand it over to the government and let them deal with maintaining it.

It doesn't really matter if it "cuts it" for you or not, we have a lot of POPS in New York. They are subject to laws that govern these types of spaces and are created by developers, on their land, as concessions to the city for exceeding building restrictions.

Still yet no one has linked to any concrete legalities on a land owner being able to kick people with tents off. Such a thing might not even exist and will yet go to court.

But, I'll state again: I'll bet a shiny quarter these people won't be there by some point next year. But by then they'll be forgotten anyway.

Maybe you should read seek3r's posts, as he's posted a link to a NY government website describing POPS twice.


Thanks for that, I thought I had been yelling at a wall for a bit there :-p

He *is* right about the legal issue though, AFAIK (though IANAL) there isn't any case law specifically about this, it seems to be a legal limbo. I'm betting the court order this morning is just the beginning of a *very* long set of legal battles over the subject.

/one which will probably take far longer than the protests, knowing our legal system
 
2011-11-15 10:30:47 AM

PanicMan: Anavrinman: Utter Genius: Complete List of OWS Achievements:

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

- Got you talking about them.

-Got the world talking about them


"Moar attention!!1!" is a heck of a political stance.
 
2011-11-15 10:31:18 AM

bhcompy: Why should they be? The media should report the news, not support movements.


This.
Just because far right activist Fox News goes to bat for the Tea Party does not mean the normal corporate/conservative rest of the media is going to go to bat for an anti-corporate abuse, populist movement filled with actual left wingers.
 
2011-11-15 10:31:25 AM

Latinwolf: ringersol: HoboCop: "Last night on Fox news they showed a number representing how much in taxes the OWS protest in Philly has cost the city. "

If a city chooses to spend its taxes on paramilitary suppression of the freedom to speak and assemble, that's hardly the fault of the citizenship.
The only implicit costs associated with these occupations are a side effect of many people gathering -- something that's reasonable to believe is covered by the taxes they pay. If cleaning up after concerts, festivals and parades is covered, this doesn't seem like a stretch. (Why, if sanitation is the primary concern, have they not approached one of these occupations and asked them to rotate out of sections of the space so that it can be cleaned?)

The rest of the costs reflect a *choice* made by those in power to confront and illegally combat their own citizens.

I wonder if FOX-News ever showed how much it cost in taxes whenever the tea baggers held a protest somewhere?


You could probably find out since those are pretty much always done with permits.

There are many differences between OWS and Tea Parties. Most, but not all, those differences are favorable to OWS.
 
2011-11-15 10:31:28 AM
ringersol:

If a city chooses to spend its taxes on paramilitary suppression of the freedom to speak and assemble, that's hardly the fault of the citizenship.

This.

Anyway. I'm still wondering when the Occupy movement will "grow a pair."
 
2011-11-15 10:32:02 AM
They got a well known civil rights lawyer who is now a Judge out of bed at 6:30 a.m to sign an order?

Judge shopping much?
 
2011-11-15 10:32:24 AM
I wonder what the coppers would do if the protestors had like a bomb shelter or tank or something they could hide out in so the police could not get to them....haha that would be awesome
/tank hippie is not threatened by your beating stick
cpweaponfactory.files.wordpress.com
 
2011-11-15 10:32:30 AM

topcon: bhcompy: topcon: Still yet no one has linked to any concrete legalities on a land owner being able to kick people with tents off. Such a thing might not even exist and will yet go to court.

Err, it's called trespassing.

Yeah, normally, but with this whole unique concept of public private spaces, there could be specific written law for NYC regarding it.

That's what I'm trying to figure out.


Privately owned land can sometimes be dedicated to public use. The owner's rights are severly restricted in such a case.

For instance, many homeowners actually own the area where the sidewalk is in front of the house. The owner is legally responsible for its upkeep, but cannot deprive the public of lawful use of the sidewalk. And the owner can be sued if the bumps cause someone to be injured.

/lawyer
 
2011-11-15 10:32:39 AM
Well how about that. Nice to see some good news.
 
2011-11-15 10:33:15 AM

HoboCop: Last night on Fox news they showed a number representing how much in taxes the OWS protest in Philly has cost the city. Thanks, Fox news!


Without those protestors there, the cops wouldn't have anything to do and they'd be unemploy....waitaminute...OWS are job creators!
 
2011-11-15 10:33:23 AM
gothamist.com

Also, here is your movement. Clearly the entire world is united with these massive numbers of protesters.
 
2011-11-15 10:33:40 AM
All these hippies wrapping themselves up in the First Amendment (and rightly so) better not forget the other Nine in the Bill of Rights.
 
Displayed 50 of 812 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report