Reply With Quote
My mistake. :P I'm fairly certain that after cleaning the park, there is no more emergency at that point, so the police should acquiesce to a judge's order.
Either way, a judge wouldn't make a ruling that runs contrary to law.
It was a state supreme court judge, not federal. I beleive that in New York, that is like the appellate court in Texas. The highest NY state court is the Court of Appeals. Someone more familiar with the NY judicial system might chime in.
Bloomberg might have authority to overrule the judge's order if there is an emergency in place. I do not practice municipal law but I believe there are exceptions during state's of emergency. I think that if they made an argument under the health and safety codes being broken, that would probably be a call for the Govenor, not mayor.
All the same, my guess is that the city attorney is the one making calls to kick them out, not the mayor. At least, I would hope so.
My mistake. :P I'm fairly certain that after cleaning the park, there is no more emergency at that point, so the police should acquiesce to a judge's order.
Either way, a judge wouldn't make a ruling that runs contrary to law.
I bet more people are tired of bailing out banks.
This could be easily handled with a city ordinance prohibiting overnight camping in the park. It's done all the time...
This could be easily handled with a city ordinance prohibiting overnight camping in the park. It's done all the time...
If it's privately owned, and the owners want them evicted, then the judge is in the wrong. And i think the cops are upholding the rule of law. You can't subject clear objective law, and in this country we have property rights.
Freedom of speech ends where property rigths begin.
"in this country we have property rights."
not any more. See MERS and fraudulent foreclosures
I get the impression this park is kind of a public/private partnership which muddies the water...probably "parking" the property until the economy improves and get property tax relief by granting public access..
So you'd agree that a private business, such as an eatery, could "evict" people based on race because it is their right as property owners?
unnecessary straw man based on discrimination which was never stated.
If private property unen bered by any other agreements they are within their legal right to post "no trespassing" signs and evict everyone.
You need to actually know/read about the situation before spouting off.
The park is a privately owned park for PUBLIC use. The company who owns the park took over private management of the park under the stipulation that it would be available for unfettered 24/7 public use.
But no, we now have two people on Spurstalk who are more familiar with laws than a state supreme court judge. By all means, educate us, sirs.
Well, they can evict people (of any race), if they act like this:
like I said earlier, pass a no overnight camping ordinance.
problem solved
Doesn't sound like a lot of the public has been able to use the park in the past couple of months.
I'm sure something like this needs to be voted by city council. Good luck with that
You don't got , pissant.
You really think the city council isn't fed up with their ?
some might be. Some might actually support the .
http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2011...ogle_news_blog
Shhhhhh. Don't tell Cosmic.
Sounds like the "dregs" have been able to use the park.
Let's determine the logical probability of that statement.
You're implying that the park is so full of protestors, that other people haven't been able to use it.
That implies that before the protestors used it, it was less full, ie. used by less people.
Given that the protestors are members of the public, we can safelty assume that the very fact that the protestors are using it 24/7, and the park is full, undermines your own hypothesis.
So people can't camp overnight on private property now? I can't go in my backyard and set up a tent for my kids to have a "campout"?
The park is privately owned FOR public use. It was agreed when the company took ownership that the public would have 24/7 access to the park. It is not private property in the sense that they cannot say the public cannot use it. This is why even though it's "private" it was open to anyone prior to OWS.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
