I am proud and pleased to announce that my cyclists group, The Five Borough Bicycle Club went to Federal Court in Manhattan today and sued NYC's Police Department to halt the implementation of rules which effectively require cyclists to get impossible-to-get parade permits for otherwise lawful group bicycle rides.

Update: The case has been assigned to District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan and a hearing has been scheduled for Thursday, March 28, 2:30 PM, at United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl St, Room 12D, New York, NY. The argument on Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction was heard today before the Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan of the Southern District of New York. Judge Kaplan stated that he did not have sufficient time to review the parties' submissions in order to decide Plaintiffs' motion by Friday March 30, as Plaintiffs had requested. The Court ruled that it would hear additional evidence next week and then decide in the near future (and not later than April 27 when the next Critical Mass ride in Manhattan is expected to take place) whether or not to preliminarily enjoin the enforcement of the City's parade rules.

As a result, NYPD was free to enforce its new rule on Friday during the Critical Mass Ride. 40 got tickets and 3 were arrested. As an uneven enforcement note, permit-less groups of riders far in excess of 50 rode all over Manhattan on Saturday. Only the critical-mass group was the subject of enforcement pressure.

5BBC, represented by litigation powerhouse Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP, seeks to restrain the NYPD from enforcement of those rules while their action is pending. The new rules are aimed at the Critical Mass bike ride, a leaderless group ride which continues to face massive NYPD enforcement action. Critical Mass riders were subject to some of the harsher enforcement at the Republican National Convention. Did NYPD undercover infiltrate the 5BBC? Stay tuned.

Because those enforcement actions have routinely led to mass arrests followed by mass acquittals, Mayor Bloomberg and Commissioner Kelly decided to try to change rules. Those changes will effectively prohibit recreational group rides like the one from City Hall to the Bronx Zoo last week.
Review the 5BBC press release here which has hot links to the legal documents and to much more about this. In any case, Spring has sprung, come ride your bike without a permit.

In a heavily Democratic town such as ours, you would think that the laws of New York would reflect a population that prefers liberty over tyranny, freedom over oppression and the right to public assembly (as stated in the Bill of Rights). Even if a majority of New Yorkers feel this way, it is apparent that the lawyers for the city of New York do not.

Recently a federal judge issued a ruling for the police department to stop videotaping public gatherings and protests so that people who went out on the streets would not feel intimidated by those that are charged to protect and serve, not protect and spy.

On February 15th, Judge Charles S. Haight Jr. resolved a 35 year class-action lawsuit by threatening to hold the city in contempt if the random videotapings occurred again. Nearly a month later the city's attorneys have started an appeal that claims the judge over-stepped his authority in limiting the police's activities. Their assertion is that in 2003 the city agreed to less restrictive rules because “the N.Y.P.D. never had any intention of agreeing to the incorporation of detailed operational guidelines into the consent decree subjecting itself to contempt for a plethora of potential violations.” Basically they find his ruling "an impermissable" order.

Crossposted from Joshing Politics

It’s tough being a citizen in this City, in this State
and in this Country. The reluctance that I had to
blog anonymously disappeared when I realized that as
far as government is considered we are all anonymous,
without a face or a voice. Voting, the foundation of
our democracy has never held true force. Those that
do vote are misled by demagogic media campaigns that
employ the same manipulations used to sell soda. Why
does anyone prefer Coke to Pepsi: because
one company gets to you first or more often. I fear that greater turnout would not even compel an obstinate
ruler to follow the will of the public. Didn't‚t we
as Americans reject the Iraq war on November 2006.
Yet the War Machine, and Exxon‚s profits, rock and roll on.

So what is a citizen to do? Talking with my friends
and examining my many election seasons of
discontent led me to a proposal. Choosing the
wrong soft drink has no real consequence; yet
picking the wrong leader can have devastating results. Human nature makes the process of decision making subjective by default. How can advertised promises and staged debates lead to a proper decision? When you factor in the multiple levels of government that must be monitored, voting is almost like a blind taste test.

In the special election scheduled for February 6th in Nassau County, there's a lot of talk and counter-talk about reform; Craig Johnson, the Democrat, is endorsed by Eliot Spitzer, who of course brought reform to Albany in the first place. His opponent, Maureen O'Connell (google her), is campaigning on virtually the same platform of change; this because, presumably, reform is what Joe Bruno really wants to bring to the state capitol, along with democracy.

