Click Here to return to the
Blue Collar Politics Blog.To a Directory of Mr.Lederman's Essays
Letter to Park's Committee
From Robert Lederman
President, A.R.T.I.S.T.
(Artists Response To Illegal State Tactics)Email: robert.lederman@worldnet.att.net
1/29/03
Dear Councilmembers of the Parks Committee,
Thank you for holding an excellent Intro # 160 hearing on 1/27/03. The fair and evenhanded way it was run gave me a renewed sense of respect for the NY City Council and for the legislative process.
Street artists were treated with respect by the entire committee, for which we are grateful. I hope we can continue to develop the lines of communication that have been opened over the past few weeks between the Committee members and A.R.T.I.S.T. I also hope that at some point the Committee members, the Parks Commissioner and I can discuss positive steps other than Intro # 160 which can be taken to regulate street artists in Parks when and if further regulation is needed.
As the testimony during the hearing made clear, Intro # 160 is a very controversial issue, with strongly held opinions and emotions being advocated on both sides. Unfortunately, a number of the basic facts presented by the advocates for Intro # 160 - particularly by the current and former City officials who testified - are not supported by the legislative history or by the experience of those who have been at the center of this controversy with the Parks Department.
Selective memory and wishful thinking concerning the legislative history behind the book vendor exemption cannot substitute for the objective facts which constitute the record. My comments below are intended to bring these discrepancies in the testimony to the Committee's attention so that you will be in a better position to evaluate all the facets of this issue when making your determination.
In light of the fact that the officials who testified are highly-respected individuals with many years of distinguished public service, and in many instances are friends of the Committee members, I risk offending you by criticizing their testimony. Nevertheless, as the President of the group that has been at the very center of this issue for nine years, I would be negligent in my duties if I did not bring these issues to your immediate attention.
- 1. Is Intro # 160 about clarifying the law - or negating it? What does the actual legislative history show?
As President of A.R.T.I.S.T. and a plaintiff in both Bery et al v City of NY / Lederman et al v City of NY and Lederman et al v Giuliani / Bach et al v City of NY (the lawsuits that overturned the vending license and Parks permit requirements for street artists) I have had nine years of day to day involvement in this issue and have extensively studied its background. Former Parks legal counsel Thomas Rozinski testified in a deposition in 1998 that the Parks Department was meeting with me as the representative of the City's street artists to discuss an artist permit system as early as 1994. From then until 1998, when the artist permit was finally initiated, I repeatedly met with Commissioner Stern and his staff. In those meetings we discussed all the legal implications of what now is before you as Intro # 160.
Unlike whether one likes to see artists in Parks or thinks they do not belong there, the legislative history of the book vendor exemption from any license or permit is not a matter of opinion or aesthetic preference. It is part of the historical record.
That record shows that a Parks permit for book vendors was considered in 1981 and then rejected when the City Council was debating what later became Local Law # 33, the law that Intro # 160 proposes to "clarify."
Six courts, including the 2nd Circuit Federal Appeals Court in its 1996 decision in Bery et al v City of NY / Lederman et al v City of NY, unambiguously stated that book vendors were exempt from any Parks permit. Since that ruling artists are also exempt. In 2001 the NY State Court of Appeals rejected the City's appeals of People v Balmuth and People v Christiano (the two Parks artist permit cases the City didn't immediately dismiss), stating that there was no issue of law remaining to be decided.
By creating the artist permit the City not only violated NY State law but violated the consent decree they had signed with the Bery and Lederman plaintiffs. That consent decree said they would abide by the book vendor exemption from any license or permit on the streets or in Parks. [*See notes at the end of this letter for each court's statement on this.]
There is no legitimate dispute of fact about whether or not the 1982 book vendor exemption intended book vendors to be exempt from a permit in Parks based on the First Amendment. The Parks Commissioner and the former Councilmembers who crafted that very exemption are asking you to believe that Judge McKenna's 2001 injunction against the artist permit was based on an obscure technicality, a misreading of the law or misguided judicial activism - the last being a notion which is hardly credible in light of the fact that Judge McKenna waited more than four years to issue an injunction.
In 1998 when the first artist permit arrests came before the Criminal Courts, Judge Lucy Billings did an exhaustive study of the legislative history of local law #33. Judge Billings found that there was no question it was intended to exempt book vendors from any license or any permit in Parks or on NYC streets. Her ruling was since upheld in its entirety by every level of the State Appeals Court and by Federal Judge McKenna.
