So you all know by know that Measure I was defeated by a landslide. Seriously, it was a drubbing of major proportions. Over 62% of voters rejected the measure. That’s almost the opposite of what the City needed to approve it (66%). Wow. So thanks, people, for sending such a strong message. (Come celebrate with us at our victory party tomorrow - Friday - at Ozumo, 6:00 p.m.).
Now, of course it is disappointing that the voter turnout was so abysmal (less than 25%). But I also think that this speaks volumes about residents’ overall disenchantment with our leadership, as well as the ridiculousness of this completely unnecessary mail-in election in the first place. The fact that the other two measures, H and J, were also soundly defeated, pretty much puts the exclamation point on the statement: “You guys are idiots and your idea of solutions for our problems are ridiculous!”
Quan, of course, is already making excuses and threats, as predicted. She’s claiming that the Occupy situation took her focus off of campaigning. This statement is dishonest and absurd. Even prior to Batts’ resignation, a poll indicated that Measure I’s approval was at around 54%, nowhere near what was needed to pass. Then Batts resigned, and its chances of passing fell further. But to top it all off, the City’s handling of the Occupation was incomprehensible. All those people out there who hadn’t seen for themselves exactly how inept and wasteful our government really was with our money, suddenly had a front row seat. First, weeks went by with City leaders doing nothing while the downtown area was taken over by the homeless, bored college students, drug dealers, drug users, anarchists, left-over hippies and whatnot. Then Quan leaves town for some trip to D.C., and her City Administrator and interim police chief are put in charge of the raid on the encampment, which was a P.R. disaster, and cost a fortune, not including all the lawsuits and settlements that may result. But even worse, they let everybody come back to set up an even bigger and messier camp than before, meaning that the original raid was a complete and total waste of money. There is absolutely no disputing the fact that this was the biggest, fastest and most obvious waste of $1,000,000 most taxpayers had ever seen. It was staring them right in the face. So anybody who may have been on the fence about Measure I before, regardless of whether they loved or hated Occupy, would likely have voted no at that stage. If Quan doesn’t realize this, well, I don’t know what to say. Oh, and by the way, she apparently also doesn’t realize she’s not legally allowed to “campaign” anyway, at least not on City time.
Now she’s going around claiming that our police force is going to shrink even more, potholes won’t get filled, libraries will have to be closed, blah, blah blah. Like she’s going to get revenge on the voters that rejected her stupid tax. Of course, she could be talking about how now pensions will have to be reformed, salaries and benefits will have to be trimmed, non-essential social services like Kids First will have to go etc. But no, she’s not saying any of that.
Well, Jean better be careful with all of that doom and gloom revenge talk. Why? Because a recall petition has been filed! Her approval rating is at 15%! Not to mention that after Occupy, she has lost her credibility entirely.
In any event, we need to celebrate the small victories, because those of us that want true reform, accountability and a safer Oakland still have a lot of work ahead of us. See you tomorrow!
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Monday, November 7, 2011
Time For A Resolution Demanding Occupy Oakland Camp Removal
In response to my email yesterday, Pat Kernighan replied that she, and in her opinion, most of the other council members had voiced opposition to the ongoing encampment. Here is my response:
Pat:
Thanks for reiterating that you oppose the encampment. However, I indicated in my email that “many” public officials want to openly support the Occupiers. I didn’t say “all.” Notably, Nancy Nadel sponsored a Resolution that was the subject of the long meeting last week. Did you or any of the other council members sponsor a Resolution condemning the encampment, the violence, the blight, the loss to business, the assaults on police, the burden to taxpayers, and demanding an immediate removal of the encampment? No, you did not. Rather, you allowed the Nadel Resolution to be the sole topic of conversation. And many of our elected officials did, in fact, seem supportive of this absurd and overtly illegal Resolution (Ms. Kaplan and Ms. Brunner). And while Ms. Quan didn’t go so far as to endorse the Resolution, she certainly hasn’t taken any action to have the encampment removed, which is, in essence, a move in support of it.
