Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Zuccotti Park is a public park. . .

Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 16, 2011, 9:32 a.m. EST by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

even though a private corporation may "own Zuccotti park" the public park was bought and paid for by the citizens of New York. Not bought with money, but as a quid pro quo for being able to violate New York's building codes and zoning ordinances..

It is a public park. It must remain opened to the public.

Nevertheless, OWS is a movement without walls. It is a growing movement, and if elected officials fail to listen to the sea of constituents and fail to correct the many egregious policies that further enrich the already rich, then they will be recalled and/or voted out of office no matter how much the Koch Brothers spend.

They can buy elected "representatives" and they can buy mountains of advertising, but they cannot buy my vote. They cannot buy your vote.

Stay informed. Stay active. Organize. Occupy.

Occupy their minds.

52 Comments

52 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by DM10014 (-8) 13 years ago

You're right, it's a public park - NOT A CAMP GROUND

[-] 3 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 13 years ago

it's been a while, maybe we'll get our public places back some day. history tells me they were good places to congregate, now all their is is churches. those thing look too intimidating to me.

[-] 3 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 13 years ago

The fewer public spaces, the fewer places to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of our grievances. :)

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 13 years ago

i often wondered if that was the plan, or if it was that not enough people took care of them so "money interests" picked up the slack. I was never too confident to weigh in either way

[-] 2 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 13 years ago

You forget, parks only belong to elites.

[-] 2 points by Biker (-5) 13 years ago

Toynbee thanks for this great post. You are really honest american.

[-] 2 points by Peacedriver (23) 13 years ago

Some people think protesting is fun and games... Its one of the hardest things a person can ever do... people seem afraid of this corrupted system and dont want to speak up for themselves.

[-] 1 points by fidires (0) 13 years ago

The park is public, but privately owned. In terms of whether the protesters' free speech rights were infringed, obviously this would have significant consequence bc there would no state action (i.e., NYC acted at the behest of Brookfield), Even if it was public, the OWS protesters would not have the right to bring tents, or otherwise camp out in the park. Indeed, according to a US Supreme Court case directly on point for this issue (decided 7-2), the court held that the First Amendment DID NOT protect the right of protesters to camp out in a national park in Washington DC.

I think that this week's events are ultimately the best for the movement. The protests have managed to turn most people in the neighborhood against OWS-- namely because of the unbearable noise levels from the drumming (I live and work near there) and sanitary issues. It's time for the movement to take on a new direction and to channel the energy that they still have (it's quickly diminishing) towards political means to influence the government.

[-] 1 points by fuzzybucket (33) 13 years ago

how about opening an occupy newsstand or kiosk at the park? one can obtain a permit from the city and have some kind of physical presence where visitors can get current information on the movement and become a staging location for future events at the park. the newsstand can distribute pamphlets addressing causes or issues relevant to the movement in the tradition of thomas paine.

[-] 1 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 13 years ago

Not a bad idea. Don't know what the city rules are about this. But on the sidewalk next to the park are a bunch of trailers where vendors hawk food. I would think that a vendor hawking news is just as valid. But maybe the city requires a permit. The ability to give a permit implies the ability to deny a permit. Nevertheless, you make a good point.

[-] 1 points by fuzzybucket (33) 13 years ago

hey, bloomberg is all about free speech - make him prove it! we will toe the line (in the legal sense) like he toed the line when he evicted the camp the other nite.

[-] 1 points by BrainC (400) from Austin, TX 13 years ago

Everyone Occupy.

Occupations for everyone

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 13 years ago

Keep it up and it won't BE a public park - sincity will just sell it to the highest capitalist.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by TheAX (11) 13 years ago

Zuccotti Park is not wall street. There is, IN FACT, nothing immediately surrounding the park that relates to your protests. Honestly, I would like your message delivered to the appropriate audience. They reside about 3 hours south of Zucotti park in a city called Washington, DC. K street is where the problem started. Go to the root of the problem if you seek a resolution to your demands.

[-] 2 points by buphiloman (840) 13 years ago

Old. Tired. Misinformed. If you're gonna troll, either brings the goods, or STFU.

[-] 1 points by TheAX (11) 13 years ago

Your are obviously a complete moron and coward. You would not talk like that on the street. There's nothing troll like in my post. I'm pointing out that a protest is useless if it is not inconvenient for the target of the protest. Would Tienanmen square have happened if that student was standing in the woods? No he was standing in front of a tank. He's remembered throughout history.