I realize that the four distinguished former Councilmembers whose 1981 efforts gave written matter the exemption from any license or permit now regret that the law they wrote had unanticipated consequences. Perhaps the founding fathers might similarly regret the First Amendment allowing Jerry Springer, gangster rap and Robert Maplethorpe's photographs to be categorized as protected expression. Nevertheless, they are and must remain protected for the sake of every American's full freedom of speech.
Objectively reading the legislative history as it exists in the City Council archives shows there is nothing in the 1981 book vendor exemption law that needs to be clarified. It unambiguously meant no license or permit of any kind.
While they may be former City officials these Councilmembers are by no means removed from the contemporary political aspects of this issue. As attorneys and lobbyists, they are still very much an active presence in City Hall. I was particularly struck by the testimony of Councilmember Wallace, as I'm sure you were. After hearing his testimony, anyone not familiar with the legislative history might believe a Parks permit was the entire purpose of 1981's local law # 33. However, that is simply not the case.
As an attorney, former Councilmember Wallace has represented the BIDs - including the Grand Central Partnership, the 34th Street Partnership and the Bryant Park Restoration Corporation. These BIDs are outspoken advocates for Intro # 160. Two of them joined in filing an amicus brief in 1995 against street artists in Bery. He is also closely associated with the Municipal Arts Society, another organization which testified for Intro # 160. Mr. Wallace's law firm, Greenberg Trauig, has numerous complex relationships to the former Giuliani administration and to Robert and Ray Harding, who are among the former Mayors' closest political allies.
Greenberg Traurig Press Release
Former Giuliani Deputy Mayor for Economic Development and Finance Joins Greenberg Traurig
Robert M. Harding to Bolster NYC Government Group and Launch Firm's Albany Office
NEW YORK, NY -- January 8, 2002 -- The New York office of Greenberg Traurig LLP, the international law firm, announced today that former New York City Deputy Mayor Robert M. Harding joined the firm as a Shareholder. Mr. Harding will be a member of the firm's Governmental & Administrative practice and will launch the firm's Albany office, where his family resides. Mr. Harding said, "I respect the people of Greenberg Traurig not only for their capacity as lawyers but in their knowledge and understanding of how both business and government work. I look forward to being part of this prestigious firm. While considering many opportunities in private practice, Greenberg Traurig's strong reputation as a top government affairs firm, both on a national scale and in New York, clearly provided the perfect platform to build my practice." ...Edward C. Wallace, who heads the firm's New York City Governmental & Administrative practice said, "Bob Harding is a natural fit with our bi-partisan government practice. He has been a first rate practicing lawyer and a well respected public servant. He can explain how government works to business clients and business to government decision makers." Ed is a former New York City Council Member-at-Large for Manhattan and nationally active in government affairs.
Commissioner Stern, who is unique in having in crafted both the exemption and the artist-permit which directly violated it, has a long and very well documented history of fierce loyalty to the former Mayor. It was Mayor Giuliani and Commissioner Stern who encouraged the Central Park Conservancy to privatize the operation of Central Park. Not coincidentally, the CPC is now run by Mr. Giuliani's first wife, Regina Perrugi. Also not coincidentally, the CPC is in charge of all the concessions in Central Park and like Commissioner Stern it is a named defendant in Lederman et al v Giuliani. Mayor Bloomberg, who proposed Intro # 160, is himself a leading member of the CPC board and of the Met Museum board and is also a resident of the Fifth Avenue area near the museum where many street artists show their art. The testimony you heard was inevitably colored by these complex political and social relationships.
I believe you sincerely want the facts before making your determination. Here are some of my other concerns about the pro-Intro # 160 testimony.
- 2. The role of art and freedom of speech in Parks
If you contemplate voting for Intro # 160 either in its present or in any modified form you must do so in the full knowledge that you are reversing an exemption from any license or permit based on freedom of speech. Further, you must understand that this exemption is the basis for much of the First Amendment freedom enjoyed by your constituents on public property within the confines of NYC. Every street and Park in NYC will be affected by your determination.
As someone who grew up in NYC and has always loved the City's Parks there is no agency which I would rather say good things about, but the fact is that the Parks Department has a proven record of how it intends to treat street artists and of what it would like to replace us with.
Intro # 160 is not really about seeking a balance between street artists and the quiet contemplation of the beauties of nature. The Parks Department's agenda is street artists vs. souvenir concessions, fast food restaurants, corporate logos and large-scale corporate-sponsored art placed in the Parks by the wealthiest citizens of NYC.