Attached is a link to a blog posting about the apparent (serious?) discussion of moving the campers to alternative locations, including the Rockridge Safeway parking lot, or Woodminster. I sincerely hope that the email prompting this post was a hoax! Please, tell me it was a hoax! The City can’t seriously be considering these locations as an alternative? http://blog.sfgate.com/abraham/2011/11/07/occupy-oakland-update-schaaf-not-in-favor-of-move-plan/
To the extent that the Nadel Resolution is still on the table, and to the extent that the City would be insane enough to consider simply relocating the Occupiers to spread the misery around Oakland, let me emphasize that allowing the encampment to remain ANYWHERE on public space is blatantly illegal. As I have previously indicated earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court held years ago that camping is not protected speech. But regardless of that fact, the Resolution, on its face, endorses a particular viewpoint (I.e. the sentiment of the Occupiers), and proposes allowing the campers to stay indefinitely solely because of the (presumed) endorsement of this viewpoint by the City of Oakland. The Resolution, therefore, on its face constitutes content and viewpoint discrimination, which has repeatedly been denounced by the U.S. Supreme Court in multiple decisions as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. See Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley (1972) 408 U.S. 92; Carey v. Brown (1980) 447 U.s. 455; U.S. v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. (2000) 120 S. Ct. 1878.
“To allow a government the choice of permissible subjects for public debate would be to allow that government control over the search for the political truth.” Consol. Edis. Co. v. Public Serv. Commn. (1980) 447 U.S. 530, 538. And to allow the government to target (or promote) particular views or subjects permits the government to greatly distort the marketplace of ideas. Kenneth L. Karst, Equality as a Central Principle In the First Amendment, 43 Univ. Chicago L. Rev. (1975).
Viewpoint restrictions “pose the inherent risk that the Government seeks not to advance a legitimate regulatory goal, but to suppress unpopular ideas or information or manipulate the public debate through coercion rather than persuasion.” Turner Broadcast Sys. Inc. v. FCC (1994) 512 U.S. 622, 641. Most recently, the Second Circuit upheld summary judgment against a city for trying to require a $1 million liability insurance policy for a peace rally at a public park, but imposed no such requirement for a group espousing a different “viewpoint.” See Alexandra Coe v. Town of Blooming Grove & Village of Washingtonville (2nd. Cir. 2011).
Applying the law above, allowing the Occupiers to stay, or simply moving them around so that other districts are equally burdened with the blight and crime, or to ensure that their message continues to be “heard,” is blatantly illegal, particularly under the proposed Resolution, which proposes such accommodations for this particular far left-wing group. Are you prepared to offer such accommodations for the Ku Klux Klan, the Tea Party, the NRA, the Right-to-Lifers, or the Prop 8 Supporters? If not, prepare to get sued. And lose.
Today, I was contacted by somebody who was interested in retaining me for this purpose. Unfortunately, I can’t, due to existing conflicts with my regular job, but I’ll definitely try to refer her. By the way, I hope you have checked out the ACLU’s webpage - they already have you in their cross hairs. In the meantime, I urge you to immediately draft a resolution condemning the encampment and demanding its immediate removal.
Pat:
Thanks for reiterating that you oppose the encampment. However, I indicated in my email that “many” public officials want to openly support the Occupiers. I didn’t say “all.” Notably, Nancy Nadel sponsored a Resolution that was the subject of the long meeting last week. Did you or any of the other council members sponsor a Resolution condemning the encampment, the violence, the blight, the loss to business, the assaults on police, the burden to taxpayers, and demanding an immediate removal of the encampment? No, you did not. Rather, you allowed the Nadel Resolution to be the sole topic of conversation. And many of our elected officials did, in fact, seem supportive of this absurd and overtly illegal Resolution (Ms. Kaplan and Ms. Brunner). And while Ms. Quan didn’t go so far as to endorse the Resolution, she certainly hasn’t taken any action to have the encampment removed, which is, in essence, a move in support of it.
