[summer]

Carry, Here's some homework for you: consider for a second, a person like me, who is one of 8 million inhabitants of Manhattan, NY, a very small island only 5 miles long. Do you know what one of the greatest pleasure is in New York? It is to walk in Central Park on a beautiful spring day. Now, who owns Central park? You, Carry_Okie? Who SHOULD own Central Park? A private person? Your concept of only private ownership is the one and only way to live does not wash in a city of 8 million people where the only space that is green is owned by all the people. If I sound like a Commie/socialist/evil pig for enjoying a walk in the park, so be it.

[Carry_Okie]

First, if Central Park was privately owned, the business might be successful enough that there would be more parkland, not less. We have various private parks in Silicon Valley, every bit as big as Central Park, and they certainly are on expensive real estate. Second, the parks are not overused because use is regulated by price. Third, the City could purchase passes for those without the money. Fourth, the park would be safe. If you really think Central Park is that great an asset, try going there alone at night.

You haven't a clue what I propose and are willing to make cases based upon pure supposition. That doesn't say much for the integrity of your arguments, as your positions on education have so aptly demonstrated.

[Ben Ficklin]

Henry Lamb does tend to exaggerate.