Support Our Bills for a study on NYers' rights to free admission to city institutions
603 Comments
C
Cindy Stein
3 years ago
We pay taxes supporting those buildings. We should have access
D
Dina Mezquida
3 years ago
I hope the bill passes so kids can enjoy the different museums and zoos. It’s Educational and they learn so many wonderful things.
A
Anonymous
3 years ago
10028. You're my representatives, do your job, here's my vote.
P
Pat Nicholson
3 years ago
For 150 years, neither the City nor the State codified the laws and supporting contracts to ensure compliance with the laws. That's the importance of having the ...study... called for by the bills' sponsors. The ...study... will take one year and at the end of that time, a report with recommendations must be provided. Ask family and friends to sign the Petition as well to demonstrate our appreciation to the bills' sponsors and their efforts on our behalf.
P
Pat Nicholson
3 years ago
Washington DC generally is a ...Smithsonian... city. Thus, the collections are ...owned... by the government. In NYC's public-private partnership arrangement, the ...private... organization ...owns... the collection. That's an important difference.
P
Pat Nicholson
3 years ago
Thank you. Your signature ...sign[ed]... you up to support the Petition. Yet, I presume you infer ...sign me up... for the bills to be passed so that NYC is held accountable to enforce the laws and contracts providing for New Yorkers' free rights now subsidized with $1 Billion annually in direct and indirect subsidies.
E
Elizabeth pava
3 years ago
Sign me up,
F
Florence Fisher
3 years ago
Wash.DC offers that!
J
Jane Cibener
3 years ago
My high taxes should have paid my admission for years!
P
Pat Nicholson
3 years ago
The public-private partnership laws provide the terms of New Yorkers' free access in exchange for the park institutions' rent-free use of City-owned buildings and park land. Too, if the institutions would publicize that what New Yorkers pay, if they choose, is a ...contribution.... or a ...donations..., a pay what you wish policy could apply. But, these institutions use the term ...admission... and thus suggest that the ...amount paid... is a required fee. New Yorkers pay by virtue of forfeited rental income, which in 2018 was more than $700 Million. These institutions were intended as ...aids to education... and ...park activities.
E
Elaine Brennan
3 years ago
I have paid memberships to many of these, but not everyone can afford that. Plus, entrance fees for a whole family can get quite pricey. Our taxes help these institutions, free/pay whst you wish should temain the policy.
P
Pat Nicholson
3 years ago
The intention of a mid-1800's public-private partnership was to ensure that in exchange for providing the park institutions the use of valued park land and rent-free use of City-owned buildings, New Yorkers were to use the institutions as "park activities" as part of a "park education campus", in exchange for what now amount to subsidies in excess of $1 Billion annually. For sure, New Yorkers should benefit from that which we pay for.
P
Pat Nicholson
3 years ago
Until 1970, when The Metropolitan Museum of Art introduced its "pay-what-you-wish but you-must-pay-something, even one penny" admission policy, the museums generally were free except for the days their laws or contracts left up to them whether they would charge a fee. For The Met Museum, for instance, one paid a fee only two days in the week. A mid-1800's public-private partnership, spelling out the consideration these park institutions are to provide for what now is $1 Billion annually in costs and free rent, has yet to be codified. The study bills provides that New York City's Department of Cultural Affairs and Parks Department, finally undertake to do the work that should have been done decades ago.
P
Pat Nicholson
3 years ago
The sentiments exactly of the mid-1800's public-private partnership, where Central Park Governor and Department of Education President Andrew Green, declared that the only way New Yorkers would undertake to fund the designation of valuable park land and the construction of City-owned buildings thereon, was if New Yorkers were to receive consideration; to wit, free access and instruction. These two bills insist that City oversight agencies undertak to codify the rights of New Yorkers and ensure compliance by the park institutions, which has not been done for more than 150 years.
P
Pat Nicholson
3 years ago
For these 17 park institutions, there was a mid-1800's public-private partnership that spelled out the rights of the institutions and New York City residents and taxpayers: for rent-free use of City-owned, park land and buildings, New Yorkers were to receive free access and instruction. Yet, in 150 years, not one City administration undertook to codify the laws and contracts in favor of New Yorkers' free access rights. These joint study bills undertakes to insist, that after a year of study with government entities, including New York City's Department of Cultural Affairs and Department of Parks, that a report must be prepared to filed.
C
cindy c
3 years ago
agreed! as part of NYC resident, these fees should be waived
P
Peter
3 years ago
We pay heavy taxes in NYC, so why not some benefits !
