Have you ever cut loose and kicked off your Sunday shoes at a club in New York City? Unless that establishment had a Cabaret License (only 118 out of more than 25,000 do), you were breaking the law. That’s right. According to New York City law:

The City licenses bars, clubs, taverns, and discos that allow dancing. A place that is open to the public and sells food or drinks must have a Cabaret License to allow customers to dance.

This law started in 1926 during Prohibition when city officials targeted African American jazz establishments. When it was first introduced, there were several other regulations that targeted other bastions of African American culture at the time, including banning saxophones and bands with more than three members. While these other parts of the law have been repealed or found to be unconstitutional, the ban on dancing still remains. With clubs already subjected to safety regulations like fire hazards and noise violations, the Cabaret License requirement seems to serve no purpose.

.@FrankieFatGold explains NYC’s Cabaret Law & why it needs to be repealed! Let’s dance in protest tomorrow → https://t.co/rt7zEh2Acz pic.twitter.com/1lnDQJTOiZ

— BOILER ROOM (@boilerroomtv) May 10, 2017

A petition on change.org has recently been gaining traction. The petitioners, the Dance Liberation Network, are aiming to get 5,000 signatures to present to the New York City Council, with the goal of getting the law repealed once and for all.

The Cabaret License requires proprietors to install security cameras, appear before the community board, and pay anywhere from $270 to $535. Once the license is acquired, club owners must follow the law or risk paying $1,000 per violation. Its intent is to keep patrons safe, but with other existing laws in place, this “no dancing” ban seems superfluous. Coupled with its inherently racist roots, the law is likely on its way out.

Or is it?

The law had a revival during Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s tenure, and was used to crack down on different bars and night clubs. But not without protests. In 2000, protesters participated in the “Million Mambo March” where they danced all the way from Tompkins Square Park to Washington Square Park in an effort to bring awareness to the law.

via GIPHY

In 2003 Mayor Michael Bloomberg attempted to change the Cabaret Laws to Nightlife Licences that had more logical applications. Rather than curbing dancing and saxophones (truly the Devil’s pastimes, let’s be real), the Nightlife Licences would aim to regulate noise and unruly crowds. Unfortunately, this measure was struck down.

In 2014 Brooklyn bar owner Andrew Muchmore filed a lawsuit after he was fined for having people dancing in his bar. Muchmore contends that these laws go against the First Amendment and the Fourteenth’s promise that no state shall, “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”  

Muchmore also felt that the ambiguity of what dancing really is can be confusing. Could he be fined if his patrons accidentally started tapping their toes to the jukebox? What about an accidental shake of the hips as you wait at the bar? Standing on a table proclaiming loyalty to La Vie Boheme? The legal definition of dancing is vague, and it is unfair for bar owners.

via GIPHY

Now the law is once again being challenged. By getting enough signatures, the Dance Liberation Network hopes that the New York City Council will once and for all overturn this law and let the people of New York City dance.

Anne Grae Martin

Anne Grae Martin is a member of the class of 2017 University of Delaware. She is majoring in English Professional Writing and minoring in French and Spanish. When she’s not writing for Law Street, Anne Grae loves doing yoga, cooking, and correcting her friends’ grammar mistakes. Contact Anne Grae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hold Back Before You Cut Loose: A Look at NYC’s No Dancing Law appeared first on Law Street.

Many of us miss President Barack Obama in the White House, so much so that when he was recently spotted out and about spectators erupted in roaring applause. At the end of February, the former president had dinner at Emilio’s Ballato in Soho with his daughter Malia, who has an internship in New York. They later took pictures with the staff of the restaurant.

Barack Obama & Malia Obama out & about in NYC. The father-daughter dinner date is really cute. pic.twitter.com/AVnaENi1W2

— nañi (@pettyblackgirI) February 24, 2017

The next day, Obama was seen getting coffee at a Starbucks in downtown New York City. The word spread fast and when he exited a building on Fifth Avenue people on the streets behaved like it was Beatles in the 1960s.

Obama just left a meeting off 5th Ave. Hundred outside cheering. pic.twitter.com/6oPC3yCEEX

— Alex Heath (@alexeheath) February 24, 2017

Some commented on his post-White House glow, which probably comes from his vacation in the Caribbean with Michelle and their friend Richard Branson, who taught Obama to kitesurf.

He’s rested & has a glow about him. The man is back. pic.twitter.com/EGyrjSn8EY

— deray mckesson (@deray) February 24, 2017

Later that evening, Obama went to Broadway to see Arthur Miller’s “The Price.” Classy as he is, he didn’t make a big fuss about it, but snuck in with Malia and his former adviser Valerie Jarrett after the lights went out. Apparently someone used a flashlight to show the trio to their seats, which even annoyed some visitors. “Who is so rude to come in after the show starts with the flashlights and everything?” Theater visitor Laralyn Mowers recalls thinking. But when her friend told her who it was, Mowers said that her day, which up until then had been really bad, definitely changed for the better.

Okay, so it’s intermission. Obama and Malia came in and left when the lights were down. The crowd didn’t notice. Nice job, Secret Service.

— Sopan Deb (@SopanDeb) February 25, 2017

The Obamas left right after the show ended–but not before giving the cast a standing ovation–and went backstage to snap some pictures with the actors Danny DeVito, Mark Ruffalo, Jessica Hecht, and Tony Shalhoub.

Barack Obama has a sweet father-daughter date night with Malia at Broadway’s #ThePrice. https://t.co/b49OsTatAr pic.twitter.com/iPumQ8OF5L

— EntertainmentTonight (@etnow) February 25, 2017

Obama exited the theater quietly, but his fans still found him and cheered him on, with an applause. As always, he took some time to give a little wave.

Former President Obama, daughter Malia leave theater after watching “The Price” on Broadway https://t.co/tzKPwwakn3 pic.twitter.com/rhZOVzLpKn

— NBC New York (@NBCNewYork) February 25, 2017

On Monday, Obama and Michelle popped into the National Gallery of Art in Washington D.C. and as they left the building, a crowd of people once again applauded and cheered the former presidential couple. NBC reporter Benjy Sarlin happened to be there and speculated that breaking out in applause when spotting Obama now seems to be the new norm.

Crowd as President Obama leaves the National Gallery pic.twitter.com/lqPSSNrKg9

— Benjy Sarlin (@BenjySarlin) March 5, 2017

This was the first time the Obamas were seen publicly since Donald Trump made his claims that he believes Obama wiretapped his phones in Trump Tower before the election. Trump has not offered any evidence for his controversial claims, and Obama’s spokesperson has denied that any such thing happened. Luckily it seems like the Obamas didn’t take the accusations too hard, and they got to enjoy an afternoon at the museum.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post People Keep Bursting into Applause When they See Obama on the Street appeared first on Law Street.

Finally! The East Coast is getting some snow and that holiday feeling is everywhere. As the year comes to a close, many of us are reflecting on what we learned and what happened this year. So, what did 2016 meme to you? Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

It’s All About Russia Right Now

Yesterday, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest claimed that Donald Trump and the GOP have known that Russia was trying to interfere in the election for a while–possibly even before October. Earnest suggested that Trump’s repeated invitations for Russia to hack Clinton’s emails meant that he knew what was going on. “It was obvious to those who were covering the race that the hack-and-leak strategy that had been operationalized was not being equally applied to the two parties and to the two campaigns,” Earnest said.

Presidential Spokesman Josh Earnest: Trump may have known Russia behind hacking before Election Day https://t.co/rINAuUMEGp

— Peter Eisner (@PeterEisner) December 14, 2016

It is now believed that Vladimir Putin himself was directly involved in the data breach because of a personal vendetta against Hillary Clinton. But Putin may have also wanted to undermine America’s rep as a global leader. And according to investigators, he’s likely a fan of the way that Trump views Russia.

After all these revelations, Trump, instead of demanding an investigation into why a foreign nation would interfere with our election, questioned why the White House only mentioned this issue after Hillary Clinton lost.

If Russia, or some other entity, was hacking, why did the White House wait so long to act? Why did they only complain after Hillary lost?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 15, 2016

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: December 15, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday morning, activists from the New York City group “Swipe It Forward” offered free subway rides by swiping their cards for commuters in the city. Advocates said they wanted to protest the NYPD’s “Broken Windows” policies and crackdowns on people who can’t afford the subway fares. According to their numbers, police arrested almost 30,000 people for fare evasion last year, making it a top arrest category. Ninety-two percent of those were people of color. The NYPD also issued 120,000 tickets and summonses.

New Yorkers #SwipeItForward to protest policing of fare-beating https://t.co/9tKRxDUrqA #brokenwindows pic.twitter.com/mQWJxXho7j

— Waging Nonviolence (@wagingnv) November 3, 2016

A metro ride is $2.75, which adds up fast if you have to take the train to get to work, as most New Yorkers do. Many people can’t afford the fare. Still, if you jump the turnstile, it can actually lead to an arrest and a night in jail. For immigrants, it could even lead to deportation. According to activists, each of the arrests cost the city’s taxpayers $1,750. So, they’re asking: why should it be a crime to be poor?

