Mayor Adams expands key safety program to Central Park to crack down on aggressive pedicabs, illegal hawking
Mayor Eric Adams is expanding his multi-agency safety initiative to Central Park in a push to address quality-of-life concerns in the city's most iconic green space.
The expansion of the administration's 'Community Link' program will bring in 20 city agencies and cultural institutions as part of a coordinated response to various issues, such as illegal vending, unlicensed pedicabs, excessive noise and park rule violations.
'Central Park is the backyard of New York City,' Adams said. 'Everyone — families, kids, joggers, cyclists, and tourists — must be safe and feel safe while enjoying this iconic space.'
Mayor Adams announced the Community Link expansion Friday
Ed Reed/Mayoral Photography Office
The new initiative, dubbed the Central Park Conservancy Partnership, includes increased enforcement by the NYPD, Parks Enforcement Patrol and the Central Park Conservancy's new Ranger Corps.
Adams said the extra effort will result in a safer and cleaner Central Park.
The program expands on previous Community Link deployments in New York City's worst crime and drug-ridden neighborhoods like Midtown West and Roosevelt Avenue.
A Community Link initiative has already been operating along the park's northern edge at 110th Street. The enforcement has resulted in over 1,000 summonses and 111 arrests since it began in April 2024.
Year-to-date data showed a 50% drop in crime in the Central Park Precinct, including a 90% reduction in robberies and a nearly 29% decline in grand larcenies, according to the mayor's office.
A cornerstone of the Central Park crackdown that Adams announced Friday is the newly launched Central Park Ranger Corps, which now patrols the park daily.
Betsy Smith, president and CEO of the Central Park Conservancy, said it makes the park more 'welcoming and enjoyable.'
'Central Park is one of the most visited places in the country, with millions of visitors every year,' Smith said.
'This creates unique challenges in how we manage the use of shared space for the benefit of everyone.'
Though they do not have enforcement authority, Rangers serve as visible guides and liaisons, responding to complaints, supporting first responders and addressing recurring issues like dogs off-leash, misuse of e-bikes and aggressive solicitation by pedicab or horse carriage drivers.
The New York Pedicab Association will also partner with the interagency task force to rein in rogue pedicab drivers and educate terrorized park-goers of their rights and how to report violations.
To support the stepped-up enforcement and further deter crime, the NYPD, Parks Department and Department of Transportation are also repairing lighting and installing security cameras.
'We are working to make the park more welcoming and enjoyable for everyone,' Smith said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court shuts down Mexico's lawsuit against American gunmakers
The Supreme Court on Thursday tossed out a lawsuit from the Mexican government that alleged American gun manufacturers should be held responsible for cartel violence on the Southwest border, a decision that shields the companies from a suit that had claimed billions in damages. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the opinion for a unanimous court explaining why the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which allows suits to go forward if they're based on an underlying violation of a state or federal law, doesn't allow the suit against Mexico to proceed: 'Mexico's complaint does not plausibly allege that the defendant manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers' unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers,' Kagan wrote for the court. 'We have little doubt that, as the complaint asserts, some such sales take place – and that the manufacturers know they do.' 'The predicate exception allows for accomplice liability only when a plaintiff makes a plausible allegation that a gun manufacturer 'participate[d] in' a firearms violation 'as in something that [it] wishe[d] to bring about' and sought to make succeed,' Kagan added. 'Because Mexico's complaint fails to do so, the defendant manufacturers retain their PLCAA-granted immunity.' Mexico's suit landed at a particularly fraught moment in its relationship with the US, as President Donald Trump has leaned on the country to further scale back the flow of migrants and drugs heading north. The litigation, filed in 2021, was something of a counterpoint, focusing on an American product that is contributing to the chaos at the border. Generally, such lawsuits against the gun industry are barred by a 2005 law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, that prohibits plaintiffs from suing companies over crimes committed with the guns they make. Mexico was attempting to navigate its suit through a narrow exception in that law. Mexico sued Smith & Wesson and six other US gunmakers for $10 billion in damages, alleging that the companies design and market their guns specifically to drug cartels that then use them in the 'killing and maiming of children, judges, journalists, police, and ordinary citizens throughout Mexico.' That, Mexico said, amounted to 'aiding and abetting' firearms trafficking to the cartels – an act that, the country said, should qualify for an exemption to the 2005 law. The Mexican government said that between 70% and 90% of guns recovered at crime scenes in its country are made in the US. There is only one gun store in all of Mexico, its lawyers said, and 'yet the nation is awash in guns.' Some of those weapons, Mexico said, appeared to be marketed directly to gangs, with advertisements focused on their 'military-grade' and with names like the Super 'El Jefe.' But even some of the Supreme Court's liberals, who have tended to side with gun control groups in the past, said during oral arguments in March that they were concerned with the implications of Mexico's suit. Though the case did not involve the Second Amendment, gun rights groups, including the National Rifle Association, said the lawsuit was an indirect effort to 'destroy' the American firearms industry by making it easier to sue companies for huge sums. A federal district court backed the gunmakers, blocking the suit from moving forward. But the Boston-based 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals concluded Mexico's suit could proceed. The gun companies appealed to the Supreme Court last spring. The Supreme Court has been hesitant to allow people to sue companies for indirect damages in other contexts as well. In 2023, the high court rejected a suit from the victim of a 2017 terrorist attack in Turkey who claimed the social media company then known as Twitter contributed to the attack by hosting content tied to ISIS. In a unanimous decision, the court said the connection between the content at issue and the attack was too tenuous to allow the family to sue. This story is breaking and will be updated.