One thing O'Connell really seems to want to reform is that part of the law pertaining to a woman's right to choose. A fact sheet from a leading choice advocacy organization details her past record of extremist activism in the State Assembly:

Blocking Access to Birth Control
Maureen O’Connell vehemently opposed legislation that would reduce unintended pregnancy by permitting women to access the “morning after pill” directly from a pharmacy.

Criminalizing Abortion
Maureen O’Connell supported legislation that would send doctors and nurses to jail even when facing the most catastrophic situations.

In the universe of anti-choice activism, there are gradations. Opposition to emergency contraception and the demand to criminalize doctors and nurses are extremist by any standard; that's Operation Rescue territory.

Civil unions will soon be the law in New Jersey, but will that satisfy the state Supreme Court ruling that same-sex couples have all the rights that different-sex couples have?

In a word, no.

Back in 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson that segregated schools did not violate the 13th or 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The term “separate but equal”, though not specifically mentioned in the Supreme Court ruling, effectively became the law of much of the land.

58 years later, in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, the Supreme Court decided that the Plessy decision was wrong. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote, “in the field of public education, the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”

Since then, the doctrine of “separate but equal” has been debunked in most areas of our society. We have come to understand that there is no such thing. Why, then, would this inanity be considered perfectly valid

There was a time when NYC pretty much let people do what they wanted within reason. When I first moved here, most New Yorker's I knew were kind of proud of that. Police had better things to do, I was told, than waste their time on trivial infractions.

One beneficiary of this was Critical Mass, an unorganized movement that holds bike rides to raise awareness for environmental and bicycle safety issues. On the last Friday of every month Critical Mass assembles at Union Square and bike through the streets of Manhattan. NYC let them do this for many years without so much as a warning or threat.

Then came the Republican National Convention in 2004. Among many protests, Critical Mass took to the streets. And suddenly the NYPD swept out of nowhere and started making arrests. In fact, they went so far as to alter evidence to try and convict bicycle riders, something for which they got into trouble for when two lawyers caught on to the modified video that cut out a segment that proved a bicyclist's innocence. Ever since the RNC, the NYPD has been attacking Critical Mass, using every tactic possible to prevent them from peacefully assembling.

Now, in their eagerness to crack down on Critical Mass and other protestors, the NYPD is going so far as to require 2 jaywalkers crossing the street or any group of 35 or more pedestrians on the sidewalk or any 20 or more people on cars or bicycles to get a parade permit. The following is posted by request from the Drum Major Institute Blog:

I am quite sympathetic to opponents of the Atlantic Yards project, though I do not consider it the only factor in deciding what candidates to support. I have heard the opponents of the Atlantic Yards uber-development project called a "single issue" group. I have myself referred to them as "single issue," as a matter of fact. Now, there is nothing wrong with focusing on a single issue, but the more I think about it, I realize that issues surrounding NYC development in general, and Atlantic Yards in particular, involve some of the core issues of the progressive movement. Furthermore, in general politicians who understand the problems with Atlantic Yards are the ones who recognize the core values of the progressive movement. Those politicians who don’t get why Atlantic Yards is so wrong don’t get, on a very fundamental level, the core values of the progressive movement. There are exceptions. But in general, it strikes me that Atlantic Yards not only is, but should be one of the dominant issues in local politics. I will add that it should not be the ONLY dominant issue, but it should be one of the dominant issues.

The issues that surround development in NYC in general, and Atlantic Yards in particular, include the culture of corruption that seems to be filtering from the Federal government down to the local level, the neglect or active removal of "undesirable" communities (usually minority and poor), government secrecy, excessive links between business and government, use of tax money to aid big business, and the exclusion of the community from major decisions regarding its own future. The interests of the rich are put above the interests of the city even by the city government, and this is often done in secrecy. It is hard to think of a single issue that encompasses more fundamental concerns of the progressive movement than Atlantic Yards.

One of the key problems with the Atlantic Yards project is the secrecy, dishonesty and probably corruption that surround it. There really have been secret deals made between Rater and the mayor and governors offices promising land and exclusion from full review. The state agency that is supposed to judge if the Atlantic Yards project should be approved, the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), not only rents space from Ratner, but wants to hire Ratner’s own lawyer, at Ratner’s expense, to advise them on whether they should approve Ratner’s plan. Yes, I know a court just approved these things, but come on folks! This is stuff worthy of the Federal Republican culture of corruption! It stinks. Add to that blatant lies that have been told to the community by Ratner. Lies, secrecy and what sure looks like corruption even if a court approves it. Even if all of this is legal, THESE are the very practices that the progressive movement was formed to fight. Government honesty, transparency and ethics are at the root of the original progressive reforms.

And I am not alone in thinking so. Recently, investigative attorney, former Senior White House Advisor to President Clinton, and current candidate for Attorney General recently sent out a couple of letters stating his stand on Atlantic Yards. His first such letter does an excellent job of outlining many of the problems with Ratner’s plans that I will quote directly from it:

…I believe that the Brooklyn Atlantic Yards development must be stopped-cold until some tough questions get asked and answered. As it is today, this project is the face of what’s wrong with a corrupt culture that mixes business and politics, profits and tax dollars. My objections to the project stem from the flawed and secretive process by which decisions are made. Decisions that could change the face of the community forever. Decisions that deserve more scrutiny, more tough issues like fairness and transparency and including:

· The Forest City Ratner proposal is a selective bid.

· A profound disregard for community involvement in the decision making process.

· The shameful lack of accountability and transparency by Forest City Ratner by failing to provide a detailed financial report.

· There is little evidence…that the decision making process included concern for the historical character of the neighborhood.

· The Forest City Ratner proposal does not adequately address affordable housing questions posed by concerned members of the community.

· Although the MTA appraised the value of the rail yards at $241 million, the MTA chose the lowest bidder instead of the higher bid from Extell.

This plan, as it is, cannot be allowed to move forward; however, I would support responsible development that earnestly seeks a partnership and synergy with the community rather than an exploitation of our beauty and resources in Brooklyn.

Like all of us, Maloney WANTS development. But he does NOT want secrecy, corruption and lies. And those are what we have been give by Ratner, Bloomberg and Pataki.

Now look. I have been told that this project is nothing more than free market. But it isn’t! It is a selective bid, not to mention a LOW BID. It involves the use of tax money. It has involved the threat, though not yet the use, of eminent domain to force the transfer of property from one private owner to another. None of this is free market! It is a collaboration, formed partly in secret with no input from the community, between government and a private businessman. This is the kind of collaboration between the rich and the powerful that the progressive movement was founded to oppose.

I would not say that there was no input from the community. And groups like ACORN are in favor of the project, though they have been heavily criticized for this. In fact Ratner has made a good show of interacting with certain community leaders and groups, getting them on board, and promising jobs and affordable housing. But there is no enforcement of these promises and the affordable housing is judged such that as property values go up, the affordable housing will rapidly cease to be affordable. It is not geared to the means of the community so much as being a certain amount below he market value…which will go up and out of the range of the community.

What Maloney does not even mention is the issues of the infrastructure. Traffic congestion, insufficient coverage from firehouses, inadequate schools and a grossly (literally) overtaxed sewage system are EXISTING problems in Brooklyn. Add on top of these existing problems an arena and seventeen massive skyscrapers, and you have a pretty disgusting mess. Even if there are upgrades around the Atlantic Yards project, the remainder of Brooklyn would still be affected by the added strains of the project. People talk about jobs. Well, don’t more schools, firehouses, upgrading the sewer system Borough wide and adding more public transit create jobs? And they improve the quality of life in the Borough. And the issue of fires brings up another problem that goes even beyond what Maloney covers. There already is a very surprising spike of fires throughout Brooklyn that may be due to arson and/or the neglect of these neighborhoods by the closing of firehouses. Some have even suggested that developers are burning down buildings that are inconvenient for them. This accusation seems likely in the case of the Greenpoint fire where the developer had several other convenient and suspicious fires happen to his property…probably covered by insurance. In the case of the area surrounding Atlantic Yards, there has been a particularly sharp increase in suspicious fires there and it is convenient for the developer who wants to portray the area as blighted. Beyond that, I cannot judge whether or now the old NY tradition of arson to drive out unwanted communities is at work. But, since I work in the triangle shirtwaist factory building, I quite aware that there is a longstanding link between the progressive movement and fire safety, particularly regarding poorer classes. Three politicians, Eric Adams, Bill Batson and Wellington Sharpe, each independently observed the suspicious nature of these fires and called them arson. Each of them observed that these fires are destroying the heart of historic black neighborhoods, threatening entire communities. Bill Batson went so far as to point out the convenience of these fires to developers and points out that many of these development projects are destroying the black history of Brooklyn. He used the Harriet Tubbman museum as an example and points out that if you destroy someone’s culture, you can do anything you want to them.

This threat to our heritage isn’t just affecting the black community. I would say that the Atlantic Yards Project, coupled with the many other giant development plans, changes the entire face or Brooklyn, taking away its great uniqueness. I come from Los Angeles. I am one of the few people who will admit loving Los Angeles. But it does not have much character. Brooklyn has a great character and the current style of overdevelopment destroys that character in large swaths of Brooklyn. Bill Batson calls it the Disneyfication (I think it should be spelled "Disnification," but most people disagree) of NYC through arson. A fellow local activist has called Atlantic Yards project in particular as placing a giant slice of Manhattan in the heart of Brooklyn. Manhattan is fine. But It ain’t Brooklyn.

The politician who I know who has most eloquently expressed what is happening is Chris Owens. He once described it as nothing less than "Losing Home", in essence losing our community, our uniqueness…our Brooklyn. We want development. Of course we want affordable housing and jobs. But the lies, underhanded and secret deals, the closing of our firehouses, the inadequate concern for our schools and infrastructure all combine to make us afraid that we are losing Brooklyn. The loss is much slower and less dramatic than the loss of large parts of New Orleans through criminal neglect. But there are very real parallels.

Progressives respect home, tradition, history and community. Those politicians who most respect progressive values are those who understand the real danger of Atlantic Yards style development. I honestly think that if our elected representatives (you listening Bloomberg, Markowitz? I thought not!) really laid down strict requirements for these development projects, developers would still be rushing to be in on the action. NYC is one of the world’s busiest and best cities and no developer will want to stay away. But if we neglect our schools and our fire safety, over tax our sewage system and roads, and lose our unique character that attracts so many tourists, we will no longer be one of the world’s busiest and best cities. We need a progressive vision for our city, not a vision that has to be formed in secret and covered by lies. That is why so many use Atlantic Yards as a measure for their support of a candidate. It cannot be the only measure. Tom Suozzi gets it when it comes to Atlantic Yards, yet I do not think he quite understands traditional progressive values. Denise O’Donnell didn't take the kind of stand that Sean Patrick Maloney has on Atlantic Yards, nor is she necessarily progressive. But she, along with Maloney, was still an excellent candidate for Attorney General, and I was having a hard time deciding between them. So this one project cannot be the only thing used to pick politicians to vote for. And I don't always agree with everything said and done by groups like Develop, Don't Destroy Brooklyn. But I really think that those who are perceived as excessively focused on Atlantic Yards may actually understand that what is at risk are many of the things that we, as progressives, value.

The FBI is investigating the NYPD's actions during the 2004 Republican Convention protests. Starting with the RNC protests, the NYPD has taken fairly draconian methods of dealing with protesters. I witnessed a little of this when I saw the NYPD use motor scooters for crowd control, actually pushing into the crowd with their scooters...and the cops were not in uniform, making it seem like it was an attack by hoodlums. More recently, I saw on Current TV footage of NYPD officers (out of uniform) actually antagonizing protesters to start a fight so they could arrest people.

Well, it looks like some of these practices are going to bite the NYPD in the ass:

The New York Times

May 17, 2006

F.B.I. Is Seeking to Interview Jailed Activists

By AL BAKER

As part of a continuing criminal civil rights investigation of the New York Police Department, the F.B.I. is seeking to interview protesters who were arrested in 2004 during the Republican National Convention and then had the charges against them dismissed. Investigators are specifically seeking one protester whose case prompted the federal inquiry.

Agents from the New York office of the F.B.I. have sent a letter to the New York Civil Liberties Union asking for help in identifying and finding those whose arrests and prosecutions were dismissed based on contradictory videotape evidence.

"We are attempting to determine if any police officers' conduct violated federal civil rights statutes," said the two_page letter, dated May 11, which was sent by agents from the New York field office of the F.B.I.

The NYPD have a very tough job. I appreciate what they do. But under Bloomberg the civil rights of dissenters have been stepped on repeatedly and the NYPD have been his method of choice for doing so. Norm Seigel has been doing a lot to help dissenters express their first amendment rights in NYC dispite Bloomberg's attacks on those rights. I hope this FBI investigation will help stop Bloomerg and the NYPD from treading on our rights.

If you are or know of a protester who was arrested, please contact the New York Civil Liberties Union regarding the FBI investigation.

And, by the way...where has the Public Advocate been all this time? Betsy? No advocacy for the public?

New York State Legislature debates ending barbaric practice

As The NYT reports today, it is common practice in many states and at the Federal level to chain female prisoners in labor. Newsflash: if you have something the size of a baby coming out of your vagina, you're not going anywhere, shackled or not.

The New York Legislature is debating a bill, A3804, to end the practice; read the bill here.