Question about private park at Occupy Wall Street (Liberty, Brookfield: construction, college)

[RoseEn]

I am a college student writing a paper on the Occupy Wall Street phenomenon.
Question: Since the park is privately owned, does the owner have any obligation to the city when it comes to its use?

[Nicole111]

No, he doesn't, but it's become a political quagmire. Last week the owner wanted to clear out the park for cleaning purposes only, and he was threatened by a number of local politicians, the Manhattan Borough President being one of them (Bloomberg has affirmed that this is true). The only park regulation that's being enforced is the prohibition against tents. However, the protesters skirted the intent of the regs and merely complied with their literal restrictions by thereinafter erecting tarps. I guess it's a question of tarps protesting TARP.

[Airborneguy]

Yes. The private owners are required to have the park available for public use.

[Kefir King]

These newer developed "parks" are usually put in by developers in exchange for enhancements, like higher than legally zoned buildings, more square footage, tax breaks, etc.

So they can best be looked at as both private and public...privately owned but for public use.

There's no philanthropy on the part of Brookfield Properties, the current owner.

The Park was developed by U.S. Steel as Liberty Park Plaza which was severely damaged in the collapse of the Trade Centers and was spiffed up by Brookfield and named after their chairman...John Zuccotti.

I recall there was some sort of negotiations where BROOKFIELD wanted to develop part of the new WTC site...not sure how that played into park redevelopment? I'm also not sure what the 1968 quid-pro-quo was for U.S. Steel... probably something to do with rights in the original WTC construction? (Like "use our steel" perhaps????)
These deals are never too public.