Advocates from eight civil rights groups said they would swipe people in, and also encouraged other commuters to use their unlimited cards to swipe for other people. The groups said in a statement:

By encouraging people to help each other, we offer a direct solution to the problem of criminalizing people who simply can’t afford to pay the ever-growing cost of MTA fares (which are set to rise again),

They believe a better way to use the money that is spent on arrests would be to offer free or lower cost options of commuting for New Yorkers who can’t afford the fares.

In NYC, advocacy groups are offering free subway fares at stations that serve primarily black, brown and poor commuters. #SwipeItForward. pic.twitter.com/wYd7S8TY9a

— B. Scott (@lovebscott) November 2, 2016

Dinick Martinez told the Gothamist that he needs swipes from other people in order to get to his adult learning classes–it is often a choice “between either food or MetroCard.” Another commuter, Trinia McDonald, said that she sees  more police activity in Brooklyn where she lives than in Midtown where she works, where people jump the turnstiles constantly. “Here it’s like the people of color are targeted,” she said about her home neighborhood.

To ask someone for a swipe, or to ask for money after offering a swipe, is not legal according to the MTA Rules of Conduct. But offering a swipe to someone who is not asking or accepting a swipe that is offered to you is totally ok. With the unlimited card there is a time limit for how soon you can swipe it again, but it is ok to do it for someone entering the subway when you exit.

#SwipeItForward is legal and it’s a nice thing to do! Offer to swipe in someone on your unlimited card! Poverty is not a crime. pic.twitter.com/hPF1p58htT

— Wes Nemenz (@wesnemenz) November 2, 2016

Activists were also protesting the disproportionately high fines that can come on top of an arrest. A single metro ride is $2.75 but the fine if you jump the turnstile is $100–making it 37 times the fare price. This was the latest day of subway protests, following similar campaigns in August in Harlem and Queens.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Activists Protest NYPD Subway Arrests, Hand Out Free Swipes appeared first on Law Street.

I’m a little late for the gathering of the parade, but can still smell it from at least two blocks away. The cloudy New York sky matches the fumes from the joints as the 17th annual NYC Cannabis Parade marches south on Broadway toward Union Square. An enormous hot air balloon in the shape of a lit joint is carried along to the chanting of classic rock songs, with the lyrics replaced by one word–‘marijuana’.

The group in the parade was as diverse as New York itself–people of all ages, ethnicities and backgrounds, people wearing all green, people in one-pieces with weed patterns, and one group wearing t-shirts saying “Law enforcement for legalization.”

Image courtesy of Evershed Mattingly

“I’m in the long-term care field, and I see way too many people in jail for just using,” said Jeanette McDonald, one of the t-shirt wearers. She’s not a user herself, but is all for the medical use of marijuana for pain management. “To arrest them doesn’t make any sense, go after the terrorists instead.”

The medical use of weed to ease pain seemed to be the most important aspect for many people at the event. Beata Kosmik, dressed in a green creation with a crown of tulle on her head, is in a band that performs to raise awareness about the medical benefits of marijuana. She’s an eco educator–campaigning for a natural, green way of life. Her granddaughter has Dravet syndrome, a kind of infant epilepsy that can be alleviated by a drug containing cannabis but is still in the research stage here in the U.S., so she lives in London.

Image courtesy of Evershed Mattingly

Steven, who wore American Flag overalls and carried a Pride flag, told me he wants decriminalization of all drugs. “It’s corrupt–all these people that are incarcerated for using, it breaks up families, people go to jail for this. Weed doesn’t kill.” Steven also pointed out that so many Afro-American youths get locked up for something that now is considered cool by young white hipsters.

Marijuana was legalized for medical use in New York almost a year ago, and the law came into effect in January. But among the states that allow some kind of marijuana use, it’s one of the most restrictive, and it’s really hard for patients to gain access to legal pot. Classic smoking is actually still forbidden. But if the participants of the Cannabis Parade get their way, that will soon be changed.

To sum up the situation, Steven said: “America has bad fucking karma. The roller coaster is going downhill, and now it’s time to deal with it.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Fight for Total Legalization Continues at the NYC Cannabis Parade appeared first on Law Street.

New York City experienced four fatal shootings last Friday night, including the death of Jahhad Marshall, a 22-year-old chef who was killed in Queens. Stacey Calhoun, the victim’s uncle, told the media the next day, “We need stop-and-frisk.” This comes amid a significant call for the return of the controversial NYPD policy. In particular, Stop-and-Frisk supporters cite the nearly 18 percent increase in murders in New York City between January 1 and May 30, 2015 compared to the same period in 2014. Moreover, there was a 7.7 percent increase in shootings–from 403 to 434–during the same period.

In the wake of the increase in murders, particularly shooting-related murders, the heated debate over the efficacy of stop-and-frisk has returned. Supporters of the policy cite the dramatic decrease in crime in New York City since 2002, when stop-and-frisk became more frequently used. Between 2002 and 2011, there was a steady increase in stop-and-frisk related stops from 97,296 to 685,724. In this same period, there was a steady decrease in shooting deaths, as well as overall murders. Proponents argue that the threat of being searched leads to decreased gun possession and thus decreased gun violence. Therefore, many supporters of stop-and-frisk blame Mayor Bill de Blasio’s reigning in of the policy for the increased number of murders in 2015, particularly firearm murders. In a recent interview with FOX News, former NYPD Commissioner Bernie Kerik blamed the increase in crime in 2015 on the dismantling of stop-and-frisk, citing it as the reason for the decrease in crime in New York City.

Contrarily, a lot of  evidence suggests that stop-and-frisk was not a successful policy. The policy’s opponents point to the general inefficacy of the stops, about 90 percent of which did not result in further police action. Although former Mayor Michael Bloomberg and others have defended the racial disparity of the stops by asserting that blacks and Hispanics are more likely to commit crimes, the NYCLU found that whites were twice as likely to possess  a weapon when stopped. Furthermore, the dramatic increase in stops between 2004 and 2011 did not lead to a dramatic increase in the number of weapons found (176 additional guns found in 524,873 additional stops). Following the controversy over the policy in 2011, the use of stop-and-frisk was dramatically reduced, and while searches decreased by 72 percent between 2011 to 2013, murders fell by 35 percent, and shootings fell by 29 percent. This shows that the continued trend of declining crime in New York City, as well as across the country, that has occurred since 1993 continued even with a dramatic cutback in the use of stop-and-frisk. This evidence seems to suggest that increased use of stop-and-frisk does not guarantee a decrease in the number of murders or shootings.

The bottom line is that it is statistically and logically imprudent to assert that the changing of one police policy is the cause of the increase in murders in New York City so far in 2015. It is possible that stop-and-frisk does limit violent crime; however, it is too soon to tell whether the policy’s removal under Mayor de Blasio is the reason for the additional murders this year. The small sample size of five months, relative to the 24 year trend of decreasing murder, also makes such assumptions fairly weak. Furthermore, the decrease in other crimes, including robbery, felony assault, burglary, and grand larceny point to the issue being more nuanced and complicated than some will admit. Other issues such as the growing civil unrest over police brutality and the possibility of a spike in gang activity are all possible causes. Mayor de Blasio has addressed those who blame his cutbacks on stop-and-frisk for the increased violence and has cited, among other factors, the possibility of gang-on-gang violence.

Contrary to opinions on both sides of the debate, the presence of stop-and-frisk is not an “all-or-nothing” situation. It is possible that the NYPD could return to the frequency of stops that it employed in 2002 while still limiting violence. Perhaps the threat of being searched does limit the possession of guns, as proponents of stop-and-frisk assert. On the other hand, the statistics don’t show that an increase in stops will lead to significantly more weapons seizures. Furthermore, the correlation between greater searches and fewer murders is far from definitive.

It is important to separate legitimate criticism of police tactics from a lack of respect and gratitude for their work. Some sensationalist defenders of stop-and-frisk will try to spin the attacks on the policy as such, and thus delegitimize an important debate. While there is no doubt that those who serve in police forces are brave and essential to our well being, it is important to constantly question and refine police methods.

Maurin Mwombela

Maurin Mwombela is a member of the University of Pennsylvania class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer 2015. He now blogs for Law Street, focusing on politics. Contact Maurin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is the End of Stop-and-Frisk to Blame for the Growth in NYC Murders? appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

The world’s biggest charitable bike ride will be taking over the streets of New York City for the thirty-eighth time on May 3, 2015. The TD Five Boro Bike Tour, run by the non-profit organization Bike New York, attracts 32,000 cyclists from across the globe to its major annual event. Participants experience all five boroughs of the city on a beautiful 40-mile, car-free ride, all united in the name of charity. Teams raise money and awareness for more than 60 partner charities and causes.

Team Partnership With Children is participating in the TD Five Boro Bike Tour this year with a mission; riding to help New York City school children succeed academically and emotionally by providing comprehensive, on-site counseling services at K-12 schools throughout the city.

Read More: Team Partnership With Children

Partnership With Children (PWC) is a New York City-based organization that provides support and resources to students and schools to combat the stress that children growing up in poverty may experience. PWC has a long tradition of helping New York City’s children overcome the severe and chronic stress of growing up in poverty, and the organization works with over 17,000 public school students to ensure that they arrive at school each day ready to learn.

The money raised by Team Partnership With Children at the TD Five Boro Bike Tour will not only help to further that goal, but will also support Bike New York’s mission. Given the focus on improving the lives of everyday New Yorkers–particularly children–the partnership between these effective organizations is a natural fit. Click here to support Team Partnership With Children in the TD Five Boro Bike Tour.

