Maybe I'm confused by your point? I'm just stating facts...Chichikov said:Are you going to ignore what I keep posting and just saying "it's private"?
I'll repeat, for the 4th time in this thread -
The developer wanted concession from the city about zoning and height regulation, in return, they agreed to build a park for public use.
Listen, I may be wrong here, I've been wrong before about things, but keep saying "it's private!!!" is not a counter argument.
- Gov makes deal to give land away to private owner in exchange for cool new building extensionz.
- Gov says "make sure xyz happens"
- Private owner says "ok boss!"
- Park is now private with concessions, one of them being it's open 24/7
The park owner, like any owner, has the right to refuse access to it's property. Today the park owner did just that.
Whether you think the deal in the 60's was ethical or not has nothing to do with legal ramifications of the ownership of the park. No one anywhere in the news that I can see is disputing that the park is private or not. Or if Brookfield is within their rights or not. They are. Unless I'm missing something that you have that I haven't seen?