[-] 1 points by buphiloman (840) 13 years ago

There is already an Occupy DC group on the national mall. So either you are woefully misinformed (thinking that the movement hasn't targeted DC when in fact it has, for 2 months now), or you are just trolling they same tired old shit that every other troll on this forum has since day one. Hence my admonition to get some new material. The trolling is getting stale.

And yes, I would say all of this to your face, in public, with a camera on you to record your reaction (for my attorneys ;)).

[-] 1 points by workhardplayhard (33) 13 years ago

so you need a big corporate attorney to fight your battle

[-] 1 points by buphiloman (840) 13 years ago

no lol. My attorney is my sister. and she doesn't work for any corporation. But I am sure she'd gladly put an abusive, ignorant, loudmouth thug like you behind bars if you deserved it.

[-] 1 points by workhardplayhard (33) 13 years ago

so you need your sister to fight your battle. that's even worse.

[-] 2 points by buphiloman (840) 13 years ago

What are we in third grade? You act the big man threatening me physical violence on a PUBLIC discussion board, where your IP address is recorded and then you think what, that I wouldn't find it hilarious to bring you up on criminal charges if you ever laid a finger on me.

[-] 0 points by workhardplayhard (33) 13 years ago

I'm just point out that you're acting like a big man talking tough telling ppl you'd get in their face and tell them to STFU, all while hiding behind your attorney sister, that's all.

[-] 1 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 13 years ago

Time out -- for both of you. Stop and take a deep breath. Buphiloman, you are obviously naive about what it takes to make fundamental change.

OWS threatens the status quo, so of course the big boys will pull no punches to drown out the protest.

Would you like OWS to leave the park and just email their grievances to the Congressional representatives?

Guess where those emails would end up.

OWS is a growing movement because Congress and Wall Street still do not get it. Still have not listened. Still have not heard. Or they have heard, and choose not to pay attention to legitimate complaints.

This movement will only grow. Hopefully it will not take a Kent State massacre before our elected representatives take meaningful action.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by journey4word (214) 13 years ago

so I can camp out on a public sidewalk if I want? for as long as I want?

[-] 0 points by gr58 (22) 13 years ago

The park rules say no capming. They already said you will be allowed back but you just can't camp

[-] 1 points by wheels (1) 13 years ago

Rules which were enacted after the occupation began, with the express intent of dispersing the protesters. The first amendment doesn't say "... to peaceably assemble, but no tents allowed!"

[-] 1 points by gr58 (22) 13 years ago

LOL. Well no, it didn't say no tents, but the park does close like at 9 or 10. Meaning you can't be there after hours.

And, where in the first ammendment does it say you can camp where ever you want? Where does it say that anywhere? A Mall is considered a private/public. Doesn't mean you can camp there. When it closes, you have to leave.

And P.S., the guy underneith me is right. There are limits on free speach. Fighting words, defimation, inciting violence. There are a lot of limits. Should a Nazi be allowed to walk into a synagogue and yell "Kill the jewish rats!" in the middle of services? If you answer no, then you are admiting to limts on free speech. If you answer yes then you are foolish. either way, the limits exist and you should learn them

[-] 1 points by greedisgood (39) from Washington, DC 13 years ago

There are limits to free speech.

Including obscenity, "fighting words", (i think the case was NH vs someone), imminent danger, also treason.

To say otherwise is to throw out 200+ years of precedent....but go ahead and keep thinking all free speech is allowed?

[-] 1 points by wheels (1) 13 years ago

To both people above me, please give me specific examples of how the occupation of Zucotti Park was in violation of those limits on First Amendment rights.

[-] 1 points by steven2002 (363) 13 years ago

Tell me where in the First Amendment it allows you to peacefully assemble with tents?

[-] -1 points by OLLAG (84) 13 years ago

It isn't public. It is privately owned.

[-] 2 points by fivetimesthefun (107) from Queens, NY 13 years ago

You're wrong. It is a "privately owned public space" the post you are replying to is exactly correct. Terms of the agreement between Brookfield and the city say it must be open to the public.

