If this sort of thing is unchallenged, it’ll continue and grow. Cities will lease public parks and even sidewalks to private companies, and then pay the private companies to maintain them. Thus, they’ll be able to control who can be on that property and what protests or speech will be allowed.This is definitely their way of trying to get around our First Amendment rights. The city owns the land, but it’s managed by a private company!!! This must be challenged in court.
Just saw a press conference where the officials said they would crack down on visitors for anything they deem unwanted, not illegal, because they can.
[bg_collapse view=”button-orange” color=”#4a4949″ expand_text=”Show More” collapse_text=”Show Less” ]
If anyone would be willing to upvote this in hopes of increasing the likelihood of Jeff responding, I would be incredibly grateful.
Can’t wait to hear the rest of this story. I’m trying hard to imagine the relationship of the citizens to a future Urban State where all property is leased to businesses.
Interesting trickery to keep out what they consider to be undesirables. Can’t wait for the follow up. Its a sad day when God blessing someone gets you trespassed and possibly arrested. Appreciate all you do.A small point which may be irrelevant. You’ve requested copies of contracts, but only contracts. (This might be the irrelevant bit – ) I used to work with IBM, and whilst there was a lot of detail in the contracts (aka schedules), the most important docs were Documents of Understanding (DOUs) which were arguably not contracts, but agreements on how the contract would be operated on a day to day basis – i.e. incredible detail. If this system (or similar) is used, you will get a great deal more insight from these DOUs (and other ancillary documents) than you will from the contract, which is normally set out more lofty wording. Hope this helps. More power to you, sir!I have a feeling that a law firm probably provided a legal opinion stating that they would be legally allowed to trespass for this stuff – so the law firm will need to fight Jeff in order to avoid getting sued by the city and the private company.They force you to pay for the park while paying for the cops to force you out of the park..A perfect example of “Privately Managed – Public Property” was Washington, DC’s Union Station. A historical and national landmark. Everyday tourists and commuters would arrive to Washington’s Union Station by train and walk through the station. Since it’s architechture is ornate and historic, visitors would always snap photos of the inside of the building especially it’s ornate domed ceiling. A private company that manages the retail/restaurant vendors inside union station decided shortly after 9-11 that they would prohibit any photographs inside Union Station. They employed a private security force and instructed them to stop anybody they saw taking photos, and if you refused they would escort you out or have DC’s Metro Police or the Amtrak Police forcibly escort you out or arrest you. Word of this unconstitutional restriction reached Eleanor Holmes Norton, a DC delegate to the House of Representatives. She personally sought out the private property managers and convinced them to rescind this ridiculous policy. She explained that just because you’re leasing publically accessible public property, you cannot ban individual constitutional rights. The day after the unconstitutional policy was lifted, a local news crew showed up to interview the property manager in the public corridors of the station about the lifting of the photo ban. As soon as the interview began, two security guards walked up and interrupted the interview and told the local news crew that there’s no photography allowed in Union Station. They had no idea that the rules had been changed and they didn’t even know that the local news crew was interviewing their boss. You simply cannot make this shit up. The video about this was somewhere here on YouTube.Big insurance company across the street from a public park. They don’t like seeing “undesirables” using it, so they engage with the city in some kind of corrupt semi-privatization scheme so it’s still essentially a public park, but they get top-down power over it like it’s private property. Rest assured that if this model isn’t successfully challenged, you’ll see more and more of it in the future.Your definitely doing this the smart way, I probably would have taken the arrest on this one. What your doing is of great Service to the community. Thank you from all that value freedom.This has become a small loophole that a number of cities have used to “control” the homeless.. I ask though, with this particular assessment the city officials say their estimated yearly maintenance of the park is 1.5 million, in which they have always paid from their budget.. Now leasing that land to a corporate institution for $800k a year, cutting “WE THE PEOPLE”s expenses (for this property) by over half.. If homelessness is such an issue in their eyes, will that NOW FREE $800k a year from the city budget, now go to assistance to the homeless.. I venture to say not a single dime has increased in housing, food, or programs for those in need..“No longer have to put up with homeless populations” Wow what a disgusting way to treat other human beings“You’re not trespassed, but if you come back you will be arrested.” “Sarge told me to make you leave, but not to trespass to avoid a lawsuit.”Guy says “You’re making people uncomfortable.” While also saying that he respects it and he’s happy he’s doing it. So who is saying they’re uncomfortable? What exactly is supposedly making people uncomfortable? If he were to go back and just stand without the sign? To walk with it in his hands but say nothing? To walk with it in his hand but down at his side? What if having to watch out for a golf cart makes me uncomfortable?
