Wednesday, January 9, 2008

Settlement in Central Park Protest Case


By LARRY NEUMEISTER, Associated Press
The city settled a lawsuit brought by anti-war groups who were barred from staging a big rally in Central Park during the 2004 Republican National Convention.

Lawyers for the National Council of Arab Americans and the Act Now to Stop War & End Racism Coalition said the settlement, announced Tuesday, raised the possibility that the park's Great Lawn could again be used for large public demonstrations.

While the city denied any wrongdoing, saying it was only trying to preserve the lawn when it barred the demonstration, the deal also requires it to pay $25,000 in damages to each of the groups and the costs of bringing the lawsuit.

"It's a hands-down total and complete victory," said Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, co-founder of the Partnership for Civil Justice, a Washington-based public interest law firm that brought the lawsuit.

"The lawsuit is not merely about the use of the Great Lawn of Central Park," she said. "It serves as an historic challenge to the privatization of public space."

The city had begun limiting access for large groups after spending $18.2 million in the mid-1990s to restore the Great Lawn.

The groups had accused the city of discrimination in its decisions about what organizations were entitled to use the lawn. The city has approved permits for events such as annual free performances by the Metropolitan Opera and the New York Philharmonic, as well as other concerts.

The city's law office said it wanted to avoid a long legal battle and believes "that the parks department properly denied a permit to the two plaintiff organizations in 2004."

The deal calls for the city to pay for an independent study to decide if the current 50,000-person limit can be modified so that larger events can be held on the lawn without damaging it.

The deal came after a federal judge last year said city regulations governing large park rallies addressed legitimate concerns, but there was evidence supporting the groups' claim that the city rejected requests for some permits but accepted others.

No comments: