[usmeteora]

in my hometown Charlotte, NC, the downtown had some of the worst crime growing up, now many spaces that were completely ignored are beautiful parks, futhermore, dozens of artists have received financial support for soemtimes a lifetime of work or otherwise significantly reimbursed by the local banks that utilize and maintain the public spaces and install artwork.

There is the obvious concept of the potential for abuse encompassing all spaces so you could conceivably not ever be allowed to walk outside without potentially being discriminated against, or utilizing artwork to convey disturbing messages to try to influence public opinion, however, this can be the cases for government owned lands in all countries as well, and it is their private land, and I find the idea of not allowing people or organizations to own private land just because the public who is sitting in the park created to be used by them are noticing its not owned by the government, as an immediate abuse of government power to intervene on weather companies can buy land, and furthermore, choosing to take away their rights to do so because they are creating public spaces for everyone and making them nicer, and its annoys the public who benefits from it, as opposed to the perceived threat that one day it could be abused. Everything that is currently legal can be potentially abused, it just so happens in this case its not at all, and turning abandoned dumps and warehouses into public parks, green spaces, open musuems, and hosting events for the public on them.

in NYC, many of the parks when I worked there were previously total dumps and havens for crime, entire areas of manhattan have been turned around and they have the following effects

1. free urban green space the government cant afford 2. a clustering of small businesses around parks who pop up and do very well catering to lunches and outdoor cafes, 3. immense number of otherwise unrecognized groups being supported such as fashion shows, concerts and other events companies choose to support, public ice skate arenas 4. paying otherwise unrecognized artists millions to install their artwork in one of the most coveted places in Manhattan, etc 5. Making urban places desireable places to live and not just work, which is im pretty sure what the goals are for progressive humanity

Furthermore, I've never personally observed people being removed for looking scruffy, and I think in general you are removed for harrassing people, which police would do anyways.

In the current area I used to live in, there are 28 parks. 27 of them are complete dumps and noone takes care of them, particularly the young activists in town. There is one nice gated park own privately by a private community, who takes care of it, and you must live in the nieghborhood to have a key. Given the rest of the city is ridden with crime, its a safe spot for families to take their kids, or a women to read in the park without fear of beign a victim.

Regardless, despite the 27 other parks which the local government has asked hippie acitivists to come in and help clean etc, they are fixated on the idea of the one private park and trying to make it public, without understanding that the only reason its nice and noticeable is because its privately maintained, and the only reason people want to hang out there is because its safe, which is also because its privately maintained. Instead of taking the concepts that make the park desireable, and putting in the work to show that any of the other 27 complete dump parks could also become desireable and safe for gentrified communities to inhabit, and then use that as proof of concept that this park can be public and safe as well, and benefit more people, it turns out thats more effort than they are willing to put in. They only want to take the one nice park that is, without any plan on how to make the park not turn into the other 27 which are basically abandoned places people are sacred to go so, and as a female I would never go to alone. The government is too broke to maintain them.

[aaronchall]

This is a beautiful indictment of the backwards thinking of left-wing "activists".

We should promulgate a principle that until the left can demonstrate success with public assets, they should not get more of them.