They Just Don't Get It

City Commissioner George Gardner

----- Original Message -----

From: "George Gardner"

To: plazanews@mail.com

Subject: gardner calling

Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 18:38:51 -0400
Artist and entertainer venue –



Commissioners endorsed a proposal by Commissioner Gardner to use the south half of our Colonial Spanish Quarter – recently closed off by the city Heritage Department – for street entertainers and artists, who have been banned from St. George Street and restricted in use of our Plaza.. Gardner said it will be up to artists and entertainers to organize and assist in developing a workable plan, “but I would think any profit-motivated business would be happy with the opportunity to set up off a street with thousands of pedestrians a day.”
so where are you now??


Reply


Dear Commissioner Gardner,


Where am I now? I'm in my studio off Moultie Road. I'll be in the Plaza next Saturday with my artworks. If you like one I'll sell it to you at a good price. Whoever said that we are profit motivated? We know that some may find it hard to believe but this is not our highest priority.
If you are to make this Spanish Quarter thing workable you will have to discuss this with a street entertainer. The visual artists already have their venues. The city has consistently confused the visual artists with street performers and at times with homeless vagrants. Like it or not, the courts (not our county courts) have confirmed that visual art (paintings, prints, sculpture and photographs) has full First Amendment protection. This includes display and SALE of such protected items on public streets, sidewalks and parks.

Your city administrators have already suggested Pomar Park as a venue. Do we need to discuss this with those who would make such a ridiculous statement?

The proposal of a lottery for spaces to sell full first amendment material has already been struck down by the federal courts as unconstitutional.

Just prior to Hurricane Katrina, artists in New Orleans were challenging the $15 annual fee.(when St. Augustine's was 1000 dollars) Permits are not required since Hurricane Katrina. Hats, donations and art sales are meager. Rather than use other cities as a model perhaps legal should find out if the other city's "regulations" are legal. Key West permits artists throughout the city for a 45 dollar annual fee purchased in the month of November only. The Key West Cultural Preservation Society founded by a friend of mine, Will Soto, administers the Mallory Dock area in Key West. This program is now a slick commercial enterprise that bears no resemblance (to) the original concept when I painted there in the late seventies. It has been privatized as a revenue stream for the city of Key West.St. Augustine can create a viable and constitutional model. Look to the (Federal) courts for guidance. We had forwarded a model ordinance over two years ago with a request to make a presentation to the commission. We were refused the opportunity to do so.

The Colonial Heritage Quarter locale for artists seems to fly in the face of the argument by city hired attorney Michael Kahn that we upset the historical ambiance of this ancient city. We are referred to as a "visual blight"" in his latest argument against our appeal. Again, we are consistently referred to as "street performers". We visual artists are very good at self policing and conscious of creating a good impression of our city. Controlling pickle bucket drummers is another matter.....not our job, Commissioner.The courts state that visual artists have a "bundle of rights" that street performers do not have. You are being mislead (and so is uninformed County Judge Tinlin) that if we allow visual artists we must permit all. This is absolutely not the case.Thank you for the Spanish Colonial Quarter idea bit the artists I know clearly understand where our rightful venue is and it is not there.

This proposal brings to mind Butler Beach where the African Americans were "permitted" in the 60's. seperate and away from public view.Mr. Gardner, we do not forget that you voted to have us removed from the majority of the streets in St. Augustine.

Gregory Travous (Suvo)

Note: Today is Saturday and I am still in my studio ......... staring at a half finished watercolor

George The Lame Duck

Left, Little Red Riding Hood , Right, Commissioner George Gardner

At one time we were told that city commissioner and former mayor George Gardner was sympathetic to the free speech rights of visual artists. Gardner has decided not to run for another term. As a former print reporter George was good at telling everybody what they wanted to hear but short on following through. Artist Suvo can tell you that Gardner rudely took three phone calls as he (Suvo) tried to discuss this issue with the commish. "The guy is a phony", says Suvo. "He was completely uninformed and it was clear that he had made up his mind, I was ushered out after only a few minutes."His vote to have artists expelled from the historic district was joined by the other four commissioners. Gardner sent out an e mail newsletter where he explained that this was done because County Judge Tinlin ruled that all vendors (sun glass merchants, flea market items etc.) must be permitted or the alternative would be to ban all vending in the historic district including First Amendment protected materials ( paintings, prints, sculpture and photographs) This fallacy was repeated in the press by Mayor Joe Boles and Erroll Jones. The St. Augustine Record also reported this as fact. City prosecutor Robin Upchurch included this as "fact" in her presentations to the commissioners.(See The Big Lie) Here is the truth:

"The Court finds that the ordinance 22-6 as applied to the defendants is an unconstitutional restriction "of their freedom of speech or expression as guaranteed under the First and Fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution as well as Article One of the Florida Constitution." St. Johns County,St. Augustine FL. Heard 9/26/07 by County Court Judge Charles Tinlin. Decision rendered 10/10/08

Anyone following this case could read Tinlin's decision on this blog. Nothing in the judges decision states that the city must permit all merchandising or ban all merchandising. We do not agree with his entire interpretation some of which is faulty and flies in the face of the First Amendment. There is a substantial difference in what is protected speech guaranteed by the First Amendment and other "merchandise such as jewelry and beads.

So long Commissioner. We prefer to have those who disagree with us to be direct and say so. Go back to your "do nothing" committees and workshops.