Attached is a link to a blog posting about the apparent (serious?) discussion of moving the campers to alternative locations, including the Rockridge Safeway parking lot, or Woodminster. I sincerely hope that the email prompting this post was a hoax! Please, tell me it was a hoax! The City can’t seriously be considering these locations as an alternative? http://blog.sfgate.com/abraham/2011/11/07/occupy-oakland-update-schaaf-not-in-favor-of-move-plan/
To the extent that the Nadel Resolution is still on the table, and to the extent that the City would be insane enough to consider simply relocating the Occupiers to spread the misery around Oakland, let me emphasize that allowing the encampment to remain ANYWHERE on public space is blatantly illegal. As I have previously indicated earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court held years ago that camping is not protected speech. But regardless of that fact, the Resolution, on its face, endorses a particular viewpoint (I.e. the sentiment of the Occupiers), and proposes allowing the campers to stay indefinitely solely because of the (presumed) endorsement of this viewpoint by the City of Oakland. The Resolution, therefore, on its face constitutes content and viewpoint discrimination, which has repeatedly been denounced by the U.S. Supreme Court in multiple decisions as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. See Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley (1972) 408 U.S. 92; Carey v. Brown (1980) 447 U.s. 455; U.S. v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. (2000) 120 S. Ct. 1878.
“To allow a government the choice of permissible subjects for public debate would be to allow that government control over the search for the political truth.” Consol. Edis. Co. v. Public Serv. Commn. (1980) 447 U.S. 530, 538. And to allow the government to target (or promote) particular views or subjects permits the government to greatly distort the marketplace of ideas. Kenneth L. Karst, Equality as a Central Principle In the First Amendment, 43 Univ. Chicago L. Rev. (1975).
Viewpoint restrictions “pose the inherent risk that the Government seeks not to advance a legitimate regulatory goal, but to suppress unpopular ideas or information or manipulate the public debate through coercion rather than persuasion.” Turner Broadcast Sys. Inc. v. FCC (1994) 512 U.S. 622, 641. Most recently, the Second Circuit upheld summary judgment against a city for trying to require a $1 million liability insurance policy for a peace rally at a public park, but imposed no such requirement for a group espousing a different “viewpoint.” See Alexandra Coe v. Town of Blooming Grove & Village of Washingtonville (2nd. Cir. 2011).
Applying the law above, allowing the Occupiers to stay, or simply moving them around so that other districts are equally burdened with the blight and crime, or to ensure that their message continues to be “heard,” is blatantly illegal, particularly under the proposed Resolution, which proposes such accommodations for this particular far left-wing group. Are you prepared to offer such accommodations for the Ku Klux Klan, the Tea Party, the NRA, the Right-to-Lifers, or the Prop 8 Supporters? If not, prepare to get sued. And lose.
Today, I was contacted by somebody who was interested in retaining me for this purpose. Unfortunately, I can’t, due to existing conflicts with my regular job, but I’ll definitely try to refer her. By the way, I hope you have checked out the ACLU’s webpage - they already have you in their cross hairs. In the meantime, I urge you to immediately draft a resolution condemning the encampment and demanding its immediate removal.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Inside Occupy Oakland's General Assembly
Below is an email that was forwarded to me earlier today. I am publishing it because I think it gives some great insight into who the "Occupiers" are and what they have in store for our City. What is remarkable is that the author (a well-known supporter of Mayor Quan's and housing advocate) considers "doable" options to include "taking over City Hall" and "displace the City Council," as well as "make the City pay for meals and housing" (presumably for the "Occupiers" during the rainy season).
Keep in mind that these are the people that many Oakland officials want to openly support. Yes, that's right. Our elected leaders want to welcome the Occupiers who are seeking to violently overthrow them. Is that not totally surreal? In addition, it appears that the anarchists and pro-violence/vandalism crowd are thoroughly entrenched in OO. I think it is unfair to characterize them as a "splinter group," since they are clearly a large faction, and among the group's leaders. Recent news reports have clearly identified members of the various organizing committees as among those who committed vandalism during the General Strike.