While it’s certainly grown over the years, the TD Five Boro Bike Tour isn’t a new event by any means. It began as part of an effort to teach New York’s youth about the benefits of cycling and bicycle safety. The program ended with a ride around the five boroughs in an attempt to explore the urban landscape in a new way. The program was a success, and as New York became more bike friendly, it continued to grow. Now the event is capped at 32,000 participants and welcomes riders from all over the country and the world. True to its name, the route does involve going through all five boroughs, and includes rides through Central Park and over the Pulaski Bridge. In order to further guarantee the safety of all its riders, the tour now involves blocking off the route so the riders can ride freely and without the fear of cars. Mayor Bill de Blasio praised the event, saying:

New York is at the forefront of making streets safe and accessible for all pedestrians, drivers, and cyclists…More and more New Yorkers are utilizing bikes for transportation and recreation, and Bike New York has been an important ally in teaching cyclists of all ages and skill levels the fundamentals of biking in urban environments and how to ride with confidence and greater regard for street safety.

The money raised for Bike New York during the Tour goes to benefit the lessons and programs that it provides to 16,000 New Yorkers annually. As Bike New York puts it, the event is an opportunity “for the global cycling community to come together to grab life by the handlebars and ride for a reason.”

The President and CEO of Bike New York, Ken Podziba, explained the motivation for the event, stating:

Since the first Tour in 1977, we’ve been reminding the world that the streets are public spaces. Bikes are as welcome and deserving of a place on the blacktop as they are on the greenways, and we’re empowering New Yorkers with that knowledge and the know-how to put it to use and rediscover their rights and their City.

The TD Five Boro Bike Tour is a great opportunity for charity partners like Partnership with Children to unite around a common goal, and promises to be a day of fun for all the riders and supporters who participate. If you’re interested in cheering on the teams or signing up to participate in next year’s event, check out the information here. To support Team Partnership With Children and its critical mission of ensuring that all of New York’s at-risk youth succeed in the classroom and beyond, visit the team page here.

Partnership With Children

Partnership With Children works to strengthen the emotional, social, and academic skills of at-risk children to help them succeed in school, society, and life. PWC has a long tradition of helping New York City’s children overcome the severe and chronic stress of growing up in poverty, ensuring that over 17,000 public school students arrive at school each day ready to learn. Partnership With Children is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

http://www.partnershipwithchildren.org/

The post Partnership With Children to Ride For At-Risk Youth in TD Five Boro Bike Tour appeared first on Law Street.

Spring is in the air. While the daffodils and tulips are emerging, for some, so are the baby bumps. New parents have many responsibilities and choices to make once their little bundles of joy are out in the world. Working mothers in the United States must make one especially weighty decision: to go on maternity leave, or to go straight back to work? The choice is not as cut-and-dry as some may think—both financial and emotional factors must be considered. A family must also consider whether or not they will pay for the services of a babysitter or nanny, care for the child themselves, or enlist family and friends to help care for the child. But are policies in the U.S. to this effect changing?

In America, the concept of maternity leave is quite common, but what about paternity leave? New mothers are afforded “bonding” time, but what about fathers? As it turns out, new parent–both moms and dads–are allowed up to 12 weeks of unpaid family leave after the birth or adoption of a child, according to The Family and Medical Leave Act.

There are many caveats to this act, however, and not all employees may be qualified to receive its benefits. Even if an employee qualifies, he or she may not choose to take off from work if it could cause a financial hardship, given that the leave is unpaid. There may be a solution here–perhaps the United States should adopt the policies of other countries that allow parents to go on paid parental leave. Norway allows parents to take a leave of 36 weeks and receive 100 percent of their wages; Australia allows each parent 12 months of leave, of which 18 weeks are paid.

While the U.S. may need to update its parental leave policies, one major American city has recently revised its childcare options. In New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio has announced the city’s implementation plan for free, full-day, universal pre-kindergarten.

Mayor Bill de Blasio. Image courtesy of Kevin Case via Flickr

Many New Yorkers have speculated as to the need of such a program, but it seems the numbers speak for themselves. In the first three weeks of enrollment, 51,000 New York City families signed up for the mayor’s pre-K program. More families will undoubtedly sign up before the enrollment deadline for the program on April 24, 2015.

The funds needed for the program were raised by tax increases. But what if the funds had been put toward implementing paid parental leave instead of universal pre-K? Going forward, what if people were given a choice between paid parental leave OR universal pre-K? Allowing New Yorkers to reject or accept alternate parental systems may be an innovative way to test out options that could be afforded to the rest of the country.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Paid Parental Leave: Are There Alternatives for U.S. Parents? appeared first on Law Street.

Lower Manhattan is a landfill. Composed largely from earth excavated during the subway construction process, it is an unnatural geographic feature and prone to flooding, as Superstorm Sandy demonstrated. In the ominous projections regarding melting ice caps and rising sea levels, it is one of the first places predicted to be inundated. In the 21st century, new plans to expand New York City continue to raise concerns and are questioned by environmental groups, as exemplified by the proposal for the offshore Hudson River Park, dubbed Pier 55.

Former head of Paramount Pictures and Fox, billionaire Barry Diller, is the primary promotor of this project and has pledged over $130 million to its construction. The 2.4 acre park would include concert venues, restaurants, walking and bicycling paths, and lawns. It would sit on a series of pillars standing between 15 and 70 feet above the surface of the water.

Many people are concerned, however, with the opaque manner in which the project is being pursued. Many details have yet to be disclosed to the public and to organizations that have raised concerns, raising questions as to the motivations for the park and the nature of its accessibility. That is to say, private control of public space is a contradictory concept and inhibits the true nature of an area that is apparently intended to be for the enjoyment of the people.

Furthermore, environmental groups are highly concerned as to the ramifications of the park, which would be built in a part of the Hudson River that is a marine sanctuary and spawning ground for striped bass. The Hudson River conservation organization Riverkeeper is worried that driving down pylons could disturb sediment and that the shade cast by the park would affect the behavior of fish and ecosystem dynamics. Yet the trust claims that the height of the park, facilitated by the use of the pillars, would allow for sunlight to reach the water. Furthermore, this park would not entirely be a brand new piece of construction dropped down in the middle of the water. Rather it is to be placed in large on the site of the previous Pier 54, which was once a dock for ocean liners including the Lusitania but has since fallen into disrepair and is collapsing into the river.

The Cunard Line’s arch at Pier 54. Courtesy of jim.henderson via Wikipedia.

Pier 55 requires approval from the Army Corps of Engineers and the New York Department of Environmental Conservation before construction can begin as scheduled in 2016. Yet these reassurances fall somewhat flat considering the knowledge that the trust submitted an environmental assessment form as opposed to a full environmental impact statement. While it points out that its report contained over 200 pages, it nonetheless had fewer requirements to answer. This ties into the opacity of the project, raising suspicions.

Diller was the primary benefactor of the High Line as well, another project that converted decaying urban space into productive real estate for the enjoyment of the public. Plans to build a Low Line park underground at the previous site of a trolly terminal on the Lower East Side have so far been met with much excitement. On the surface, Pier 55 seems like an altruistic and productive idea. But the fact that it is indeed on the surface raises a new set of concerns. Building in the water is far more complicated that revamping an old site on the land. The dialogue needs to be more productive before this project gets started; hopefully in the months to come questions will be answered and all parties involved will be reassured that this plan will work. The pier seems like a good idea and looks like it will be a fun place to visit once it is completed; as long as it does not inflict environmental damage, hopefully it will come to fruition.

You can check out more information and see a photo gallery of the proposed Pier 55 plans by clicking here.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hudson River Park Development in NYC Raises Questions appeared first on Law Street.

On January 8, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s administration finished the work started by previous Mayor Michael Bloomberg by announcing that styrofoam containers will go by the wayside. This includes to-go boxes from the city’s many food trucks as well as coffee cups and packing peanuts. This is a purely environmental move, which might end up costing consumers more money and inconveniencing vendors. Though it has been met with some controversy, most people agree that ultimately it is a good decision.

Expanded Polystyrene Foam, or styrofoam, is one of mankind’s worst inventions. While it’s buoyant properties are desirable for flotation devices and its insulating properties are handy in construction projects, it is non-biodegradable. Thus it sits in landfills forever, never decomposing into the soil. Furthermore, the Department of Sanitation recently determined that it is not recyclable, which played a substantial part in deciding to ban the product. Finally, since most people’s exposure to styrofoam comes in the form of food or beverage containers, it is worth noting that some studies by the EPA suggest a possible mild carcinogenicity.

Courtesy of Jon Hayes via Flickr.

The New York City ban goes into effect on July 1, 2015; however, there will be a six-month grace period before the city begins enforcement so that vendors can seek alternatives. Furthermore, nonprofits and businesses with less than $500,000 in annual income may qualify for an exemption. Finally, while packing peanuts will no longer be sold within the city, packages containing them can still be shipped in. Nonetheless, this determination represents a great step forward in eradicating the material.

