To: summer
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.
To: 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....
Carry, Sorry, but I have no doubt that 8 million New Yorkers and many others would honestly tell you: based on your response above, you are the one without a clue here. (And, yes, I have been to Central Park at night, to see Shakespeare in the Park, free concerts in the park, etc.)
74 posted on
07/07/2002 7:20:40 PM PDT by
summer
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson