BATTERY PARK

New bill would limit vendors in Battery Park

By Elizabeth O’Brien

It may not be as sweeping as the city’s smoking ban, but Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s proposed legislation to regulate vending in city parks has some art sellers fuming over what they call a blatant disregard for their rights.

City Parks commissioner Adrian Benepe recently named the historic Battery as one of six city parks that have the highest number of vendors, a list that also includes Columbus Circle and the plaza in front of the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

“Though our park system covers more than 28,000 acres of New York City, the vendors, by their choice, are concentrated in six distinct locations,” Benepe wrote in an April 10 op-ed piece in the West Side Spirit newspaper. “As the concentration of vendors has increased, so have the problems.”

These problems range from the inconvenient to the potentially life-threatening, Benepe argued. Among other concerns, he cited congestion and the need to create vendor-free passage for emergency vehicles in city parks.

The City Council is preparing to vote on Intro 160, legislation that would require vendors who sell art and printed material in city parks to obtain a permit. Currently, the city does not require these so-called First Amendment vendors to be licensed.

Some artists have decried what they call the city’s efforts to regulate their right to free expression.

“This would put us on the level of someone selling peanuts,” said Robert Lederman, an artist and activist.

The fight over Intro 160 is the latest battle in a decade-long dispute between the city and its art vendors. In 1993, then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani declared artists no different from any other vendors. Police arrested art sellers and artwork was confiscated in the ensuing debate.

Lederman challenged Giuliani in court, and won when the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that art vendors—a category that includes those who sell printed matter, original art or reproductions—should enjoy the same protections as newspaper publishers.

But Giuliani persisted, and from 1995 to August, 2001 the city required art vendors to obtain permits, according to Megan Sheekey, a Parks spokesperson. The monthly permits were distributed through a lottery system and successful applicants paid a $25 monthly processing fee.

Again, Lederman took the city to court and prevailed. The permitting system came to an end. Attempts to revive the practice have infuriated Lederman and his associates at Artists’ Response to Illegal State Tactics (ARTIST), a coalition of artists that he heads.

Intro 160 would impose a cap on the number of vendors allowed to sell in a particular park. The exact numbers have not been determined, Sheekey said, although it is likely that the total number of vendors in the Battery would be limited to under 10.

On a recent chilly Friday, there were at least double that amount of vendors selling in the park.

“We want to make sure it’s a fair and equitable distribution,” said City Councilmember Joseph Addabbo, of Queens, chairperson of the City Council’s

Parks and Recreation Committee. “The bottom line is every vendor is given the opportunity to apply.”

But artists worry about the limitations that Intro 160 could bring.

“The immediate impact is that artists would not be able to sell in their desired location,” said Mitchell Balmuth, who sells his wife’s paintings outside the Met and has also sold in the Battery. “The Met is the quintessential place in the city to set up. It would be like saying you can’t protest in front of City Hall.”

City Councilperson Alan Gerson, whose district includes the historic Battery, said that he favored regulating vendors in city parks, but he added, “If we accomplish the goal without permitting, so much the better.”

Supporters of Intro 160 in the City Council have found allies in some civic groups and community boards. In February, Madelyn Wils, chairperson of Community Board 1, wrote a letter backing the bill to City Council Speaker Gifford Miller.

Wils wrote, “…a recent court ruling allowing artist vendors unlimited commercial access threatens the status of these parks as a commercial refuge. In the interest of prioritizing public enjoyment over commercialization in our city’s parks, Community Board 1 asks you to support Intro 160…”

` Warrie Price, the president and founder of the Battery Conservancy, said she is also in favor of Intro 160.

Of the vendors who crowd near the ferry boarding area in the Battery, Price said, “It’s just not the right way to greet the public.”

In particular, Price noted the men who sell mostly counterfeit goods out of black briefcases. On a recent morning, a small army of these vendors surrounded a group of high school students making their way to Castle Clinton, flashing the shiny watches and chains in their briefcases.

“It was a nuisance,” said Danielle Sheley, 17, of Rockford, Ill., afterwards.

The police department, in conjunction with the Department of Consumer Affairs, is charged with enforcing the law against the sale of counterfeit goods, wherever it occurs. While the proposed Intro 160 does not focus on the sale of illegal merchandise, supporters believe that the resulting city oversight might help curb the practice anyway.

Other visitors to the historic Battery had a more accepting view, at least towards some of the vendors.

Alpheus Agbalog, 13, of Bakersfield, Calif., stood with his family and admired a rainbow-colored drawing of his name, penned by a Chinese artist who asked to be identified as Sam.

“I like it, because it’s colorful and he uses art to bring out life to the name,” Agbalog said.

Sam, an art vendor in Battery Park, said he backs Intro 160.

“I support Bloomberg,” said Sam, who used to work as a newspaper reporter near Shanghai and declined to give his last name.

Sam said that, unlike many vendors, he paid income tax on the money he earned working 12-plus-hour days writing names in the Battery. They said that the government should create a system to protect those artists who follow the rules of society.

Opponents of Intro 160 insist that the proposed law is not about rules. Some have said that the Parks Department is trying to regulate park vendors because they compete for business with the concession stands that the agency oversees. It costs about $30,000 per year to operate a concession stand selling hats and other New York memorabilia in the Battery, Sheekey said. Revenue generated from the stands is not reserved for the parks department but instead goes to the city in general, Sheekey said.

The agency denied that it was trying to stifle competition.

“The Parks Department has been a long supporter of art and artists, and this legislation isn’t intended to deny the right of artists to sell in public parks,” Sheekey said.

Some artists disagree.
“I used to think this was about control,” Balmuth said. “It’s not about that, it’s about the money.”

Elizabeth@DowntwonExpress.com