N.Y. City Rules Would Require Permits, Insurance of Photographers

By | August 2, 2007

  • August 2, 2007 at 1:31 am
    Bill Reed says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Leave it to the intelligencia of NYC to scrape the bottom of the barrel for every tax nickel they can find. Of course at the rate it wastes the funds it already has every penny is appreciated. What’s next when people run out of money for fees? A pound of flesh? A pint of blood?

  • August 2, 2007 at 1:43 am
    Hon. Scott A. Adamsons says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    In Jaffrey, New Hampshire a civil liberty organization recently challenged the legality of requiring groups to show evidence of $1 million of liability insurance before being allowed to use town facilities for functions. The plaintiff rested its position on specific Constitutional rights/protections. This matter was recently settled out of court and the municipality is removing the insurance requirement.

    The City of New York is attempting to correct what it deems to be a problem the wrong way. What’s next? Permits and insurance cards for j-walkers? NYC might not consider itself a part of the Empire State, but it should at least act as though it is still a part of the United States. Their recent decision, while well intentioned, is silly, obtrusive, and an enforcement nightmare.

  • August 2, 2007 at 3:31 am
    wiseman says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This boneheaded measure (does government do any other kind) would accomplish two things most dear to a bureaucrat’s heart: bring in more stolen money; & allow them to prevent people from filming bureaucrats committing corrupt acts (which is what they do 24 hours per day). Fortunately, I think their chances of actually enforcing something like this are slim. Can you imagine them trying to police people with camera cell phones?

  • August 2, 2007 at 4:13 am
    Partiot says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    One word describes NYC and it’s insanity..
    BLOOMBURG!!
    The man that wants to be president and then world dictator.
    Maybe the people of NY will see through this ego driven madman and send him packing.

  • August 2, 2007 at 5:46 am
    pondering says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    and what protection could it possibly be to require these poor folks to have insurance? Everything NYC is allegedly afraid of and trying to protect against is excluded under a GL policy…last I heard, there’s no such thing as Accidental Terrorism…

  • August 3, 2007 at 7:16 am
    Bill Reed says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    NYC is one giant finanical sink hole. It lacks a creative, responsible strategy to manage itself. It’s only solution for any problem is to suck more money out of already over-burdened citizens(of both NY and NJ) to pay for out-of-control cost increases. It lacks the discipline to make the hard decisions like planning for updating it’s rotting infrastructure. How long can it expect to spend more every year? Excess needs to be cut and the city needs to be run like a business. When a department exceeds it’s budget, the person responsible should be held accountable and fired.

  • August 3, 2007 at 8:35 am
    The Devil's Elixir says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    “It lacks the discipline to make the hard decisions like planning for updating it’s rotting infrastructure. How long can it expect to spend more every year? Excess needs to be cut and the city needs to be run like a business. When a department exceeds it’s budget, the person responsible should be held accountable and fired.”

    All of the above is true however there’s one problem. No political entity (“city,” “state,” “county,” etc.) can ever be “run like a business.” The reason? A business (i.e., non-governmental entity) must offer its products or services for sale; if the consumers do not want those products/services, then the business must change its strategies, prices, marketing, products, etc.; eventually, the business will either succeed by persuading the public to buy its products/services or go out of business because it does not have enough revenue coming in.

    Government, on the other hand, procures its money by theft; people have no choice about whether or not they must pay government-if they don’t they’ll either get thrown in jail, have their property “seized” or, in extreme cases, they’ll be killed (e.g., the Whiskey Rebellion). The government doesn’t have to satisfy consumer needs and wants. Any “service” that they provide is done on a de facto basis after they have stolen our money and is done (poorly) only to give themselves legitimacy. Government has admitted on countless occasions that it has no obligation or duty whatsoever to “citizens.”

    That is why governments will do whatever they can get away with. Yet for some strange reason, many people believe that if governments-that is, an organization of individual men and women who use violence to achieve their ends-went away, society would crumble overnight. Given that governments were responsible for the deaths of over 100 million people in the 20th century alone tends to refute that argument as by any measure, governmental size & power only increased during that century.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*