Those who support styrofoam do so because it is cheap to acquire and convenient to use; however, there are plenty of alternatives. For example, the city’s Department of Education plans to serve children their food on compostable plates instead. Starbucks and some other coffee companies hand out their products in paper cups with a cardboard ring around them; these are recyclable products that also do a sufficient job of keeping the customer’s hands from being burned. This is a poignant example, because styrofoam is a part of the fashion employed by Dunkin Donuts. In New York, they will have to find a slightly new appearance to compliment the regulations. Customers might worry that their coffee will not stay as hot for as long or will be inconvenienced in other ways.

Courtesy of Erik Sagen via Flickr.

Smaller businesses and vendors are most concerned about the ban because they will likely have to buy more expensive containers. Assuming they can find effective replacements for styrofoam, they will probably have to charge more for what is famously cheap food in order to make up their losses. Up until now it has cost $86 per ton to landfill foam, and $160 to reuse it in some form. These expenses come out of taxpayers’ pockets. Therefore consumers should be okay with paying a slightly higher price for environmentally friendly containers, because it would likely be to their financial benefit in the long run.

Just as with attempting to live off of alternative energy sources, making the transition to environmentally sustainable items and lifestyles is a difficult one. There are likely to be some monetary losses at the outset, but in the long run these things tend to prove to be more financially viable. Environmental sustainability often goes hand in hand with economic sustainability. We should not be afraid to venture outside of our comfort zones and established ways of life in quest of something new and better. Styrofoam is something we take for granted; our morning cup of coffee seems an insignificant thing, but it ends up having a massive impact as it is on a scale of hundreds of millions and of a daily occurrence.

Courtesy of Jonno Witts via Flickr.

These measures will not simply open up space in landfills; an unfortunately large amount of garbage ends up in the water. Especially considering New York City’s geographic orientation, many feel that the styrofoam ban will benefit the local aquatic biodiversity as well as the urban water supply itself. Styrofoam will not yet disappear altogether, but this is a substantial step in the right direction.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Wave Goodbye to Your Takeout Containers: NYC Bans Styrofoam appeared first on Law Street.

In most cultures and throughout history, under the ground has been a place to which few have been interested to venture. It is a place of darkness and isolation, with morbid undertones. Underground is thought of as a place of burial; having crypts and tombs, it is thought of as a place of death. But New York City’s proposed Lowline could change all that, bringing life and light to the deep places of the Earth.

Set to open in 2018, the Lowline is a planned underground park set to be built at an abandoned trolley station on Delancey Street on Manhattan’s Lower East Side. The space, built in 1908, was abandoned 40 years later when trolley services ended in the city; however, there is still some aesthetic appeal with regard to high ceilings and cobblestones. It is located right next to the JMZ subway station, so travelers passing through can stop by. It will have trees, grass, benches, and natural sunlight. This last point is the great appeal; a system of mirrors and refractors will channel sunlight through an irrigation system–specialized pipes–to distribution panels underground. This will allow for real plants to grow under real conditions.

Courtesy of mike via Flickr.

Abandoned urban spaces are eyesores and breeding grounds for dangerous social and health conditions. This program will transform this particular space into something productive and for the public’s benefit. It will provide green space for an otherwise highly built up and concrete sector of the city. Of course, green space and benches will not be enough to draw sufficient crowds regularly enough to maintain the financial viability of the park. Especially considering that the main draw is the natural sunlight, on a cloudy or rainy day when people would not be interested in spending time in an outdoor park, the Lowline might be gloomy and unappealing as well. Therefore engineers intend to include retail space, youth activities, and culturally motivated programs. In this sense, the Lowline is not just a park but a center of activity and events.

Underground cities are not new conceptions. One of the most notable manifestations is in science fiction master Isaac Asimov’s planet-wide city of Trantor in the Foundation Trilogy. In these novels, the massive city is mostly constructed of domes and underground systems; residents do not have much access to open air. People often suffer severe emotional and mental strains as a result, feeling claustrophobic, depressed, and paranoid. Further, the layout is in some ways a tool of control by a tyrannical political regime. At any rate, the philosophical lessons of these books are poignant warnings with regard to planned cities and livelihoods of citizens. If the Lowline is successful it could set a precedent for people spending more time and possibly even living underground like rodents. Human beings are physiologically surface dwellers; it could be a sociological step down to emphasize the underground in this way.

Courtesy of Kris Arnold via Flickr.

Yet this might be taking it too far, and we should focus on all the practical benefits that can be derived from this system of thought and technology. As designer James Ramsey points out, the solar technology can be adapted to places such as hospitals, schools, basements, and office interiors as well. This could enable for much improved mental conditions as well as aesthetic appearances of otherwise bland built environments. Sunlight and green plants have been linked to increased mental health and productivity. Furthermore, if real trees will be able to grow underground due to the real sunlight, imagine the implications for the agricultural industry. Perhaps large swaths of plants can be grown underground in regions whose environments are otherwise unsuitable. This would allow for more effective production and distribution of food, overcoming restrictions of climate, insects, and the like.

In an era of limited access to space and aesthetics, concerns over energy and food, and questions about public welfare, the Lowline represents creative thinking and technological innovation with wide implications and exciting opportunities.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Underground Cities, Brought to You by New York’s Lowline appeared first on Law Street.

“UUGGHH.” That’s how Minneapolis-based street artist Eric Rieger, aka Hottea, responded to the latest indication of gentrification in New York. One-ninety Bowery has stood the test of time. The imposing six-story limestone Renaissance Revival relic has long been a cultural landmark. Built in 1899, then Germania Bank of New York City serviced its surrounding community, “Little Germany” (Kleindeutschland), once the largest German-American–then-bourgeois–enclave in the country.

In 1966, long after the bank dissolved, photographer Jay Maisel bought the abandoned edifice and converted its facilities into the largest single-family home in New York City. That was until Fall 2014, when Maisel reluctantly sold his spacious dwelling to one of the most voracious real-estate developers swallowing up NYC properties today. RFR Holdings LLC bought the property for an undisclosed price in September, valued between $35 and 70 million, with plans to flip the building, marketing it as ideal for retailing at the base with condominiums above, and offices, or even an art gallery. 

190 Bowery, courtesy of erin williamson via Flickr.

Courtesy of erin williamson via Flickr.

Should we be surprised? With the New Museum a block away, a Whole Foods Market nearby, scores of luxury apartments, boutiques, and art galleries immediately South, it was only a matter of time before 190 Bowery succumbed to SoHo, the epicenter of loft living. RFR will be responsible for the “renovation” of the building’s cultural memory, of course; developers have already issued a rendering of the facade scrubbed clean of the layers of graffiti, on which artists including Keith Haring, COST, NEKST, Shepard Fairey, and others have made their marks for the last three decades. One-ninety Bowery is “the last remaining part of ‘old New York’,” lamented Hottea. “This building is so iconic… it’s been there for years. I think it reminds a lot of people of what New York used to be, and how that’s being taken away… UUGGHH. That’s all I can say. When is it going to stop?” But such is the normal arch of the gentrification narrative, 5 Pointz being a glaring example. We should, however, be concerned with the manner in which this process is taking place.

RFR Holdings LLC was founded in 1991 by Aby Rosen and Michael Fuchs, German-born real-estate tycoons who together own 71 properties globally. Over the last year, Rosen and Fuchs have spent $250 million on Manhattan land purchases, $500 million on office building acquisitions, and nearly $150 million on retail property–a spending spree to rival that of Quicken Loans founder Dan Gilbert who now owns most the real estate in downtown Detroit. Aside from the starkly different cities in which their properties are located, Gilbert’s Rock Ventures is an American-based firm, while RFR Holdings LLC has headquarters in New York and Frankfurt. “We can buy something more expensive because we have our own capital, plus European capital that looks for longer returns,” Rosen explained in a recent New York Times interview. “We don’t have to get in and out quickly, and having this long view allows us to be more aggressive.”

Aby Rosen, courtesy of Christopher Peterson via Wikimedia.

RFR’s acquisitions represent a broad trend of foreign investment in American real estate since the late 1980s. In lieu of escrow accounts in Swiss banks and securities in the Caribbean, which have come under intense international scrutiny, foreign investors have poured their money into global real estate, which can serve as a “convenient pied-à-terre, an investment hedge against a wobbly home currency,” according to New York Magazine, “or an insurance policy—a literal refuge if things go bad.” After the U.S. housing crisis from 2007 to 2010, property values in American cities plummeted, and while the U.S. economy has been recovering, they are still relatively “low” compared to cities around the world.

The market rate for luxury apartments in Hong Kong, for instance, is between $4,100 and $5,000 per square foot; in London the same properties are valued at $3,300 to $4,100. By comparison, Manhattan properties cost half that, ranging from about $2,100 to $2,500; alas–well out of reach for even upper middle-class inhabitants, yet quite attractive for transnational ultra-rich investors. Since 2008, roughly 30 percent of condo sales in Manhattan have been to overseas addresses, or through ambiguous entities like limited-liability corporations, such as RFR Holdings LLC, which often serve as middlemen for foreign investors. Over the last decade the majority of New York property sales have gone to investors in Russia or Saudi Arabia; over the last year, however, China has spent $22 billion on New York properties–72 percent more than they spent in 2013–claiming the lion’s share of foreign investment in American real estate. “The global elite,” according to Michael Stern, owner of JDS Development Group, “is basically looking for a safe-deposit box.”