Here we are, on November 6, 2011, and still, the City has absolutely no plan on how to deal with any of this. Meanwhile, the OO camp is growing larger and more organized by the day.
James Vann describes this "takeover" by the Black Bloc-
Sent: Sat, November 5, 2011 5:22:12 PM
Subject: Developing Dilemma within Occupy Oakland
Developing Dilemma within Occupy Oakland
At the general assembly of Occupy Oakland last night, a task presented from the earlier facilitators' meeting was open discussion by the assembly -- arranged in small groupings -- on the question: "How to Grow Occupy Oakland into a Long-Term Sustainable Movement."
I was asked by a contingent sitting to my right to join with their group. I was soon aware that most of the people who constituted our small group were an interrelated faction. One early idea of one of the members was to take OO to the "next level" by "taking over vacant buildings." I injected my disagreement with the idea, that the remarkable success of the entirety of Wednesday's general strike day had already become subsumed in the media by the post-event "violence" of a small dissident contingent in breaking into a nearby vacant building. (An act that led to the day's first police appearance, a massive police descent in riot gear -- replicating the defamed Oct 26 assault -- complete with tear gas, flash-bang grenades, and bean bag projectiles. A three-hour riot through surrounding blocks ensued, with dissidents setting fires, breaking store windows, and widespread spray-painting of graffiti, ending in some 100 arrests and the serious wounding of yet another recently returned Iraq War veteran on the scene as an innocent bystander.)
Others of the small group chimed in, stressing the need for OO to set an example that other #Occupy organizations could duplicate by appropriating indoor space for continuation of movement activities through the oncoming rains and snows of Winter.
I suggested, in place of 'strike-day-like' events -- which can only be infrequently carried out -- that OO implement a series of neighborhood assemblies and marches in various neighborhood business districts throughout the city. This would have the effect of educating and recruiting new adherents to the movement from throughout the city. A recent transplant from a southern city told of the dispersed nature of that city, not suited to a centralized general assembly, but rather regional assemblies, and suggested that OO look into a regional-type structure.
During the report-back session, few small groups made what I considered positive or doable suggestions ("take over city hall;" "make city pay for meals and housing;" "displace the city council," etc). However, in what appeared an orchestrated tactic, each time a small group recommended "taking over vacant buildings," it drew the loudest applause. When there was any mention of "non-violent" actions, the dissident members, and their compatriots dispersed throughout, yelled out almost in unison, "diversity of tactics, diversity of tactics." It is clear that the dissident anarchist group of some 150 or so is deeply embedded within Occupy Oakland. (The morning's news shows gave the police breakdown of Wednesday's arrestees as about 25% from out-of-state, the majority from other cities and communities, and about 10 percent as Oakland residents.)
On returning home, I read an unidentified quarter-sized blurb that had been handed out during GA. The neatly printed blurb rationalized Wednesday night's illegal takeover as the "logical next step for the movement," separated the question of "violence against property" (tactical) vs "violence against persons (harmful), and proclaimed that "property violence" occurred only after the cops arrived to dispel them from the appropriated building. The blurb concluded with: "The point here is obvious: if the police don't want violence, they should stay the hell[sic] away."
Meanwhile, Oakland's embattled Mayor forcefully stated at Thursday night's special speak-back session of the city council that "immediate control of its violent members" is a primary condition for the Occupy Oakland encampment to remain in Frank Ogawa Plaza (nee Oscar Grant Plaza).
Clearly, the present situation poses an extremely serious problem for Occupy Oakland. Moreover, a wide disconnect exists between #Occupy goals and anarchists' ideals. The anarchists see #Occupy as a "resistance movement" requiring a vanguard to wage war against oppressive forces (the police). Alternately, #Occupy's basic objective is to expose the greed and attendant policies of Wall Street investors, bankers, and mega-corporations that extract more and more the wealth of the country, while the 99% and the needs of the many increasingly suffer with less and less -- and to cause policy and program changes to restore equitable wealth and resource distribution.
