[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....

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.)

[Carry_Okie]

How many of those 8 million New Yorkers who pay taxes to support that park benefit from it nearly as much as it does the holders of real estate adjoining Central Park? Your portrayal of the park at night as a safe place to be is an obvious sham.

No, you're just another brainwashed socialist teacher, incapable of learning (just like Eska). You only answer the parts of my arguments that you can use and accused me of being against parks as if I don't want space for Nature. You paint yourself a subjective strawman for the purpose and won't read the reviews. You have no idea how real estate scams using public money work, because for now, you think that they benefit you. When they start to close Yellowstone and Yosemite against you, maybe you'll start to figure it out (that's already starting BTW).