nothin Next “Occupy” May Be Easier To Evict | New Haven Independent

Next Occupy” May Be Easier To Evict

Thomas MacMillan Photo

Occupy New Haven in its heyday.

Under proposed new rules, the next time a ragtag band of political protesters wants to occupy” the New Haven Green, they’d have to get written permission, pay for cops and porta-potties, and secure a bond for any damage they might cause.

Occupiers” would be legally bound to jump through those hoops if a proposed ordinance amendment becomes law.

City Corporation Counsel Victor Bolden last week submitted the proposal to the Board of Aldermen, which will hold a public hearing on the matter.

The proposed amendment would modify laws about parks and create a new section of regulations dealing specifically with the New Haven Green.

Bolden said he drafted the amendment in response to the legal difficulty the city had when it tried to kick Occupy New Haven off the Green in the spring of 2012.

At the time, attorney Norm Pattis sued the city to prevent the removal of Occupy. He argued, in part, that the city should not be enforcing rules on behalf of the private self-perpetuating entity — The Committee of the Proprietors of Common and Undivided Lands at New Haven, a.k.a. the Proprietors of the Green” — that technically owns the central square.

After reading the proposed ordinance amendment, Pattis said it would do nothing to address that underlying problem.

Here’s the bottom line,” he said. You can put all the lipstick you want on a pig, the first thing it’s going to say when it wakes up in the morning is, Oink, oink, oink.’”

The Occupation

Occupy New Haven, part of the Occupy Wall Street movement against income inequality and the outsized power of corporations, took root on the Green in the fall of 2011.

Initially protestors had the cooperation of the city, which gave informal permission for the creation of the camp. The occupiers set up tents and held meetings and marches and otherwise lived on the Green for six months.

By the end of the winter, the occupation had worn out its welcome. When the city moved to evict Occupy New Haven, however, it found itself tangled in a legal challenge brought by Pattis. 

Pattis argued that the occupation amounted to constitutionally protected free speech. Pattis also argued that the Proprietors of the Green shouldn’t be allowed to own it, under the state constitution.

Since 1805, the proprietors have held the title to the New Haven Green. While the Green operates as public space, much like any other park in New Haven, it is in fact private property. In the more than two centuries that the proprietors have held the Green, the city’s laws have not reflected that reality.

That fact became a pressure point used by Pattis in his battle against the city. Pattis called head Proprietor Drew Days (pictured) to the stand and led him to acknowledge that the city’s laws on parks do not apply to the Green.

In the end, the city won the case and kicked out the occupiers. But in his decision, Judge Mark Kravitz called it troubling” that city government enforces rules on the Green on behalf of a private body.

Even though the court ruled and recognized after Occupy that the city ordinances were appropriate, we thought it would be helpful to clarify,” Bolden said last week. It never hurts to make sure things are clear.”

The Revision

The proposed ordinance amendment comprises revisions to existing sections and the creation of an entirely new one on the New Haven Green. Here’s what the proposed revisions would do:

• Camping, cooking, sleeping, and temporary structures in all parks, including the Green, would be explicitly prohibited. In the event that the parks director gives permission for a temporary structure, that structure could not remain up for more than 30 days.

• People who apply for permission to hold an event in a city park, including the Green, would have to agree in writing to pay for such police protection, park security, temporary toilet facilities, trash removal and insurance as are deemed necessary by the director.”

• Permits shall” be issued for all permitted special activities. The shall” would be a change from may,” the current word, which led to a problem during Occupy when the city never issued an official permit that it could later revoke.

• Permit denials would have to be in writing.

• If the director, in consultation with other city departments, determines that a proposed event could result in liability of any kind to the city, including property damage, injuries, or restoration expense, the director shall require an indemnity bond or other form of security to protect the city.” That shall” is also currently a may.”

• A related passage — allowing the director to waive the bond if financial considerations render the applicant unable” to provide it — would be deleted:

• If a permit application is denied, the applicant could revise the application or appeal the decision. If the denied application is for the Green, the proprietors would be notified and permitted to attend any meeting held on an appeal.

Here’s what the proposed new section covering the Green, Sect. 19 – 26, states:

The proprietors are the owners of the Green and all park rules apply to the Green. The parks director can issue permits for special uses of the Green, while respecting the Character of the New Haven Green.”

That character is defined in part by the intention that the Green remain forever available to the citizens and visitors of the City to enjoy as a public forum and a center for recreational, educational, cultural, and artistic activities.”

Before permitting certain uses on the Green, the parks director would have to obtain the express approval” of the proprietors. Those uses are: commercial activity, any permanent modification of the Green, camping, cooking, fires, sleeping, putting up shelters, and setting off fireworks.

Oink, Oink, Oink”

You can dress this up any way you like,” Pattis (pictured at Occupy New Haven) said of the city’s relationship with the proprietors. There’s still nothing like it in the United States.”

The Green doesn’t belong to the city; it belongs to the proprietors. The fact that it’s used as a public space creates an inherent contradiction. I fail to see how these regulations fundamentally change that,” Pattis said.

It might make it a little harder for Occupy to get a foothold,” he said. But the fundamental nature of the Green is still legally dubious, no matter what obfuscatory language” the city uses to paper over it, Pattis said.

I think the ownership needs to be addressed honestly and squarely,” Patis said. The proprietors should either give the land to the city, or throw the city off and behave as though they own it.”

Why are taxpayer dollars being used to maintain property owned by the country’s most expensive eating club”? Pattis asked. This is Skull & Bones for the geriatric set.”

Proprietor Days did not respond to a request for comment.

Tags:

Sign up for our morning newsletter

Don't want to miss a single Independent article? Sign up for our daily email newsletter! Click here for more info.


Post a Comment

Commenting has closed for this entry

Comments

Avatar for robn

Avatar for WestvilleAdvocate

Avatar for Downtown Neighbor

Avatar for David Backeberg

Avatar for ChrisNHV

Avatar for William Kurtz

Avatar for Anderson Scooper

Avatar for William Kurtz

Avatar for Anderson Scooper

Avatar for Bill Saunders

Avatar for susie the pit bull

Avatar for WestvilleAdvocate

Avatar for anonymous

Avatar for intheruins

Avatar for TheMadcap

Avatar for Bill Saunders

Avatar for robn

Avatar for Bill Saunders

Avatar for City Hall Observer

Avatar for Wikus van de Merwe

Avatar for Patricia Kanae

Avatar for A Contrarian