During "General Strike Day" actions, non-violent OO members who attempted to halt acts, being perpetrated by the anarchist group, of property destruction had their own safety threatened with claw hammers. The dissident anarchist faction is deeply embedded throughout and has strongly expressed its integration and inclusion as a legitimate part of OO.
Given the open nature of OO; its consensus decision structure; and the lack of endorsed "leaders," it is unclear how OO will deal with an internal situation that is structurally committed to an agenda of "resistance," inherently contradictory to the aims of the #Occupy movement. Unaddressed, this dilemma threatens the existence of at least Occupy Oakland itself. Clearly, #Occupy, and specifically Occupy Oakland, is faced with a dilemma on incompatible paths that at present seems only likely to continue diverging.
James E Vann,
Oakland, California
Keep in mind that these are the people that many Oakland officials want to openly support. Yes, that's right. Our elected leaders want to welcome the Occupiers who are seeking to violently overthrow them. Is that not totally surreal? In addition, it appears that the anarchists and pro-violence/vandalism crowd are thoroughly entrenched in OO. I think it is unfair to characterize them as a "splinter group," since they are clearly a large faction, and among the group's leaders. Recent news reports have clearly identified members of the various organizing committees as among those who committed vandalism during the General Strike.
Here we are, on November 6, 2011, and still, the City has absolutely no plan on how to deal with any of this. Meanwhile, the OO camp is growing larger and more organized by the day.
James Vann describes this "takeover" by the Black Bloc-
Sent: Sat, November 5, 2011 5:22:12 PM
Subject: Developing Dilemma within Occupy Oakland
Developing Dilemma within Occupy Oakland
At the general assembly of Occupy Oakland last night, a task presented from the earlier facilitators' meeting was open discussion by the assembly -- arranged in small groupings -- on the question: "How to Grow Occupy Oakland into a Long-Term Sustainable Movement."
I was asked by a contingent sitting to my right to join with their group. I was soon aware that most of the people who constituted our small group were an interrelated faction. One early idea of one of the members was to take OO to the "next level" by "taking over vacant buildings." I injected my disagreement with the idea, that the remarkable success of the entirety of Wednesday's general strike day had already become subsumed in the media by the post-event "violence" of a small dissident contingent in breaking into a nearby vacant building. (An act that led to the day's first police appearance, a massive police descent in riot gear -- replicating the defamed Oct 26 assault -- complete with tear gas, flash-bang grenades, and bean bag projectiles. A three-hour riot through surrounding blocks ensued, with dissidents setting fires, breaking store windows, and widespread spray-painting of graffiti, ending in some 100 arrests and the serious wounding of yet another recently returned Iraq War veteran on the scene as an innocent bystander.)
Others of the small group chimed in, stressing the need for OO to set an example that other #Occupy organizations could duplicate by appropriating indoor space for continuation of movement activities through the oncoming rains and snows of Winter.
I suggested, in place of 'strike-day-like' events -- which can only be infrequently carried out -- that OO implement a series of neighborhood assemblies and marches in various neighborhood business districts throughout the city. This would have the effect of educating and recruiting new adherents to the movement from throughout the city. A recent transplant from a southern city told of the dispersed nature of that city, not suited to a centralized general assembly, but rather regional assemblies, and suggested that OO look into a regional-type structure.
During the report-back session, few small groups made what I considered positive or doable suggestions ("take over city hall;" "make city pay for meals and housing;" "displace the city council," etc). However, in what appeared an orchestrated tactic, each time a small group recommended "taking over vacant buildings," it drew the loudest applause. When there was any mention of "non-violent" actions, the dissident members, and their compatriots dispersed throughout, yelled out almost in unison, "diversity of tactics, diversity of tactics." It is clear that the dissident anarchist group of some 150 or so is deeply embedded within Occupy Oakland. (The morning's news shows gave the police breakdown of Wednesday's arrestees as about 25% from out-of-state, the majority from other cities and communities, and about 10 percent as Oakland residents.)