One need only read the plastic signs affixed to the City Hall Park fence near the works of art recently installed there to see an obvious bias in favor of JP Morgan/Chase Bank, Forest City Ratner and other influential - and very politically connected - art patrons. Trying to rid the Park of street artists while advocating Christo's 23 mile long 16 foot high installation in Central Park exposes the Parks Department's arguments as being not only without merit, but comical.
We in A.R.T.I.S.T. are not against corporate-sponsored art or the artists these corporations chose to promote nor are we unappreciative of Mr. Christo. Our point is that if art has an integral place in Parks - as the Mayor, the Parks Commissioner and the Central Park Conservancy claim - then the City cannot use a permit to pick and choose which artists will be allowed to show there. Every court that has ruled on this issue stated that to regulate the sale of art the City must use reasonable time, place and manner restrictions that already exist in abundance - rather than a permit.
These corporate interests run the City's art museums and have thousands of fine locations on private property to show whatever art they prefer. The Parks are public property, where First Amendment freedom, not political donations, rule.
- 3. The testimony of Park advocates
Many of the non-governmental park advocates who passionately testified in favor of Intro # 160 do not have a single artist OR vendor either inside or anywhere near their park, nor is there much likelihood they ever will. One advocate who enthusiastically testified for Intro # 160 represents a park where you need a key to get in. Rest assured, this park will never experience the ominous presence of a street artist. Apparently, the Parks Department was trying to get any park advocates they could find regardless of them having a valid point to make against street artists at the hearing. It's not surprising they were so riled up. Commissioner Benepes' two very misleading mailings on Intro # 160 completely distorted the facts, depicting street artists as a threat to the survival of Parks if not to Western civilization itself.
As far as Battery Park and Central Park, A.R.T.I.S.T. has repeatedly told the Parks Department that we do not dispute them having a right to restrict artists from specific areas where there is objective congestion to the degree that there is a legitimate public safety issue. Park entrances, baseball fields, playgrounds, bathrooms, access roads and tennis courts are the kinds of areas the City can easily restrict book vendors and street artists from selling in. No court would object to such restrictions.
The photographs that the Parks Department showed were nice pictures but they exhibited no real congestion. They were of a few tourists looking at art displays on a path with ample remaining room for pedestrians. When there is genuine congestion, it is frequently caused by Parks Department food vending concessions, PEP vehicles, souvenir concessions and illegal vending, not by artists or art vendors.
- 4. Can Parks PEP officers enforce the existing laws?
Commissioner Benepe testified that there are not enough PEP officers to enforce the existing regulations against street artists because there are 27,000 acres of NYC Park land. Yet, even the Commissioner made clear that the "problem" with artists as he sees it was limited to just two parks, Battery Park and Central Park, and that even within those two parks it was limited to just a small number of discreet areas.
In the 1/28/03 issue of the NY Sun, the Commissioner specifically listed those areas:
"Mr. Benepe said the most congested park areas are the west side of Fifth Avenue along central Park; Central Park South; Columbus Circle by Merchants Gate; Wein Walk, a Central Park path from East 60th to 63rd Streets; Grand Army Plaza and Battery Park."
These areas are popular with tourists and are already patrolled every day by PEP officers and by the NYPD. If Intro # 160 is passed those same areas will still have to be patrolled by PEP officers who will then be preoccupied with looking for unauthorized artists. The lack of resources to do enforcement argument is an invalid one. The PEP officers - with help from A.R.T.I.S.T. - can readily address any problems in those areas if the Parks Department wants that done. Apparently, they don't. Allowing problems to exist without addressing them provides ammunition for the Parks Department's pro-Intro # 160 campaign.
- 5. Fairness of a permit and artist permits in other cities
Numerous advocates for Intro # 160 claimed that a lottery system for permits was fair, that many other cities such as San Francisco have such a permit, and that such permits are generally approved of by the Federal Courts.
I am in routine contact with individuals in San Francisco's so-called artist permit program. The application process with its many pages of literature is part of the record in Lederman et al v Giuliani. That system bears little resemblance to the Intro # 160 issue.
The single most important thing to note about the SF permit is that is was instituted after their plaintiffs LOST a 1994 State Court lawsuit about having First Amendment protection [S.F. Street Artists Guild v Scott 37 Cal. App. 3d 667]. The NYC Parks permit was created in defiance of the law after we had WON a similar Federal lawsuit [Bery / Lederman et al v City of NY].
