Why do cities require permits for use of public areas?
By ParaTed2k
@ParaTed2k (22940)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
October 30, 2011 8:37pm CST
There are a lot of misconceptions about the requirement for permits for groups to use public areas.
When a group applies for the permit, they are doing two things. First, they are asking for EXCLUSIVE use of the property for a specific amount of time. Each of the members has every right to be on the public property, but no one has the right to just claim it for their own use. Permits grant a temporary exemption here.
Second, they are giving the city and/or county an opportunity to prepare public assets to assist the group's efforts. Safety measures such as police and fire, as well as making sure there are sufficient bathroom facilities.
The group is granted exclusive use of the property for a specific amount of time. If they go beyond that time, the group is actually stomping on the rights of everyone else. Since the group does not own the property, they have absolutely no right to occupy it beyond the terms of the permit, and can (as well as should) be removed by the police.
In the case of the Occupiers, sorry, once your permit has expired, you don't have the right, or authority to occupy that property. Doing so only shows how little you give a crap about the rights of anyone but yourselves.
2 people like this
3 responses
@dark_joev (3034)
• United States
31 Oct 11
From what I understand none of the Occupies even got Permits hence why the Tea Party is suing. Also most cities have just decided that it would cost more money to try and enforce the law than it would to just let them do there thing.
I believe that is the case with Occupy Portland. Also the Mayor has decided to allow this to go. I have no doubt that it is for his reelection run. I mean some 6,000 people showed up for the first start of this.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
31 Oct 11
Exactly. If there is no permit, then there is no right to demand exclusive use. Anyone occupying public property and blocking use by anyone not associated with them is denying others' rights.
The Occupiers are the violators.
@dragon54u (31633)
• United States
31 Oct 11
That's a good point that I haven't heard anywhere else. They have no consideration for anyone but themselves and they think they are above the law. I wonder what they would say if a rich person occupied a park and prevented them from entering? They would scream about their rights, elitism and inequality when they themselves are guilty of the same thing.