On returning home, I read an unidentified quarter-sized blurb that had been handed out during GA. The neatly printed blurb rationalized Wednesday night's illegal takeover as the "logical next step for the movement," separated the question of "violence against property" (tactical) vs "violence against persons (harmful), and proclaimed that "property violence" occurred only after the cops arrived to dispel them from the appropriated building. The blurb concluded with: "The point here is obvious: if the police don't want violence, they should stay the hell[sic] away."
Meanwhile, Oakland's embattled Mayor forcefully stated at Thursday night's special speak-back session of the city council that "immediate control of its violent members" is a primary condition for the Occupy Oakland encampment to remain in Frank Ogawa Plaza (nee Oscar Grant Plaza).
Clearly, the present situation poses an extremely serious problem for Occupy Oakland. Moreover, a wide disconnect exists between #Occupy goals and anarchists' ideals. The anarchists see #Occupy as a "resistance movement" requiring a vanguard to wage war against oppressive forces (the police). Alternately, #Occupy's basic objective is to expose the greed and attendant policies of Wall Street investors, bankers, and mega-corporations that extract more and more the wealth of the country, while the 99% and the needs of the many increasingly suffer with less and less -- and to cause policy and program changes to restore equitable wealth and resource distribution.
During "General Strike Day" actions, non-violent OO members who attempted to halt acts, being perpetrated by the anarchist group, of property destruction had their own safety threatened with claw hammers. The dissident anarchist faction is deeply embedded throughout and has strongly expressed its integration and inclusion as a legitimate part of OO.
Given the open nature of OO; its consensus decision structure; and the lack of endorsed "leaders," it is unclear how OO will deal with an internal situation that is structurally committed to an agenda of "resistance," inherently contradictory to the aims of the #Occupy movement. Unaddressed, this dilemma threatens the existence of at least Occupy Oakland itself. Clearly, #Occupy, and specifically Occupy Oakland, is faced with a dilemma on incompatible paths that at present seems only likely to continue diverging.
James E Vann,
Oakland, California
Thursday, November 3, 2011
My Response To The Occupy Oakland Collaboration Resolution
Dear Oakland Officials:
Last night's events bring home why the Occupy encampment must be removed immediately. The City has utterly lost control of the situation and cannot maintain a safe and orderly downtown area. Businesses and business opportunities have been destroyed. The downtown area had been blighted, and the blight is only worsening. It does not matter that the majority of Occupiers claim to be peaceful and non-violent. The fact of the matter is that the emcampment is blatantly illegal, a blight, and an attractive nuisance. For example, it does not matter that the majority of “sideshow” participants are there to watch and not engage in any illegal activity. It does not matter that a corner drug house does countless transactions, most of which do not result in violence. That is hardly the point. The point is that illegal activity must be shut down, period.
While there may have been 4500 demonstrators yesterday, it is impossible to say how many were from Oakland. Given that Oakland has a population of 400,000 residents, in all likelihood, less than 1% participated in the demonstration. Only 5% of City employees participated in the strike. What does that tell you? The vast majority of Oaklanders DO NOT support Occupy Oakland. While they may support or agree with some of OWS’s goals, this is completely different than supporting Occupy Oakland’s illegal encampment, which is only serving to sully whatever valid message there may be.
At tonight’s meeting, you are likely to hear from numerous campers who have been violating multiple City ordinances. You will hear from anarchists, communists, vagrants and people with no vested interest in the long-term welfare of Oakland. The law-abiding citizens of Oakland, local business owners, and others will likely be far too afraid to even come to downtown Oakland tonight, given the riots that occurred earlier this morning, the thought of having to wade around the encampment just to get to the meeting, the possible retaliation for speaking out against the law-breakers, and the almost guaranteed uncivil behavior during the meeting itself. (Hisses, boos, insults, threats etc.) This is the crowd you have been catering to, and it has got to stop.