Part of the reason the SF plaintiffs lost their lawsuit was that the plaintiffs were predominantly crafts vendors selling jewelry, hats, coffee cups and other articles on which there is an ongoing controversy about whether or not they are First Amendment-protected. My personal belief is that some crafts and jewelry are worthy of such protection. Other artists have their own opinions on this, but as the Second Circuit ruling noted, it is ultimately up to the courts to decide this rather than up to artists, the police or the Parks Department.
In contrast to the S.F. lawsuit, all the street artist rulings that resulted from the A.R.T.I.S.T. group's lawsuits involved painters, printmakers, photographers and sculptors. There has never been a serious controversy over whether such articles are protected.
While Federal Courts have at times ruled in favor of permit requirements in Parks, those cases usually involve permits for massive events with thousands of participants. An artists' portable stand cannot be compared to the type of large public events and the potential threat to public safety these rulings in favor of a permit were about.
Even in NYC Parks, performers accepting donations are exempt from needing a permit so long as they have no more than 20 people in their audience, which is far more than an art display attracts at any one time. A case I brought in Washington D.C. Lederman v United States [See: Washington Post 6/1/2002 Capitol Ban on Protests Nullified, Appellate Court Opens Sidewalk To Demonstrators] shows that even on the steps of the post 9/11 U.S. Capitol, a permit requirement for speech may not be Constitutional.
During the hearing the NYCLU submitted written testimony on Intro # 160 to the panel stating that First Amendment doctrine disfavors a Parks artist permit; that it created unnecessary restraints on freedom of speech; that it was not narrowly tailored; that evidence to support the need for it was clearly lacking and that ample alternative means of protecting the Parks and the public already existed in the law. These are our very points and have been throughout the history of this controversy.
We need not guess what an artists permit in Parks would be like. The City had one in NYC Parks from 1998 until 2001. Most artists boycotted it and continued selling on Parks property. The Giuliani administration responded by a massive show of NYPD and PEP force, involving as many as 100 officers standing over the artists each day while making periodic false arrests. Hundreds of artists were arrested, but none were prosecuted because the City knew from day one that the arrests were illegal, i.e. that the law specifically exempted artists from a Parks permit.
Contrary to the Parks Department's claims to be trying to help "original artists" the grand total of 24 permits initially allowed in all NYC Parks (increased by the final year of the permit to a grand total of 76) were more often than not given by the Parks Department to general merchandise vendors and multiple stand art vendors, not to artists. If allowed to morph into a concession system via Intro # 160 - an intention the Parks Counsel's 2/28/96 letter to the NY Times makes clear - only the most commercial bottom line art retailers will have the financial means to successfully bid for a spot.
NY Times letters, 2/28/96
"We are considering a plan to allow art vendors to bid for eight one year permits. The bid for those permits are likely to be less than those for year-round concession stands." Thomas Rosinski, Parks Legal Counsel
What Mr. Rosinski meant by "less than those for year-round stands" was that art vending would be less feasible in the Winter, so it might attract lower bids than a hotdog stand, which does well all year round. The hotdog concession in front of the Met sells for as much $750,000 for one year.
As far as the permit being content-neutral consider that in the last months of the artist permit, Assistant Commissioner Jack Linn told artists they would no longer be allowed to sell NYC scenes. Apparently, souvenir concessionaires paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Parks Department were complaining about competition.
Can one imagine a less-justifiable excuse for censorship" What can we expect would happen to artists who wanted to show work that was actually controversial under such a permit system" It was Asst. Commissioner Jack Linn and former Manhattan Parks Commissioner Adrian Benepe who were directly overseeing the artist-permit system throughout the course of Lederman et al v Giuliani. For Parks, this issue is solely about concessions and controlling what kinds of art can be shown in NYC Parks, not about "helping" artists.
Here's a recent quote from Commissioner Benepe on this exact point:
NY Sun August 14,2002 Parks Commissioner Planning a Crackdown On Venders of Artwork
"But Parks Commissioner Adrian Benepe says he sees the permits as a quality of life issue, not
a First Amendment one. "The proliferation of private commerce in a public park has gotten out of control,"
Mr. Benepe told the Sun. "We're getting complaints from concessionaires who say their business is dropping."
Would an artist be able to get a permit to sell art mocking Wendys near the Wendys concession in Ketch Park or criticizing the Mayor and the Central Park Conservancy in City Hall Park or along Christos "23 mile long drapery installation" We have good reason to be skeptical. I and many other artists were repeatedly arrested on Parks property for doing nothing more than holding up cardboard signs that criticized the Mayor and Commissioner Stern.
