The Greenport village board continued to ponder whether or not to allow mass public assembly permits at Mitchell Park at Monday night’s work session.
Greenport Village Mayor David Nyce said there were two options, deciding not to issue mass public assembly permits, and allow only village-sponsored events, or setting an “exorbitantly high fee” for the permits that would put the brakes on a flood of applicants.
Village-sponsored event would include community-driven activities that the village either initiated, or for which they provided staff and in-kind services, such as Dances in the Park, the Maritime Festival, the Tall Ships Festival, Relay for Life and Shakespeare in the Park, he said.
Trustee David Murray suggested a committee be appointed to study the issue and said that he believed there was a need to “stop the permits altogether,” except for village-sponsored events. “If we don’t we will have something every Saturday and Sunday,” he said. “And we will have to allow them.”
If the board decided not to issue the mass public assembly permit, Nyce said, Mitchell Park would be an open public park, and the village would not be able to deny anyone access, but if a group were denying someone else’s use of the park, they would be asked to disperse. Also, no amplified music, tents, tables, chairs, or electric would be allowed.
Trustee Julia Robins said she agreed with Murray and said she believed the park was meant for open space and people’s enjoyment of the waterfront, not a “proliferation of events. I can only see that this will continue to happen if we don’t put an end to it,” she said.
Nyce asked Village Attorney Joe Prokop if there would be legal ramifications to the other option, setting an exorbitantly high for the permits.
Prokop said fees cannot be the mechanism to regulate use of the park. “Fees can’t be set at a level that’s prohibitive,” he said, adding that there would need to be a reasonable explanation for a high fee, such as the need to recoup monies spent by the village for the event or for services rendered by the village.
Also, Robins said, those who could not afford the fee might commence lawsuits; Prokop agreed that could happen, with individuals fighting for their right to assemble and freedom of speech.
Also, Nyce said, guests of the marina would be allowed to use a section of the park in front of the marina office and on the observation deck above the office.
Trustee Mary Bess Phillips said she believed the original concept of providing waterfront access to the public was critical.
Nyce asked the board to think about it and said it would be up for discussion next month, before a possible addition to the agenda for a vote.
After the meeting, resident John Saladino asked why the public present at the meeting was not allowed to offer their opinions, and questioned why a second public hearing would not be set.
This spring, the board looked to deny several events “due to extended use of the park.” When controversy ensued over restriction of two religious events at the park, that were denied because the board “though they were not appropriate,” the board “had to backtrack”, and allow the events, Nyce said.
In July, the public weighed in: Greenport village resident Mike Osinski read the First Amendment, reminding of the “right of the people to peaceably assembly,” under the governing law of the land. “I think this board should tread very lightly on the amount of restrictions it wants to place on public property. We as residents of this nation have that right to assemble.”
Those that are rowdy or drunk are a different story, he said.
Osinski reminded of the many events that take place already in the park, including the Maritime Festival, and lightings of the village Christmas tree and menorah.
Nyce reminded that mass public assembly permits give applicants rights to specific portions of the park for their event. “If we don’t grant that, the park is what Mr. Osinski said, an open space for everyone to assemble. All the permit process will allow us to do is to authorize use of a specific structure, or deal with amplification. We cannot limit people’s right to assemble based on who they are.”
Osinski said he was in favor of the permit process.
Resident Doug Roberts said Mitchell Park was “amazing” and part of the reason many have moved to the village over the past 10 years. Other parks in the village, he said “are not so amazing.” He suggested that Mitchell Park is a “potential revenue generator,” and perhaps, a few “big money events” could be held each year to help finance village projects such as park upgrades and also, to pay off village debt. The matter, he said, could be put to a public referendum.
Joanne McEntee asked who would be making decisions as to who would be granted use of the park; Nyce said that was the village board’s decision.
“I do believe that Mitchell Park needs to bring in a lot more money. We are in a deficit right now,” she said.
Resident Bill Swiskey said charging for use of public space that was funded with state and federal monies could result in a lawsuit. He also believes village debt needs to be paid by the marina.
“To generate enough money out of that park for the debt is a pipe dream, and the park would be destroyed,” he said.
In addition, he said, the village must to decide to allow permit all events, or nothing, except village-sponsored events such as Dances in the Park.
Swiskey added that the recent religious event in the park sparked complaints from merchants about noise and a rowdy crowd. At that point, he said, a village official should have told the group they were “out of bounds and disturbing the peace.” Enforcement, he said, is critical. “We can stop them from screaming but not from congregating,” he said.
“The success of the park has caused the problem,” Doug Moore, resident and zoning board of appeals chair, said. He said the public has generally supported village-sponsored activities and he believed a determined number of events could be allowed, through application and based on merit, public interest and benefit to the community.
Saladino said the public’s right to assemble cannot be limited, but other limitations could be placed on amplified music, especially when an event was scheduled near another village facility where people might be expecting “peace and quiet”.
He added, “They have the right to religious freedom but they don’t have the right to be disruptive.”
Saladino added that in New York, “everything is for rent”, but special event permits are necessary and high fees are charged.