The proposed Resolution is blatantly offensive on so many levels I don’t even know where to begin. “Unequivocally embrace” First Amendment rights? As previously mentioned, there are no First Amendment rights involved in camping, illegal soup kitchens, illegal Port-a-Potties, tagging, littering, or public urination. As for the 99% vs. 1% sloganeering, I am part of the 99% and I do not feel victimized by the economic system. Rather, I feel victimized by your lack of leadership. These people do not speak for me.
The Resolution recognizes injuries to the protestors, but provides no recognition whatsoever of the injuries to the taxpayers, the local small business, the injuries to Oakland’s public reputation, the injuries to police officers, or the insults and threats that they have endured, the damage to the lawn, the residents who have had to put up with excessive noise, the drivers and bus drivers who have been snarled in traffic, and the lost wages of employees and business forced to shut down.
The Resolution, in short, endorses the viewpoints of the 1% (the fringe, illegal campers), not the 99% (the hard-working, law abiding citizens of Oakland). The Resolution is insulting and embarrassing. Please reject it.
Last night's events bring home why the Occupy encampment must be removed immediately. The City has utterly lost control of the situation and cannot maintain a safe and orderly downtown area. Businesses and business opportunities have been destroyed. The downtown area had been blighted, and the blight is only worsening. It does not matter that the majority of Occupiers claim to be peaceful and non-violent. The fact of the matter is that the emcampment is blatantly illegal, a blight, and an attractive nuisance. For example, it does not matter that the majority of “sideshow” participants are there to watch and not engage in any illegal activity. It does not matter that a corner drug house does countless transactions, most of which do not result in violence. That is hardly the point. The point is that illegal activity must be shut down, period.
While there may have been 4500 demonstrators yesterday, it is impossible to say how many were from Oakland. Given that Oakland has a population of 400,000 residents, in all likelihood, less than 1% participated in the demonstration. Only 5% of City employees participated in the strike. What does that tell you? The vast majority of Oaklanders DO NOT support Occupy Oakland. While they may support or agree with some of OWS’s goals, this is completely different than supporting Occupy Oakland’s illegal encampment, which is only serving to sully whatever valid message there may be.
At tonight’s meeting, you are likely to hear from numerous campers who have been violating multiple City ordinances. You will hear from anarchists, communists, vagrants and people with no vested interest in the long-term welfare of Oakland. The law-abiding citizens of Oakland, local business owners, and others will likely be far too afraid to even come to downtown Oakland tonight, given the riots that occurred earlier this morning, the thought of having to wade around the encampment just to get to the meeting, the possible retaliation for speaking out against the law-breakers, and the almost guaranteed uncivil behavior during the meeting itself. (Hisses, boos, insults, threats etc.) This is the crowd you have been catering to, and it has got to stop.
The proposed Resolution is blatantly offensive on so many levels I don’t even know where to begin. “Unequivocally embrace” First Amendment rights? As previously mentioned, there are no First Amendment rights involved in camping, illegal soup kitchens, illegal Port-a-Potties, tagging, littering, or public urination. As for the 99% vs. 1% sloganeering, I am part of the 99% and I do not feel victimized by the economic system. Rather, I feel victimized by your lack of leadership. These people do not speak for me.
The Resolution recognizes injuries to the protestors, but provides no recognition whatsoever of the injuries to the taxpayers, the local small business, the injuries to Oakland’s public reputation, the injuries to police officers, or the insults and threats that they have endured, the damage to the lawn, the residents who have had to put up with excessive noise, the drivers and bus drivers who have been snarled in traffic, and the lost wages of employees and business forced to shut down.
The Resolution, in short, endorses the viewpoints of the 1% (the fringe, illegal campers), not the 99% (the hard-working, law abiding citizens of Oakland). The Resolution is insulting and embarrassing. Please reject it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