[-] 1 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 13 years ago

No, it is a public park that is privately owned. It became a public park in a deal between the City of New York and the developer. The developer wanted something on a different piece of land that he could not get without some quid pro quo. This is the price extracted by the City. Good for the developer. Good for the citizens of New York. Check it out, or give me some evidence that I'm wrong Mr. Ollag.

[-] 1 points by OLLAG (84) 13 years ago

public park that is privately owned. PRIVATE. The deal also states in article II that THIS DEAL MAY BE REPEALED IF THE OWNER FEELS FIT.

[-] 1 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 13 years ago

** You are NOT correct. The park cannot be unilaterally repealed. Period. You don't know anything if you are trying to tell the public that is what is in the contract. It may be possible -- may -- to unwind the deal between the City of New York and the owner of the park property, but it would require a new negotiations. New quid pro quo. What is the private company willing to offer in lieu of a park. A new park somewhere else? Possibly. But it would take something huge to close a public park. Speak to a real lawyer who has examined the real documents and you will see the error of your ways big boy.

[-] -1 points by mynameiscurly (39) 13 years ago

It appears like the idiot that posted this is FAR more interested in having FUN in a tiny little park rather than changing the SYSTEM. This is why OWS will never work. You are all children on a play ground.

[-] 1 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 13 years ago

That's what they said of the Tea Party when it started.

But OWS has grown much much larger and more comprehensive than Tea Party that is made up for the most part of middle-aged and seniors who got much of what they have from the great schools, infrastructure and public services that were put in place by their parents and grand parents.

Tea Party = selfish old folks.

OWS = concerned citizens working to build a better society ... for everyone!

[-] 0 points by mynameiscurly (39) 13 years ago

You very easily find the list of MAJOR policital figures and candidates that are Tea Party members. THE LIST IS HUGE and very public on what they support. Where can I find the same size list,, or any list,,, of major figures that claim to be in the OWS movement? Give me some names that I may actually know.

[-] -1 points by Perspective (-243) 13 years ago

Way to insult thousands of people you don't know.

[-] 0 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 13 years ago

Actually I do know many of them. Many of them. I once was camping (in a tent) in a marvelous national forest with campgrounds built during the days of WPA and the Great Depression. I sat around a campfire chatting with several groups of seniors -- all of whom were camping in their expensive RVs -- and inevitably, the discussion came around to politics. These people, who had enjoyed great opportunities, and were now enjoying the recreational facilities built by their parents, only complained about high taxes, big government, and other Tea Party issues. They didn't want to acknowledge that their taxes, which had never been lower in the last 50 years, and this government, made it possible for them to enjoy the great outdoors.

The irony was lost on them.

[-] -1 points by Perspective (-243) 13 years ago

Like I said,way to insult thousands of people you don't know.

[-] 0 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 13 years ago

Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and a host of other shills for the Koch Brothers and the moneyed establishment have made an extremely good living insulting millions -- not thousands -- of honest hard working Americans who work hard, play by the rules, and then get the shaft by some representatives who no longer represent us, but instead represent their own pocket books. Shameful!

And it is shameful of you not to recognize it.

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 13 years ago

Like I said,way to insult thousands of people you don't know. So if someone else does it it's bad but if you do it it's okay I guess? It's shameful of you not to recognize it.

[-] 1 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 13 years ago

If someone is insulted, maybe they need to take stock of their behavior.

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 13 years ago

Maybe you should meet someone and get to know them before you insult them. See,you're typical of OWS,something is bad if others do it but if you do it it's okay. Perhaps you should take your own advice when it comes to behavior.

[-] -1 points by raines (699) 13 years ago

Ever listen to limbaugh? Millions do.He shills for no one.

[-] 0 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 13 years ago

Drink the Kool Aid

[-] -1 points by raines (699) 13 years ago

sorry the kool aid is strictly for dems/lib/progressives and you.

[-] -1 points by curlyismyname (45) 13 years ago

So who did you COMPLAIN about before Rush or Bill started their gig? Our country had NO problems under Kennedy, Carter, Clinton and obama? Just Rush and Bill,,,, and FoxNews, I bet.

[-] -1 points by dantes443322 (148) 13 years ago

Also without guidance, goals, leadership, and support. Way to make a difference there guys and gals. Just try and put a candidate up that OWS will get behind. They can't even agree on when drummers should play.