Such gentrification on the global scale should not surprise us–it is a historical trend, and the redevelopment of 190 Bowery was inevitable. But there are dangers to this phenomenon, which reach further than the displacement of middle and working class communities, and erasure of their identity and culture. There is virtually no local market for premium properties in New York City. Urban properties as investments cease to be homes. Foreign investors lack vested interest in maintaining these properties primarily because they do not live there; the American city has effectively become a place of visitors, void of close community ties and stewardship. This hollow space is lifeless. Urban properties as investments are mostly uninhabited by their affluent proprietors; they either serve as vacation homes, or remain empty retainers of wealth. Meanwhile, middle-class homes let rooms to AirBnB, and subdivide apartments as room-shares marketed at exorbitant rates on Craigslist. We are experiencing the emergence of an absentee rentier class that not only augments our urban housing crisis; this urban real-estate bubble may threaten the systemic integrity of our economy.

What needs to change? Buyers of new construction in the city often qualify for significant tax abatements–a vestige of the neoliberal initiatives of the late 1970s and early 1980s designed to increase private investment and reverse the effects of urban crisis. Moreover, entities like RFR, based in Europe with an increasing presence in New York, have capitalized on liberal transnational financial regulations. American cities must update their zoning laws, with an eye to equitable development. New York no longer needs a mainline feed of private investment to remain viable. The effects of unfettered transnational capital currents erode the fabric of urban communities. If “UUGGHH” is not a lament, it is surely an expression of our impotence.

Ryan Purcell

Ryan D. Purcell holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York. Contact Ryan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The New Urban America: Cities of Visitors and the Absentee Rentier Class appeared first on Law Street.

The decisions by grand juries not to indict the police officers who killed Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri and Eric Garner in Staten Island, New York–both unarmed black men–have sparked a visceral reaction from many Americans coast to coast. In the case of Garner, the reaction transcended partisan politics, with conservative voices such as Glenn Beck expressing disbelief at how an unarmed man being choked to death on camera was not enough to even start a criminal proceeding against his killer, Officer Daniel Pantaleo.

On the other hand, there are those who reject the idea that the system failed these victims and their families, and that these outcomes are indicative of a larger institutional design that disproportionately victimizes black people. They tend to view these cases as “isolated incidents,” unfortunate yes, but perhaps unavoidable in a society where police are confronted with violent crime on a daily basis. Inevitably, they veer into defaming the victim’s character. “It’s not like Michael Brown was an angel. Did you see the video of him robbing that store just before the shooting?” I have even heard some version of these quotes uttered by people very close to me, whose opinions I hold in high regard. Yet, here they are apologizing for murderers.

It is not difficult to see the striking parallel between this behavior and the victim-blaming that surrounds cases of rape and domestic abuse involving women. “Well she was wearing a short skirt” “Wasn’t she drunk?” “Why did she go back to him?” A system designed to protect men at the expense of women will scrutinize the woman’s actions to see what she did to bring such misfortune upon herself, rather than investigating the criminal actions of the male perpetrator. This, in turn, engenders a deep distrust of the system among women and explains why a majority of sexual assaults go unreported.

Similarly, a system designed to protect white lives at the expense of black lives makes it acceptable to blame the black victim of a senseless murder. Whether 18–year-old Brown or 43-year-old Garner were “angels” before their lives were cut short bears no relevance on whether their killers should be held accountable for their untimely deaths. Those who feel these are appropriate counterarguments to an issue that’s been blown out of proportion by the media are products of this system and these are misplaced attempts at appearing “fair and balanced.” That Officers Wilson and Pantaleo may never face a public trial for their actions means that the system worked as it was designed. Unfortunately, this also means that the distrust of law enforcement in black communities was only compounded. Obama’s call for $263 million for body cameras on police may increase transparency, but trust will elude us until we can seek justice in a system untainted by vestiges of the racial caste system that this country was built on.

Kesav Wable

Kesav Wable is an attorney practicing in New York, as well as an accomplished actor and writer. His short film For Flow, an HBO American Black Film Finalist in 2011, was broadcast on HBO/Cinemax, and he continues to develop scripts for the stage and screen. Contact Kesav at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Victim Blaming Nurtures an Unjust System appeared first on Law Street.

One of my favorite parts of my job here at Law Street is that I get to work with incredibly intelligent individuals with whom I occasionally disagree. Blogger Allison Dawson is one of those people. Today, she wrote a piece entitled “Columbia Law Students Can Postpone Exams in Light of Grand Jury Decisions.” It’s a great take–but I think there are a couple important points missing.

For some context, here’s the background: in light of the incredibly controversial and nation-sweeping announcements that grand juries in Missouri and New York failed to indict the cops who killed Michael Brown and Eric Garner, respectively, Columbia University Law School made an announcement. It regarded the reactions that some of the students may be having to those verdicts, and offered counseling, opportunities to talk to professors regarding the indictment, and this:

The law school has a policy and set of procedures for students who experience trauma during exam period. In accordance with these procedures and policy, students who feel that their performance on examinations will be sufficiently impaired due to the effects of these recent events may petition Dean Alice Rigas to have an examination rescheduled.

There’s a crucial part there that I want to make sure we’re all very cognizant of, and that’s that a Columbia Law student can’t just walk into Dean Rigas’ office and say “hey, I’m feeling weird about these indictments, can I take those exams later?”

The Academic Procedures outlined by Columbia make it pretty clear that petitioning to not take an exam isn’t really an easy practice. It certainly seems that a petition is by no means a guarantee to skip an exam, and that Columbia takes petitions pretty seriously. Columbia’s policy states:

Some petitions can be decided on within two to seven business days; others may require a meeting of the Rules Committee or the faculty and will take longer. It is advisable to make your petition as early as possible and not to assume the results of a petition.

A follow-up letter makes it seem like they really would only allow someone to postpone an exam under rather dire circumstances. The Vice Dean for Curriculum, Avery Katz wrote:

Accordingly, students who wish to request a rescheduled exam, or other similar accommodation, should either write to the office of Registration Services with an individual explanation of the basis of the request, or speak in person with an academic counselor in the Office of Student Services.  Unless time pressure is severe, meeting with an academic counselor is the preferred alternative, in case our student services staff can offer support or other resources that may be helpful.

I truly hope that if anyone uses this to try to get out of taking an exam, that Columbia would catch it with its policies. To anyone trying that, here’s a message to you: you’re a shitty person, and you are making it harder for those who actually do need to postpone an exam. Honestly, I highly doubt that many people will end up asking to postpone their exams because of these grand juries, or that Columbia will honor those requests.

All that being said, the fact that Columbia Law is recognizing that the grand jury announcements could have been triggering for a student is excellent. I agree with Allison that our future lawyers need to be able to accept and learn from the outcomes of our legal system, but I think that’s oversimplifying what those failures to indict really mean. The grand jury decisions were symptoms of significantly larger issues in our justice system, like racial inequality, police brutality, and a culture of violence. The protests that have continued all around the nation show that these conversations didn’t stop when those grand juries made their decisions.

No one gets to dictate what could cause someone to have emotional or mental difficulties and need help. Columbia Law has policies in place that allow students to make their case if they are suffering from anything that would impede performance on exams. The letter that went out yesterday just clarified that. There will of course always be people who try to take advantage of the policy, and I truly hope Columbia Law is able to identify those people. But the fact that Columbia is taking such a progressive view on mental health and triggers is truly refreshing. It’s the thought that counts, and for Columbia Law, this truly was a good thought.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Columbia Law Takes Progressive Stance on Mental Health appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, October 23, 2014, NBCUniversal agreed to pay $6.4 million to settle claims that it violated labor laws over its unpaid internship program.  NBCUniversal’s decision to settle is pivotal because it marks a huge step toward eliminating unpaid internship programs completely.

The lawsuit against NBCUniversal began when Monet Eliastam, the lead plaintiff of the lawsuit, interned at Saturday Night Live for 25 hours per week or more and did not receive compensation. She and other unpaid interns filed a class-action lawsuit and sued NBCUniversal. Elisastam claimed, according to the Hollywood Reporter, that NBCUniversal “misclassified its workers as unpaid interns and thus denied them benefits like a minimum wage salary, overtime pay, social security contributions, and unemployment insurance.”

The Hollywood Reporter further reports that a United States District Court will have to approve the settlement, but if it stands, $1.18 million of the total $6.4 million will go to plaintiffs’ attorneys, Elliastam will receive a $10,000 service payment, and five other plaintiffs will receive service payments of $5,000 and $2,000 rewards. The rest will go to NBCUniversal interns, and the average settlement payment to interns will be $505 for those who interned in New York since July 3, 2007, in California since February 4, 2010, and in other states since February 4, 2011.

Unpaid interns have filed cases against Fox, Sony, Warner Brothers, and Viacom, and companies like Conde Nast have also settled unpaid internship cases. Unpaid internship cases are thus becoming the norm, which it should be.

As a law student, I have had my fair share of unpaid internships. One summer, I worked 35-40 hours per week at an entertainment company and did not receive a dime. Instead, I received credit and had to take an externship class. On the surface, that may not seem terrible because I got to apply three more credits to my total needed to graduate. However, I had to pay a few thousand dollars to take the externship class because the minimum amount of credits that my loan would pay for was six, and my externship class was only three.