Throughout the permits' four year existence Parks routinely invented arbitrary categories of what it covered. Frequently, these arbitrary bureaucratic decisions violated both the Bery decision and the NYC vending code. Many of those with the Parks permit would have been arrested for selling the same merchandise on any NYC street.
6. Is the Parks Department a bias-free agency we can assume will run a fair permitting system?
Can the Parks Department be given the benefit of the doubt that they would run a fair permitting system? Commissioner Stern began his comments to the panel by stating that he, "is not a Nazi, not a fascist." One need not be a Nazi to have ideas which violate civil liberties.
As charming and clever as Commissioner Stern is, under Mayor Giuliani and Commissioner Stern the Parks Department was involved in every conceivable form of corporatization, privatization and selective enforcement against minorities. Rather than being the cause of commercialism in Parks, street artists have been like a thumb in the dyke, holding back the deluge of commercialism and privatization the Parks Department hopes to engage in if Intro # 160 is passed.
You are surely familiar with the fact that the Parks Department and Commissioner Stern are being sued by their own Parks employees and investigated by the EEOC for racial bias. If you recall Commissioner Stern's testimony at the hearing, he stated that Museum visitors should not have to be confronted by a "Chinese wall" of artists. Was that not a direct racial insult to the Chinese artists present at the hearing, many of whom came to the U.S. seeking artistic freedom"
On page 70 of former NY Post columnist Jack Newfield's recently published book on Mayor Giuliani - The Full Rudy - he recounts how Commissioner Stern told him Blacks were inferior because they have smaller brains. Newfield notes that many other people have been told similar things by Commissioner Stern. Such views are relevant to this discussion because minorities constitute the vast majority of the City's street artists. These artists will be most directly affected if Intro # 160 is passed because it is exactly immigrant, minority and low income artists who most need public space to show their work in.
Mayor Bloomberg appears to have a much better attitude towards the City's people of color than Mayor Giuliani did. Perhaps that had something to do with him not reappointing Commissioner Stern. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the Parks Department is seen by many New Yorkers as an elitist NYC agency and nothing much has changed since the new Administration took over - least of all the Parks Department's agenda of getting rid of street artists.
Giving the Parks Department what they want - an artist permit - will lead to countless lawsuits, including those from individual artists who will have been discriminated against over the content of their art.
It is worth noting that the Parks Department has also been repeatedly caught shaking down those seeking various kinds of permits for "donations" - often very large donations which were presented as a pre-condition for getting a permit. Mainstream newspaper articles on this are also part of the legal record in Lederman et al v Giuliani and there have been a number of lawsuits on this specific matter.
The bottom line on this entire issue is that there are already more than enough laws in place to deal with the street artist "problem" however real or imaginary it is. If the Council thinks further rules are needed about benches, entrances and the like, we are not objecting to such rules being created, nor would any court. No permit is needed to meet these reasonable objectives.
I ask you to leave the full freedom of expression guaranteed by the Federal and NY State Constitutions, the 1981 written matter exemption and by our legal decisions intact so that all future generations of New Yorkers may enjoy their rights.
Sincerely Yours,
Robert Lederman,
President of A.R.T.I.S.T.
(Artists Response To Illegal State Tactics)*[Legal notes by Mitchell Balmuth on the rulings overturning the Parks permit]
I. To clarify
1. The Courts
a. In Bery et al v City of NY / Lederman et al v City of NY the 2nd Circuit Federal Appeals Court clearly stated "vending, except for written matter, in a park is barred without written authorization from the Department of Parks and Recreation, ..."
b .In the NY State Balmuth Criminal Court decision Judge Billings states, "The conclusion to be drawn from this expression of legislative intent is inescapable. Licensing is not a permissible restriction on vending of written matter under any circumstances."
c. In the NY State Christiano Criminal Court decision Judge Weber says, "The permit requirement for the vending of artwork and written matter is not an allowable restriction."
d. In response to an appeal filed by the City in the Balmuth and Christiano decisions, the New York State Supreme Court Appeals Term three judge panel stated that, "The agency permit system directly contravenes the provisions of New York City Administrative code Section 20-473, which explicitly and unambiguously exempt general vendors "who exclusively vend written matter" from compliance with the "written authorization" or permit requirement contained elsewhere in the codes..."
e. In Lederman et al v Giuliani / Bach v City of NY Judge McKenna wrote, "Thus, although time, place and manner restrictions may be imposed to benefit public health, safety and welfare, licensing requirements are never permissible on book vendors."
f. On 12/18/01 Judge Ciparick of the New York State Court of Appeals denied leave stating "there is no question of law presented which ought to be reviewed ...".
