Ned Otter, a member of A.R.T.I.S.T (Artists’ Response To Illegal State Tactics), has been putting out the word to fight proposed amendments which, if passed, would seriously damage 1st Amendment rights of NYC citizens to sell or show their creations publicly. 
The hearing, on the morning of Friday November 14th, will concern eight of nineteen amendments to NYC vending laws. Of these, four, numbered 828, 830, 832 and 846, affect artists. If passed, they will impose severe restrictions upon art vendors, which contradict 1st amendment laws protecting NYC citizens who sell art, books and newspapers as purveyors of free speech.
Ned Otter has been selling 1960’s photos of Greenwich Village, on the actual Village sidwalks, since May of 2005. Having lived in various parts of Manhattan over the years, he moved to SOHO in March 2007. The photos he gladly shares with people at large were originally taken by his father, Robert Otter.
According to Ned, Robert Otter’s photos never had much public exposure, although he did have friends who peeked in on him, in a dark room he had for awhile at Our Lady of Pompeii Church, on the corner of Bleecker and Carmine Streets.
The photographs depict various scenes of places and people in real life Greenwich Village in the 1960s. Robert Otter did take photos of other Manhattan nabes, but Ned seems to prefer showing off the Village pics best. In these remarkable photos there is no posing, no pretention. Small business owners, students in Washington Square Park, and those cute little Volkswagen bugs, exemplify the late Robert Otter’s focus, as the city he called home.
Having left the computer industry to sell art, Robert Otter’s son Ned, has a moral fiber clearly of the stuff to fight infringements upon the freedoms of the street artist.
Ned told of the importance of art vendors to make a show at the hearing so their voices could be on the record. Vendors like himself, already have to contend with some restrictions on the books because they are vendors. While the proposed amendments of concern claim to be written in the name of public safety, scrutiny of the verbage reveals no real sense behind the wording. Combined, the proposals are extremely lengthy, petty and redundant.
Says Ned Otter ” Councilman Alan Gerson headed these proposals, and said they were needed to ’simplify and clarify existing law.’ But they don’t simplify anything. They are just add-ons that confuse matters.”
Ned Otter is no stranger to confronting nonsensical laws. At one time, he found himself in court over an ECB violation for not having his cart up against the edge of the sidewalk. The purpose of the law, it appears, was to keep the sidewalk clear for pedestrian safety.
“If I do that, my body is literally in the street”said Ned Otter. Obviously being in the street with traffic is far less safe than having a cart a few inches from the sidewalk edge.
According to Otter, his judge felt that the intent behind the written law had not taken Ned’s situation into account when created, and he was let go without a fine. Otter now keeps a copy of all vending laws with him whenver he works on the street. He feels he has to, just to protect himself from unjust fines, and recommends other vendors do the same.
“People tend to vend in ingorance. One lady who sold jewelry was told she did not need a license to sell her art. What she did not realize was she had received ill information. New York does not recognize jewelry as an art, but rather a craft, which is treated differently.”
According to Ned, the feeling of A.R.T.I.S.T is that the proposals were created to give BIDs - Business Improvement Districts - more power in New York. BIDs provide corporate sponsorship to city events such as parades, festivals and so on.
Otter spoke to me of PEP officers, hired by BIDs to move vendors away from areas they manage, such as Bryant park, whenver they see fit. “BIDs manage the spaces, but they don’t own them. We have a constitutional right to be there.”
Otter also mentioned Sunset Park as a target for BIDs to set a precedent in law. Proposal number 846 is the longest of those objected to, and talks specifically about regulating Sunset Park. According to Mr. Otter, no ARTIST member works there, and the area is not frequented by artists. If no one speaks up because they are not from Sunset Park, the proposals could pass, opening the floodgates for similar laws to be passed for many other neighborhoods.
These and other such past proposals, such as to limit the number of people in a public gathering and to prohibit still pictures under many circumstances, have all been part of the New York City movement to privatize public spaces.
Mr. Otter kindly created a link to basic 1st amendment vendor law, and a detailed objection to the proposals from ARTIST president Robert Lederman. Individual artists like those in the Otter family have historically been a critical part of New York City’s cultural fabric and overall fabulousness. Restricting their business and their rights to please corporations, is akin to biting the hand that fed you from the start.
Please write to Councilman Gerson and say you object to these violations of the 1st amendment.
http://www.robertotter.com/1stAmemdment.html
And if possible attend the hearing of the NYC Council Committee of Consumer affairs, at City Hall.
There will be protests by artists which you can certainly join at 9am. It would be best to show up before 9am while everyone gets organized, at the East Gate of City Hall, on Park Row. These same artists will be heard at 10am.
You can also contact Lacey Clarke, Legislative Council Commmittee on Consumer Affairs, NYC, 212-788-7006.