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court rejects Mexican govt suit against gun makers
The US Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a $10 billion lawsuit by the Mexican government accusing American gun manufacturers of fueling drug cartel violence. In a unanimous 9-0 opinion, the top court said a federal law -- the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) -- shields the gun makers from liability. "Mexico's lead claim -- that the manufacturers elect to sell guns to, among others, known rogue dealers -- fails to clear that bar," said Justice Elena Kagan, the author of the opinion. "Mexico's complaint does not plausibly allege that the defendant manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers' unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers." Gun maker Smith & Wesson and gun distributor Interstate Arms had sought dismissal of the Mexican government's suit, which has been winding its way through US courts since 2021. Mexico, which is under mounting pressure from President Donald Trump to curb drug trafficking, had accused the firearms makers of "aiding and abetting" illegal gun sales because they allegedly know that some of their products were being unlawfully sold to the drug cartels. A federal judge tossed out the case in 2022 saying Mexico's claims failed to overcome the protection of the PLCAA, which was passed by Congress in 2005 and shields US gunmakers from liability for criminals misusing their products. An appeals court revived the case citing an exception to the law, and Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms sought relief from the Supreme Court. A majority of the justices on the conservative-dominated top US court appeared to side with the firearms companies during more than 90 minutes of oral arguments in March. Mexico maintains that 70-90 percent of the weapons recovered at crime scenes have been trafficked from the United States. The US southern neighbor tightly controls firearms sales, making them practically impossible to obtain legally. Even so, drug-related violence has seen more than 480,000 people killed in Mexico since the government deployed the army to combat trafficking in 2006, according to official figures. Catherine Stetson, representing the Mexican government before the Supreme Court, said 600,000 US guns are illegally trafficked into Mexico every year and some companies are even "designing certain guns to target the Mexican market," giving them Spanish names such as "El Jefe." The case comes against a backdrop of US-Mexico trade tensions with Trump threatening tariffs on imports from Mexico, citing a lack of progress in stemming the flow of drugs such as fentanyl into the United States. cl/md
CNBC
31 minutes ago
- CNBC
Supreme Court rejects Mexico's lawsuit against U.S. gun makers
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday threw out the Mexican government's lawsuit against U.S. firearms manufacturers accusing them of aiding and abetting gun violence. The court ruled unanimously in a ruling authored by Justice Elena Kagan that the lawsuit is barred by a 2005 federal law that shields gun companies from legal liability. The 2021 lawsuit accused Smith & Wesson, Colt and other companies of deliberately selling guns to dealers who sell products that are frequently recovered at Mexican crime scenes. The Mexican government accused the companies of "aiding and abetting" violations of U.S. law, which they had argued means the gun makers were not protected by the federal immunity shield, called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Mexico is seeking up to $10 billion in damages. The case at the Supreme Court involved two companies — Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms. Other manufacturers, including Glock and Colt, successfully had claims against them tossed out. A federal judge initially ruled for the manufacturers, but the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived the case last year, saying the liability shield did not extend to Mexico's specific claims. The case reached the Supreme Court following increased tensions between American and Mexican leaders after the election of President Donald Trump, who has cited drug trafficking and gang violence in Mexico amid his crackdown on illegal immigrants. Democrats in Congress have introduced legislation intended to reduce the flow of guns across the border, which they estimate to total at least 200,000 a year.