2. Legislative History
a. Draft Bills of Intro 1080 labeled I and II, are undated and clearly marked "not used". Section 4 a(5) In draft I and section 4 a(4) in draft II would have given the Commissioner of Parks the right to regulate with permits. The fact that they decided not to do that is more proof that the legislative intended to exempt written matter vendors of the permit as they finally did.
b. Draft Bill 1080-A proposed on 4/30/82 (less than a month before Local Law 33 passed) also clearly marked "not used" states in its legislative declaration that vendors of written matter would be exempt from the vending license requirement.
c. Intro 1263 replaced intro 1080-A on 5/11/82 and became the final draft for Local Law 33. This new Intro changed the legislative declaration to include the following sentence: "It is further found and declared that general vendors who exclusively vend written matter should be free from licensing requirements." Whenever the plural term is used to replace a singular term this is significant in determining legislative intent.
3. The City has misled the public and now the City Council, saying that the judges said that the law was unclear and needed to be clarified. This is obviously not true as seven judges have ruled just the opposite.
II. Section 1 "Permitting unbridled and unregulated"
1. The General Vending Code 20-452 et seq is enforceable in the parks. Sections 20-465 can be used to control the size and placement of stands. Also the clause in section 20-473 about regulating gives the Parks Commissioner extra powers to regulate when there are safety issues or if vendors interfere with the purposes of the parks.
2. Other park rules and regulations can be used to regulate vendors such as park hours or the blocking of passageways or benches.
3. There has been no legitimate enforcement of either the General Vending Codes or Park Rules and Regulations. The only response I have to that is that they see no serious safety issues. Assistant Commissioner, Jack Linn has been around the parks on several occasions videotaping and photographing what he seems to think is a problem, but on none of these occasions has one single summons been issued or any other type of enforcement. If the parks Department sees safety issues and does nothing about it they must be negligent or there must be no real problem.
4. The City has argued disingenuously from the beginning that the only way they can regulate is through a permit. They have even lied in court papers and now to the City Council that we are totally without regulation or laws to control our behavior. This is obviously not true.
III. Section 1 "Commercial Activity"
1. Vending of First Amendment materials has Full First Amendment Protection.
2. The Parks Department wants to lump us in with hot dogs and souvenirs. That type of vending has nothing to do with the First Amendment. They want to ignore the Bery decision and treat us exactly like other vendors.
3. To require a vendor selling written matter to have a permit would be inconsistent with other park rules dealing with individual First Amendment activities, such as 56RCNY sections 1-05 a and 1-05 t. The former regulation allows for performances and other gatherings as long as there are less than 20 people attending while the latter allows for the handing out of free literature without permits. The Bery court said specifically that the sale of first Amendment materials is equally protected the same as if it was being offered for free.
IV. Original Law needs no changes
1. Section 1 doesn't mention any problems. The only major revision of Local Law 33 took place in 1993 when Local Law 45 was passed by the City Council. In the Legislative findings of that law they recognized and fixed a problem. In Intro # 160 not only don't they mention a problem, they don't even tell the council the truth that this law is aimed at artists and art vendors who have won two successful lawsuits against the city. In Local Law 45 the City Council knew that the problem had to be resolved without forcing licenses on First Amendment Vendors. The City Council went ahead and added new time, place and manner restrictions on these vendors without touching either the General Vendor License or Park Permit exemption.
2. If problems do exist they can be handled with the existing General Vendor Code.
a. Administrative Code Section 20-465 deals with a wide array of time, place and manner restrictions. Most of them are appropriate to use in the parks. The Lederman Court agreed that these codes can be enforced against art vendors. As mentioned before none of these codes have seriously been enforced either by parks enforcement or the police department. Many of the areas around Central Park have beat officers assigned and they can be easily trained to know how art vendors must set up.
b.. Administrative Code Section 20-473 not only allows for an exemption of the park permit but also grants the Parks Department the authority to make extra rules and regulations dealing with vendors of written matter. The Parks Commissioner can make more rules that deal with health, safety and welfare issues in parks and can also propose more rules that deal with insuring that vendors do not interfere with the purposes of the parks. It can easily put certain areas off limits such as baseball fields and grassy areas.
c. In light of the fact that there has been no enforcement of Section 20-465 and there have been no new rules and regulations added under Section 20-473 in the last 14 months, we can only assume that there are no serious problems.
d. The New York State Constitution requires the least restrictive laws dealing with free speech. Putting in any type of permit system would be a prior restraint on an individuals right to free speech. Since the Parks Department has not regulated vending of written matter with existing laws, any permit system would surely be declared unconstitutional.
e. Any argument that a permit is needed because of lack of enforcement is baseless because it takes the same enforcement personnel to check for permits as it would to check for other infractions.