S
Sima Paskowitz
3 years ago
Most of these were free when I was a child. We went all the time. It made a big difference in our lives.
A
Anonymous
3 years ago
I loved being a zoo member but prices increased and I could no longer afford to go. I cant afford musuems and outings with all this inflation. Poorer people should not be deprived of the pleasure and education these venues provide.
We pay taxes supporting those buildings. We should have access
I hope the bill passes so kids can enjoy the different museums and zoos. It’s Educational and they learn so many wonderful things.
10028. You're my representatives, do your job, here's my vote.
For 150 years, neither the City nor the State codified the laws and supporting contracts to ensure compliance with the laws. That's the importance of having the ...study... called for by the bills' sponsors. The ...study... will take one year and at the end of that time, a report with recommendations must be provided. Ask family and friends to sign the Petition as well to demonstrate our appreciation to the bills' sponsors and their efforts on our behalf.
Washington DC generally is a ...Smithsonian... city. Thus, the collections are ...owned... by the government. In NYC's public-private partnership arrangement, the ...private... organization ...owns... the collection. That's an important difference.
Thank you. Your signature ...sign[ed]... you up to support the Petition. Yet, I presume you infer ...sign me up... for the bills to be passed so that NYC is held accountable to enforce the laws and contracts providing for New Yorkers' free rights now subsidized with $1 Billion annually in direct and indirect subsidies.
Sign me up,
Wash.DC offers that!
My high taxes should have paid my admission for years!
The public-private partnership laws provide the terms of New Yorkers' free access in exchange for the park institutions' rent-free use of City-owned buildings and park land. Too, if the institutions would publicize that what New Yorkers pay, if they choose, is a ...contribution.... or a ...donations..., a pay what you wish policy could apply. But, these institutions use the term ...admission... and thus suggest that the ...amount paid... is a required fee. New Yorkers pay by virtue of forfeited rental income, which in 2018 was more than $700 Million. These institutions were intended as ...aids to education... and ...park activities.
I have paid memberships to many of these, but not everyone can afford that. Plus, entrance fees for a whole family can get quite pricey. Our taxes help these institutions, free/pay whst you wish should temain the policy.
The intention of a mid-1800's public-private partnership was to ensure that in exchange for providing the park institutions the use of valued park land and rent-free use of City-owned buildings, New Yorkers were to use the institutions as "park activities" as part of a "park education campus", in exchange for what now amount to subsidies in excess of $1 Billion annually. For sure, New Yorkers should benefit from that which we pay for.
Until 1970, when The Metropolitan Museum of Art introduced its "pay-what-you-wish but you-must-pay-something, even one penny" admission policy, the museums generally were free except for the days their laws or contracts left up to them whether they would charge a fee. For The Met Museum, for instance, one paid a fee only two days in the week. A mid-1800's public-private partnership, spelling out the consideration these park institutions are to provide for what now is $1 Billion annually in costs and free rent, has yet to be codified. The study bills provides that New York City's Department of Cultural Affairs and Parks Department, finally undertake to do the work that should have been done decades ago.
The sentiments exactly of the mid-1800's public-private partnership, where Central Park Governor and Department of Education President Andrew Green, declared that the only way New Yorkers would undertake to fund the designation of valuable park land and the construction of City-owned buildings thereon, was if New Yorkers were to receive consideration; to wit, free access and instruction. These two bills insist that City oversight agencies undertak to codify the rights of New Yorkers and ensure compliance by the park institutions, which has not been done for more than 150 years.
For these 17 park institutions, there was a mid-1800's public-private partnership that spelled out the rights of the institutions and New York City residents and taxpayers: for rent-free use of City-owned, park land and buildings, New Yorkers were to receive free access and instruction. Yet, in 150 years, not one City administration undertook to codify the laws and contracts in favor of New Yorkers' free access rights. These joint study bills undertakes to insist, that after a year of study with government entities, including New York City's Department of Cultural Affairs and Department of Parks, that a report must be prepared to filed.
agreed! as part of NYC resident, these fees should be waived
We pay heavy taxes in NYC, so why not some benefits !
Most of these were free when I was a child. We went all the time. It made a big difference in our lives.
I loved being a zoo member but prices increased and I could no longer afford to go. I cant afford musuems and outings with all this inflation. Poorer people should not be deprived of the pleasure and education these venues provide.
NYC DO YOUR PART.