Good job identifying this problem, Jeff. Please challenge it.
To anyone who thinks this is okay, it may seem like a small matter for some private company to “manage” a public park, but it is still a public park. It is still owned by the city and is still being funded with public money even as members of the public are capriciously denied access to it. If a company wants to put money into making it better, great! We should welcome investment into our communities, just like we would from a volunteer group doing clean-up work or whatever. But at no point should the company or the volunteers become empowered to decide who can and can’t use the park.
If a company wants to own a park, it can make its own park on truly private property. There’s no rule against it. What’s happening here is some kind of unholy alliance between corporations and local authorities who want to be able to do things they’re prohibited from doing under the law. Normally the cops can’t kick Jeff (or any homeless person, or any person period who’s acting lawfully) out of the park, but now all of a sudden they have this new authority thanks to some questionable public-private deal.
This is wildly unacceptable. Do we have to worry soon about corporations “managing” public sidewalks and other city services so that they can exclude people at their pleasure?
“We appreciate with what you are doing but we are still going to stomp on your rights.” What kind of person prostitutes themselves in this manner? How does a city lease public property out to a private entity specifically to restrict public access to public property? I’d love to see how this works through the courts.
How offensive that the city thinks it can ignore the constitution by entering into a public private partnership or that a corporation like Brown and Brown who could use their significant resources to compassionately assist people experiencing homelessness instead choose to bribe the city to allow them to instead banish them. This isn’t just unconstitutional, it’s morally wrong. The city can’t outsource its unconstitutional actions. Their intent was clear in the statements made in advance. They should be ashamed of themselves and be held legally accountable for their egregious violations of the constitution.
Privately managed doesn’t make it private property. It’s still public land ☺️ “I understand that’s not your intent…” Intent madders a lot!“You’re not even being trespassed.” Immediately followed up by: “If you go back on there, you’re going to jail.”“It’s technically like city property and private property”. That’s some extremely efficient Bee Ess, right there. The security thing should consider a career in energy/physics.[/bg_collapse]
A semantic debate is raging over what to call the pens where migrant kids are being held after separation from their parents.
editor Joel B. Pollak wrote a post devoted to criticizing the AP’s word choice. “The AP’s choice of words is only the latest in what appears to be a series of politically-charged word choices by the wire service,” he said, and contrasted the AP dispatch with a story in the Los Angeles Times that described “chain-link fenced holding areas.”
.. Pollak insisted that the correct terminology is “chain-link partition.”.. The Border Patrol, CBS reported, took issue with that description, not because they felt it was inaccurate, but because they were “very uncomfortable” with the implication that the children were being treated like animals... Refusal to call a cage a cage merely because it makes someone uneasy—or, perhaps more importantly, because it is politically toxic—does not transform a cage into a “chain-link partition.”.. Then-Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said unaccompanied minors would be deported, labeling the practice a deterrent. There was outcry at the time, especially from immigration groups, and the Obama White House was forced to stop detaining families by a court. What is different now is that the children being held are being forcibly separated from their parents at the border. So is the scale of the issue—the Washington Examiner reports that there could be 30,000 such children in custody by August... The administration knew full well that the result would be separations. “If you don’t want your child separated, then don’t bring them across the border illegally,” Sessions said in May... White House Chief of Staff John Kelly also said in May that the goal was to dissuade unauthorized immigrants from entering. “The laws are the laws. But a big name of the game is deterrence,” he told NPR. “It could be a tough deterrent—would be a tough deterrent.”.. By Monday, she was defending the same policy she claimed didn’t exist, saying in New Orleans, “It’s important to understand that these minors are very well taken care of. Don’t believe the press.”.. This, too, plays games with the truth, suggesting that the reason for the policy is that both parties won’t simply come together to pass immigration reform. But the battle in Congress over reform right now is mostly within the Republican Party, as moderates, conservatives, and leadership in the House fight over how to proceed on immigration... In theory, the falsehoods in these statements ought to be plain—the representations by Donald and Melania Trump and Nielsen are simply wrong, while Sessions and Kelly are more honest, if politically reckless, in their comments.