Here are some additional notes demonstrating that Councilmember Wallace is indeed a lobbyist for the very organizations supporting Intro # 160 and that his lawfirm is associated with top former Giuliani administration officials. Note the highlighted areas concerning concessions. -Robert Lederman [Additional notes] As you'll recall, former Councilmember Wallace wrote the written matter exemption and testified at the Intro # 160 hearing that it was intended to include a Parks permit requirement. The legislative record shows otherwise as do the rulings of six different courts. Here are some additional notes demonstrating that Councilmember Wallace is indeed a lobbyist for some of the very organizations supporting Intro # 160 and that his lawfirm is closely associated with top former Giuliani administration officials. Note the highlighted areas concerning concessions. -Robert Lederman
Edward C. Wallace:
Shareholder
General Corporate;
Real Estate;
Government AffairsEd Wallace served as City Council Member-at-Large and then Chief of Staff to the New York City Council President before entering the private sector as a Vice President at Boston Properties where he reported directly to company Chairman Mortimer B. Zuckerman. He returned to the practice of law in 1993. He has extensive experience in business and government.
Areas of Experience:
General practice
Government relations
Real estate
Professional and Community Involvement
Adjunct Professor, New York Law School
Member, Bellevue Hospital Association
Member, Law Committee of the Municipal Art Society
Previous Employment
New York City Council Member-at-Large, representing Manhattan 1981- 1983
Chief of Staff, Office of the New York City Council President, 1983 to 1985
Boston Properties, Vice President, 1986-1992
Articles, Publications and Lectures
Author, "Fair Share for Whom?" New York Times, Op-Ed page,
"St. Bart's and the Law," New York Times, Op-Ed page,
and
"Forfeiture Proceedings: In Need of Due Process," Fordham Urban Law Journal
Education:
J.D., Fordham University, 1976
A.B., Columbia College, 1971
Admitted to Practice New York
Press Release, January 8, 2002 Former Giuliani Deputy Mayor for Economic Development and Finance Joins Greenberg Traurig GT
Press Release, March 6, 2001 Greenberg Traurig Expands Government Practice With Addition of John Mascialino in New York OfficeThe hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements. Before you decide, ask us to send you free written information about our qualifications and experience. Home > Publications > Press Releases Company Press Release
Greenberg Traurig Expands Government Practice With Addition of John Mascialino in New York Office
NEW YORK, NY -- March 6, 2001 --
The international law firm Greenberg Traurig, LLP announced today that John L. Mascialino, the former First Deputy Commissioner of the New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS), has joined the Government Relations Group of its New York office. Previously, John served as Counsel and Deputy Chief of Staff to the Deputy Mayor for Operations in the office of Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mayor of the City of New York.
At DCAS as First Deputy Commissioner John oversaw the city's procurement for supplies and equipment as well as construction services. Most recently, he re-negotiated the terms of the city's lease to permit former President Bill Clinton to have office space in Harlem. In addition, John oversaw all the city's real estate matters including acquiring, developing, maintaining and disposing of city-owned or leased real estate. John was the lead negotiator on a soon-to-be-finalized multi-million dollar development deal for a new courthouse in Brooklyn.
During his tenure in the Mayor's Office, John served as one of two Mayoral appointees to the Franchise Concession Review Committee. In that role he approved such projects as citywide bus franchises and concessions for minor league baseball stadiums.
"The addition of John to Greenberg Traurig further exemplifies the firm's commitment to expanding and advancing the capacity of our government group in New York, and further enhances our ability to serve our clients," said Richard Rosenbaum, Managing Shareholder of the 220-lawyer New York Office.
"John Mascialino has hands on experience and he understands how city government works. His advice will be valuable to our clients," said Edward C. Wallace, Shareholder, who heads the New York government and administrative practice.
John Mascialino received his law degree from New York Law School and a bachelor's degree from St. Francis College.