It doesn’t take much to realize how unfair that is. Not only did I give the company free labor, but I was out a few thousand dollars in order to get that free labor. Where is the logic in that? There is none.  The unpaid internship system is designed to take total advantage of students just so the student can put that company’s name on his or her resume. The school makes money, and the company gets free labor.

Even for students who take internships or externships during the school year and do not have the student loans issue that I did, no one wants to take a class in addition to interning.  Especially in law school, students are so busy that externship classes take a back seat to a student’s more substantive school work, internships, law journals, and/or moot court.

Moreover, the entertainment companies exist in, not surprisingly, the most expensive cities in the country. Students can’t live on unpaid internships — not when your average lunch in New York City, for example, is around $10 or more. It’s simply not feasible. Yes, you can argue that students can live on student loans, but that misses the point.  Students want to be compensated for their work and be valued as integral employees. It’s as simple as that.

Fortunately, companies are starting to pay interns because companies do not want to be victims, which has been echoed to me in several legal internship interviews.

Hopefully interns will finally begin to get paid for their work across the board, and students will not have to experience what I and millions of other students have.

—

Joseph Perry (@jperry325) is a 3L at St. John’s University whose goal is to become a publishing and media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and volunteering at the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries.

Featured image courtesy of [Knot via Flickr]

Joseph Perry

Joseph Perry is a graduate of St. John’s University School of Law whose goal is to become a publishing and media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and volunteering at the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries. Contact Joe at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NBCUniversal Settles With Unpaid Interns for $6.4 Million appeared first on Law Street.

This question might conjure chilling images of flavorless fixed rations, compulsory exercise regimes, and the foreboding scales of a totalitarian weight monitoring mechanism.

Take a deep breath. Mandatory weigh-ins have no place in your near future. However, the government already influences your weight in indirect ways using methods more subtle than scales. It’s not because they’re nosy or superficial, it’s because weight, specifically being overweight, is a burgeoning public health plight in the United States.

What’s the big problem with obesity?

In the not-too-distant past, being overweight was a harmless stigma — a matter of aesthetics and not health. Today we know that obesity comes along with a load of serious health complications like heart disease, high blood pressure, Type 2 Diabetes, and some types of cancer. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimate that 112,000 deaths a year are associated with obesity. Related medical expenses burden the United States with more than $100 billion annually. Ouch.

What’s even scarier? Obesity prevalence is overwhelming the United States population. According to the CDC, more than one third of American adults are obese. That’s more than double the rate of the last decade.

Before you brush it off as an unfortunate fact of life, here’s some visual perspective from the CDC on this explosive growth:

Obesity prevalence in 1990. The darkest blue represents a rate of 10%-14% population obesity.

Obesity prevalence in 2009. Note all of the completely new colors. Obesity rates of all states have surpassed those seen in 1990.

Previous efforts to confront obesity have focused on individual interventions like nutrition education. The climbing rate of obesity despite these efforts revealed some missing pieces in the strategy. Experts realized obesity wasn’t just a matter of willpower. Recognizing the multi-faceted approach needed to combat obesity, officials fixed their attention on underlying causes that escape an individual’s control.

How is obesity out of individual control?

Obesity isn’t just about individual choices, it’s about individual options. The fight against obesity is futile for those without the right options. For example, poor access to supermarkets because of zoning complications may make smart food choices a hopeless pursuit. A simple jog isn’t an option for those with nowhere to do it safely.

Furthermore, we have a hard time helping ourselves. One study found that concern over weight isn’t a sufficient catalyst for behavioral change. Concerned people who lack access to healthy foods are stripped of the power for change. The pervasiveness of fast food establishments peddling calorie-dense foods present an invincible double threat.

Government regulations can interfere when individual resolve falls short. Large-scale policies to create healthier communities could help those who can’t help themselves.

What can the government do?

The Standard Toolkit

The Commerce Clause of the Constitution bestows the federal government with the right to regulate state commerce. This translates practically to weight-related regulations like food labeling mandates and subsidies on foods. On a more local level, the Constitution grants states the power to regulate the health, safety, and welfare of their populations. This broad power translates to a variety of possible actions.

Here are some examples of perfectly legal government actions that affect what we eat and consequently what we weigh:

Taxes and Subsidies

Some cities and states already have taxes on sugary drinks. Opinions are split on extending taxes on junk food. James Carville thinks it might be a good idea to tax “Twinkies more than apples.”

The government subsidizes certain crops, often increasing their prevalence in our diets. Corn is a popular example of the power of subsidies. In Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma, one researcher likens Americans to corn chips with legs.

Bans: New York City made history when it took measures to strike trans-fats from restaurant menus.  After the rule survived backlash, other states and cities followed suit. In the next few years, the FDA will undertake a national trans-fat phase out.

Labeling: New York City again led the way by requiring restaurants to disclose nutrition information on their menus. The federally-mandated nutrition label is probably the best known example of enforced food labeling.

Zoning and Land Planning: In some areas, large supermarkets and farmers markets are zoned out, making healthy food hard to come by. Developing parks and sidewalks is a proven way to get people moving without the conscious choice to exercise more.

Transportation: Some studies have shown that people who use public transportation weigh less than those who commute in cars. Unfortunately, more money is invested in highways than in public transportation.

Health Care and Benefits: Tennessee and West Virginia have reimbursement programs for Weight Watchers and 42 states provide gastric bypass surgery for the morbidly obese.

Alternative Approaches

Not all approaches that aim to reduce obesity target diet and exercise. Some of them appear unrelated to obesity at first glance. For example, a breastfeeding facility law requires employers to provide proper accommodations to encourage breastfeeding. While the law helps new mothers in many ways, it’s also a CDC priority strategy to prevent obesity as breastfeeding has been tied to reduced early childhood obesity.

Numerous policies and campaigns aspire to shrink obesity rates. They focus on a broad range of factors from diet specifically to overall health and wellness. CDC’s Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity database lists state-by-state activities if you want to get an idea of what’s in place.

What are lawmakers suggesting?

What does the future hold for the fight against obesity? Check out these examples of what policymakers have been cooking up:

Healthy Lifestyles and Prevention America (HELP) Act: Proposes a multi-pronged intervention strategy to enhance overall wellness of the American people. Children would enjoy enhanced nutrition and physical activity programs in schools and in childcare settings. Adults would benefit from workplace wellness programs. Everyone would benefit from proposed attacks on both salt and tobacco.

FIT Kids Act: Would fund grants for physical education programs that are based on scientific research. States would be required to analyze and identify specific student needs and develop their programs accordingly. The act would also require states to develop indicators of progress.

Reduce Obesity Act of 2013:  Suggests an amendment to title XVIII of the Social Security Act that would require the Medicare and You handbook to include information on behavioral therapy for obesity. It would allow physicians and other experts on Diabetes prevention to provide behavioral therapy outside of the primary care setting.

Stop Childhood Obesity Act of 2014: Seeks to deny financial benefits for companies to advertise and market certain food products to children. Tax deductions granted under the Internal Revenue Code would be barred for advertising to children that promotes consuming foods of poor nutritional quality. The Secretary of the Treasury and the Institute of Medicine would determine what constitutes foods of poor nutritional quality.

Beyond regulations and policies…

Some suggest that legal approaches may fill in the gaps left after regulations. The paper Innovative Legal Approaches to Address Obesity presents techniques that leverage law to  tackle obesity:

Regulating conduct: The Massachusetts decision to ban self-service displays of tobacco was upheld in the case of Lorillard Tobacco v. Reilly. Perhaps courts would uphold similar decisions to remove processed foods from checkout aisles.

Ingredient caps: The government can limit the alcohol content of beer. They might do something similar with sugar if it’s proven to be harmful and addictive.

Limits on food marketing: Advertising messages are protected under First Amendment rights. As early as 1978, the FTC attempted a rule to limit advertising of sugary products to children. The rule was struck down after massive industry opposition. Many hope to revisit similar rules as obesity-related health consequences surface.

Compelling industry speech: A near opposite to limiting advertising would be to compel industry speech and require companies to disclose information that might affect consumption. The United Kingdom’s traffic light system provides an extreme example.

Increasing government speech: Government speech could be leveraged to counteract the prevalence of advertising messages by encouraging the consumption of healthy foods. The “5 a Day” fruit and vegetable campaign in the United States is one such example.

Purchase limits: The Supreme Court has allowed individual purchase limits on items like prescription drugs. Perhaps a limit on the amount of sugary beverages a minor can purchase could also be enacted.

Penalties for causing addiction: The government has a right to restrict sales of certain products to minors that it finds harmful or addictive — like alcohol and cigarettes. Some studies have suggested certain food additives are addictive. Companies could be vulnerable to litigation if they have been knowingly manipulating ingredients to encourage overconsumption.

Nuisance law: Pollution is considered a public nuisance. Likewise, the creation of obesogenic foods proven to be harmful to health could be deemed a public nuisance, punishable by fines or criminal sentences.

Performance-based regulation: Performance-based regulations would put responsibility in the hands of industry. A company might be given a measurable goal related to reducing obesity rates. Businesses that fail to meet assigned outcome goals would be financially penalized.

Where do we go from here?

Let’s be honest, the obesity issue has been confounding us for years. Explosions of diet fads that vilify certain ingredients don’t help matters. Fat? Sugar? Gluten? Carbs? Most people just don’t know what to eat even though they’re being showered with ample advice.

Obesity lacks a simple cause, making it a convoluted case to crack. An array of dimensions in behavior, lifestyle, and environment contribute to it. Policy makers have their work cut out for them in innovating a range of initiatives that might control it. Consumers have their work cut out for them in sorting through all of the advice thrust at them to make sound decisions. Neither can stand alone. Consumers need all the help they can get from carefully designed government regulations that don’t infringe on privacy.

Should the government do more to help the population control their weight? Should they do less? Comment to tell us what you think.

Resources

Primary

CDC: State Legislative and Regulatory Action to Prevent Obesity and Improve Nutrition and Physical Activity

Yale University: Innovative Legal Approaches to Address Obesity

Additional

Millbank Quarterly: Public Health Law and the Prevention and Control of Obesity

Yale University: Improving Laws and Legal Authorities for Obesity Prevention and Control

CDC: Adult Obesity Facts

CDC: Overweight and Obesity Policy Resources

George Washington University: Review of Obesity Related Legislation & Federal Programs

Washington Post: U.S. Sugar Subsidies Need to be Rolled Back

The New York Times: Proposed Tax on Sugary Beverages Debated

Coalition for Sugar Reform: Reform Legislation

Intelligence Squared: Obesity is the Government’s Business

NIH: Evidence for Sugar Addiction: Behavioral and Neurochemical Effects of Intermittent, Excessive Sugar Intake

SAGE: The Role of Self-Efficacy in Achieving Health Behavior Change

Georgetown University Law Center: Assessing Laws and Legal Authorities for Obesity Prevention and Control

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How the Government Regulates Obesity appeared first on Law Street.

Good news for those who are both gay and have Irish pride: next year, New York City will allow LGBT groups to march in the St. Patricks Day parade with their own banners. Previously, there had been a ban on allowing gay groups to join in the famous event, which is the biggest in the world. The ban wasn’t specifically on LGBT people — they were allowed to march as long they were with other groups and weren’t carrying any sort of banners marking them as gay — but this was still clearly discriminatory.

The ban on gay groups marching in the parade was causing a lot of problems for the organizers — liberal Mayor Bill de Blasio did not want to march as long as the ban was in place, and Guinness refused to sponsor. Heineken withdrew its support as well. Other businesses have also threatened to take away their support if action was not taken.

Somewhat surprisingly, the decision was actually met without protest from many Catholics. In recent years, the Catholic Church has begun embracing LGBT people as individuals, while still standing against the possibility of gay marriage on an institutional level. The allowance of gay groups at the parade is another example of that shift. As the always delightful Stephen Colbert points out, everyone’s pretty much on board with the new rule:

Cardinal Timothy Dolan will actually be the grand marshal for next year’s parade, and he’s given his full support to the change in policy, stating:

My predecessors and I have always left decisions on who would march to the organizers of the individual parades. As I do each year, I look forward to celebrating Mass in honor of Saint Patrick, the Patron Saint of Ireland, and the Patron Saint of this Archdiocese, to begin the feast, and pray that the parade would continue to be a source of unity for all of us.

The decision was mostly welcomed by the gay community. It was called a good small step by the Staten Island LGBT Community Center, whose communications manager Emilie Tippens said she hoped for a ripple effect to emerge in other circumstances where LGBT people face discrimination. However, the move did receive some ire from members of the LGBT community. Gay leaders claim that the parade rules were changed not because the organizers actually realized the error of their ways, but because they were forced to by financial and publicity concerns. As a spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, Fed Sainz, explained:

In one of the world’s most diverse and inclusive cities, not to allow gay people to march was becoming an anachronistic decision that they could no longer reasonably justify.

While that may be true, it is still a good thing that gay groups will be allowed to march in the parade. The parade is a big draw, and a massive celebration, and for anyone to be restricted is truly a disservice.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [DonkeyHotey via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NYC St. Patrick’s Day Parade to Finally Include LGBT Groups appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of [Drew Garaetz via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Entertainment Law: #2 Columbia Law School appeared first on Law Street.

You know that sinking feeling you get when you dig your hands into your pockets for your keys, but come out with nothing but lint? After a long hard day, nothing is worse than being helplessly locked out of your apartment. Locksmiths are expensive, often ranging from $35 to $150, and may be even more depending on your location and what time you call. App developers in New York believe they have found the solution to this problem with a new service called KeyMe.

KeyMe is an iPhone app that allows users to photograph their keys and upload them to the company’s servers. After the photo is taken, users can make copies in one of KeyMe’s five conveniently located kiosks around NYC. For the low price of $10, KeyMe customers can walk to a kiosk, wait 30 seconds for a brand new key, and then return home. To me, the idea sounds pretty clever: creating a cloud that you can upload your key to, and providing stores around the city that can cut them for you in a matter of seconds. There are absolutely no flaws in that, right?

Wrong. Andy Greenberg, a reporter for WIRED, wrote a step-by-step account of how he was able to copy his neighbors key without him noticing, cut a copy at a nearby KeyMe kiosk, and later “break” into his house. Greenberg says:

Such services also enable jerks like me to steal your keys any time they get a moment alone with them. Leave your ring of cut-brass secrets unattended on your desk at work, at a bar table while you buy another round, or in a hotel room, and any stranger–or friend– can upload your keys to their online collection.

While it’s convenient for those of us who frequently forget our keys, the app also poses some alarming security risks.

Greenberg is absolutely right–now that I know there is an app out there that can create a copy of my key, I think I’ll find it extremely hard to trust anybody with it. No more throwing down the keys to my friends to let them in, no more hanging them at the door, and certainly no more trusting valets. Unfortunately, KeyMe allows the most simplest of simpletons to become a thief, and I can’t blame them–it’s far too easy. From what I can tell, Greenberg has been the only person to admit to using KeyMe to break into someones house, but that will probably change as soon as KeyMe gains traction.

The app also has the potential to wipe out the locksmith industry entirely. Much like what Uber is doing to the taxi business, KeyMey’s user-friendly and convenient service may have the ability to disrupt the market. As more and more services shift to mobile devices, one can imagine of the possibilities to come in the near future. The recent trend toward mobility and instant gratification may also have a negative side; are services like KeyMe causing people to sacrifice security for convenience?

Greg Marsh, CEO of KeyMe, told WIRED that, “digitally reproducing keys is safer than other methods because it leaves a digital trail with KeyMe’s account information, credit card records, and its kiosk fingerprint scanners.” While those are all very valid points, Mr. Marsh, I hadn’t heard of KeyMe until a couple of days ago. If I were robbed I would assume it was done the old fashioned way–by picking the lock or breaking a window. The last thing I would think is that someone took a photo of my key, copied it at the Rite-Aid down the street, and then waltzed through the front door to rob me blind.

Marsh’s advice to his future users is “to be prudent with where they have their keys and store them, similar to a password.” This is pretty obvious advice–even before the introduction of KeyMe, criminals still had the ability to steal a key, copy it, and return it before the person even noticed. But KeyMe just made it simpler for them–instead of going through the trouble of copying the key or stealing it, they merely have to take a picture. With a click of a button you now have access to someone’s valuables. All I can say is that KeyMe might be facing a lot of lawsuits in the upcoming years.

—

Trevor Smith

Featured image courtesy of [Moyan Brenn via Flickr]

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The New Key to Breaking and Entering appeared first on Law Street.

So in New York, housing developers have the option to participate in an “inclusionary zoning program,” which requires them to set aside 20 percent of the units for affordable housing. This means that those apartments are granted to households making less than $42,950 a year.

Smart idea, NYC

Mayor Bill de Blasio wants to make inclusionary zoning mandatory in order to create more affordable units, according to The New York Times. De Blasio “hopes to get both bigger buildings and more affordable units within those buildings.”

New York, you’re on a roll!

But just as I’m about to clasp my hands together and give New York the standing ovation that I thought they deserved; they approved a plan for an Upper West Side condo building to have a separate door for low-income tenants. Yes, a separate door.

Now correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought the days of Jim Crow Laws were long behind us. I mean we’ve elected a half-black President, a black attorney general, and honored the legendary Martin Luther King Jr. with a national holiday. This sends us back to 1920 when segregation ran rampant in this country. Are you happy New York? You took an innovative, progressive, awe-inspiring idea and just destroyed it.

The new Upper West Side apartment complex joins another building that already makes its lower class tenants use a “poor door.” Yes, there is another building where the rich have a separate door, just so they don’t have to rub shoulders with the poor. The apartment complex is in Williamsburg, a neighborhood once occupied by minorities and low-income citizens.

Gentrification at it’s finest folks. Disgusting.

“No one ever said that the goal was full integration of these populations, I think it’s unfair to expect very high-income homeowners who paid a fortune to live in their building to have to be in the same boat as low-income renters, who are very fortunate to live in a new building in a great neighborhood.”

This guy cant be serious…

First off, these really really rich people are not even close to being in the same boat as the low-income renters; they’re not even on the same island, hell they don’t even live on the same planet. They get to come home through the front door to their nicely furnished apartments and relax with a glass of red wine, while the “peasants” have to use the back entrance and hide their faces, for they are too poor to be seen. Who is he to demean a person’s life, who is he to say that the rich are better than the poor, who is he to disrespect the hardworking people of this country and strip them of their dignity through his comments?