About Greenberg Traurig LLP
Greenberg Traurig, LLP is a full-service international law firm with nearly 800 attorneys and lobbyists practicing in 18 cities in New York, Miami, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Phoenix, Denver, Tysons Corner, Wilmington, throughout Florida, and São Paolo, Brazil.
Greenberg Traurig leads the National Law Journal's list of five-year growth leaders and is the 25th largest firm in the country, according to the 2000 NLJ 250 ranking. The firm has core practice areas in corporate and securities, governmental and administrative law, real estate, litigation, intellectual property, information technology, international, international trade, bankruptcy, environmental and land use, entertainment, public finance, tax, trusts and estates, appellate, antitrust and trade regulation, franchising, health law, labor and employment, and business immigration. For additional information about Greenberg Traurig, visit the firm's Web site.
Greenberg Traurig Press Release
Former Giuliani Deputy Mayor for Economic Development and Finance Joins Greenberg Traurig
Robert M. Harding to Bolster NYC Government Group and Launch Firm's Albany Office
?NEW YORK, NY -- January 8, 2002 -- The New York office of Greenberg Traurig LLP, the international law firm, announced today that former New York City Deputy Mayor Robert M. Harding joined the firm as a Shareholder. Mr. Harding will be a member of the firm's Governmental & Administrative practice and will launch the firm's Albany office, where his family resides. Mr. Harding said, "I respect the people of Greenberg Traurig not only for their capacity as lawyers but in their knowledge and understanding of how both business and government work. I look forward to being part of this prestigious firm. While considering many opportunities in private practice, Greenberg Traurig's strong reputation as a top government affairs firm, both on a national scale and in New York, clearly provided the perfect platform to build my practice."
...Edward C. Wallace, who heads the firm's New York City Governmental & Administrative practice said, "Bob Harding is a natural fit with our bi-partisan government practice. He has been a first rate practicing lawyer and a well respected public servant. He can explain how government works to business clients and business to government decision makers." Ed is a former New York City Council Member-at-Large for Manhattan and nationally active in government affairs."To a Directory of Mr.Lederman's Essays
Robert Lederman is an artist, writer and activist and is also the President of the street artist advocacy group, A.R.T.I.S.T.
Click here for an archive of A.R.T.I.S.T. related news articles on the Freedom Forum websiteHis essays and Op-Eds have appeared in hundreds of alternative publications as well as the Daily News, Penthouse, Africa Sun Times, Street News and The Shadow.
Lederman was falsely arrested 41 times for his anti-Giuliani activities and was never convicted of any of the charges. As a result of the arrests, he's won four Federal lawsuits and overturned three laws.
He is best known for having created hundreds of paintings of Mayor Giuliani as a Hitler like dictator which were carried in demonstrations throughout the eight years of the Giuliani administration. Images of his paintings and articles about his arrests and lawsuits have appeared on all of the major television networks hundreds of times as well as frequently appearing in the NY Times, Daily News, NY Post, Newsday, Newsweek, People, The Washington Post, LA Times and NY Magazine.Robert Lederman,
President of A.R.T.I.S.T.
(Artists' Response To Illegal State Tactics)
robert.lederman@worldnet.att.net
For a detailed exposition on the West Nile issue
http://www.nospray.org/
For an article on the Manhattan Institute go to
http://www.konformist.com/2000/rudyg.htmIf you would like to help oppose the spraying,
please write to the
No Spray Coalition
PO Box 334
Peck Slip Station
NYC, NY 10272-0334
or call the No Spray hotline at (718) 670-7110.Any funds you can send to help continue the lawsuit
and this work are greatly appreciated.Important Note:
Mr. Lederman has explained that his articles posted here are not to be taken as official statements by the No-Spray Coalition of which he is a member or of the "No-Spray" lawsuit in which he is a plaintiff.Blue Collar Pundit Essays
Searching for the Breach in
Alice’s Looking Glass WorldMy America
Oh Say, Can You See?
FREEDOM!
War isn't Hell!
God is Starting to Scare Me!
It's All Part of the Plan!
Turning the World Wide Web Into
a Tower of Politically Sanitized BabelAnd by clicking here, you'll see an old suggestion (May 2003) of how Democrats could/should have protested the Republican convention and G.W. Bush.
This site is under construction
Contact: Jack Ballinger at: Pundit@BlueCollarPolitics.com
For a great source of general tenant information,
visit the Tenant Net Home Page |©2005 Baltech Productions. All rights reserved.