Thankfully not everyone in New York agrees with this pompous idiot. Former City Council Speaker Christine Quinn told the New York Post, “I do not believe that these discriminatory practices were ever contemplated by the legislature, we need to change state law so that developers provide common entrances and facilities for residents in the building.”

You know New York, since you are the most diverse city in the world I thought you’d be better than this. I thought you were the city that inspired people, influenced masses, and made dreams come true. Not the city that discourages people and makes them believe they are worthless because of how much money is in their bank account. No one should be judged by how much money they make or whether they are renting or buying. New York, you are home to over 8 million people, and no matter how cliche you think it is, every single one of these people are special and unique. You do not get to choose who comes in the front and who goes in through the back. Poor or rich, black or white, people are people and you do not get to say otherwise.

—

Trevor Smith

Featured image courtesy of [Light Brigading via Flickr]

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NYC ‘Poor Doors’ Separate Rich and Poor Tenants appeared first on Law Street.

A thrifty friend used to point out that the savings at a store sale are misleading. While a shopper can save money on a marked down item, he would save even more if he refrained from purchasing it in the first place, since they probably do not actually need it. One is lured in by the promise of a lesser burden, in this case financial. This concept applies to the disposal process as well.

Composting is a process by which food scraps and other organic leftovers are added to a specially prepared soil so as to create a nutrient-rich mixture. This is a sustainable practice for several reasons.

1. Composting lessens the amount of trash we produce, which ultimately ends up in a landfill. One can break this process down further: consider the reduced amount of air and noise pollution that would result from fewer garbage trucks traveling the roads, or the reduced number of garbage bags produced (and the environmental consequences of the manufacturing process therein).
2. Composting is recycling at its maximum. This special soil often serves as the site for small gardens, or even larger scale agricultural purposes. Composting uses waste to produce something new by natural means. Even formal recycling, which is still a vital practice in which everyone should partake, requires a detailed mechanized process of breaking down and re-manufacturing the products in order to be redistributed.
3. Composting instills a sense of community participation and teamwork. Its sites are often locally oriented. People feel like they are pitching in and doing their part both to help the earth as individuals and as group, and working toward a more sustainable future.

A  recent New York Times article detailed the growth of the New York City school composting program, which started in 2012, and now includes more than two hundred schools. Again, this is a fantastic program and participants are confident that eventually public school composting will be city wide. The program does not encourage children to pursue healthier eating habits. The author of the article, Al Baker, quoted one school’s assistant principal who offered consolation by explaining that even though the children are not eating the healthy foods more, at least it’s not going to waste. Part of this sticky situation is a series of city health regulations that forbid the redistribution of foods once the packages have been opened, Baker clarifies. Therefore, when the children take the healthy foods on their trays and then do not eat them, it goes to composting instead of trash so this helps balance things out.

While this is true, composting offers us a buffer against wasteful lifestyles and slightly reduces the environmental consequences that would result. Rather, it is up to us not to depend on new practices as excuses for bad habits. We would be better off with a more successful attempt at getting children to eat healthy, or at the very least, not take the food on their trays if they absolutely will not eat it. The less we take, the less we dispose, which is a better practice regardless of the means of disposal.

We must be cautious not to be lulled into a false sense of accomplishment like when we buy store items on sale. I recently worked at a conservation society fundraiser where it was made known to the guests that food scraps would not be trashed, but composed, keeping with the organization’s philosophy. I was astounded by the amount of uneaten food that went into these receptacles. What was the cause of this? Of course, we as Westerners have been criticized by others, and rightly do not hesitate to criticize ourselves, for our overindulgence and lack of appreciation for the great gift that is a full belly three times per day. This seemed excessive, though. Could it be that people were less conflicted about not finishing their food because they knew that it would be composted and not trashed?

Fortunately, composting is probably here to stay. It offers us many opportunities and we should take advantage of them. The very fact that the concept is catching wind is indicative of the general trend in consciousness toward environmentally friendly behavior. But we must be cautious not to become too dependent on it, content to sit back and create waste knowing that somebody else will take care of the problem and turn negative impact into something positive and productive for us. Composting should be a calling card inviting us to take action on our own initiative.

Whether it’s burning fewer fossil fuels, recycling plastics, or finishing our vegetables, the path to sustainability lies not just in improved technologies or more efficient practices, but in responsible individual consumer decisions.

—

Franklin R. Halprin (@FHalprin) holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Franklin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Ksd5 via Wikipedia]

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Composting is Great, Reducing Waste Output is Better appeared first on Law Street.

A Brooklyn woman, Jessica Krigsman, asserted her right to be topless in public last July at Calvert Vaux Park in Gravesend; however, two police officers still arrested her and she is now suing NYC for the arrest. While sitting topless on a park bench, Ms. Krigsman was approached by two officers who instructed her to put her shirt back on based on a complaint that they received. She promptly informed them that it has been legal to be topless in public since 1992, eliciting the response from the officers to “stop mouthing off” or be arrested.After refusing again and pointing out that such an arrest would be illegal, the cops handcuffed her and threw a shirt over her head (roughly, she claims). Although the charges were dropped in October, it apparently did not make up for the five hours Ms. Krigsman spent sitting in a jail cell on charges of “obstructing a sitting area.” She is seeking unspecified damages for civil rights violations, in addition to claiming assault and battery and malicious prosecution. Ms. Krigsman’s lawyer, Stuart Jacobs, attributes this behavior towards topless women in public to a knee jerk reaction to nudity. He claims that police wrongfully harass women who choose to be topless in public based on an instinct that a topless woman in public is instinctively wrong. So he is pretty much saying that if you tell a cop you have a right to walk around topless in public, they have this reaction:

Sad to say this hasn’t been the only nudity-related injustice in the Big Apple. In 2008, sun bather Phoenix Feeley was arrested twice for being topless (the second time was leaving the county jail, shirtless, in protest of her first arrest). She was eventually fined $816; however, she was recently arrested again due to her failure to pay the fine.

Sir Ben Kingsley has a point. Although we can applaud Ms. Feeley’s Rosa Parks-esque stand for topless women everywhere, she should have just paid the fine. However, the cops who arrested Ms. Krigsman went against NYPD orders to stand down on arrests of women for “merely exposing their breasts in public.” This should be an interesting case to follow, however I remain skeptical about what damages she actually suffered in those five hours she was detained. Let’s get the Keep A Breast organization on this with their “I Love Boobies” campaign.

Robbin Antony

Rob Antony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Right to be Topless in Public – Clothes Are Optional NYC appeared first on Law Street.

New York City is home to 8.3 million people, with more visiting from out of town every day. This concrete jungle may be where dreams are made of, but it is one chaotic place to live. Don’t get me wrong, I love living in the greatest city in the world, but sometimes I really don’t understand what goes through people’s minds on a daily basis. The simplest tasks, such as walking down the street, become stressful, and I really have no clue why I feel like the odd one out. It seems like I learned an entirely different set of life rules growing up in a New England town, and I greatly wish New Yorkers would adhere to them as well. There are some common rules to live by that I thought were universal, or at least widespread in the United States.

You’re on the subway, and it’s packed, and an elderly person gets on. Do you get up? Well, that would be the polite thing to do, perhaps even the moral thing. But in New York I am constantly infuriated that elderly, disabled, or pregnant people are forced to stand on a crowded subway car because others refuse to give up their seats. While I’m stuck standing to begin with, there’s really nothing I can do. I can’t force any of the other young people to stand up, so I shake my head and grumble to myself. Maybe you had a long day at work, or maybe you’re tired, but really, let someone who is less fortunate than you take a seat.

My mom always told me never to stare at people while they’re eating. I never really understood why she insisted, but now that I’ve experienced what it feels like to be stared down while I’m chowing down, I completely understand. NYC is home to many restaurants with window seating, and instead of casually glancing in while walking past, passerby literally stop, stand, and stare. I’m not a zoo animal, here. I’m just simply trying to enjoy my lunch before heading back to the office. For some reason, New Yorkers (or, tourists, who knows?) are really interested in the food I’m eating. Yelp was created for a reason. Please use it.

Now the last thing that really irks me in New York, is walking. That may sound silly, but sometimes walking to school can be one the most stressful moments of my day. Why, you ask? Several reasons. First, whatever happened to the common sense rule that you walk on the right side of the sidewalk? Not down the middle, not on the left, on the right! Maybe you’re a tourist from England. If that’s the case you are a bit excused. But the rest of you? Come on, people! And the same thing goes for stopping in the middle of the sidewalk. With the dozens of people sure to be shopping in SoHo at any moment, you really can’t just stop in the middle. Move over. It’s that simple. And before you get mad at me for complaining about people who may have a genuine health problem and need to stop, or walk slowly, the answer is simple. Just most over. Walk all the way to the right. Let those of us who actually have somewhere to be go by. And then we’ll all walk together in an organized manner.

So whether you live in New York, or you’re just visiting, please remember to be respectful to those around you. Our lives will all be a little bit better if we can remember what we learned as a child and apply them to the world we live in now.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Jack Siah via Flickr]

Christina Teoli

Christina Teoli is a founding member of Law Street Media and a graduate of New York Law School. Contact Christina at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How to Walk in New York and Other Commonsense Rules appeared first on Law Street.