Bloomberg is changing city rules about the use of parks so that he can evict protesters from Zuccotti Park.
This will generate more attention for the Occupy Together movement, which is viewed favorably by 54% of Americans.
Get involved with your own local Occupy Together movement. It’s in 1500 cities now. The Facebook page for Occupy Rochester now has over 1000 members and your local group is probably numerous as well.
jharp
I think whilst on down time during the protest the protesters should spend that time tidying up.
I think a clean protest area helps.
Raven (formerly stuckinred)
Maybe they should move it to a public place?
Dougerhead
@jharp:
I agree they should keep it as clean as possible.
Linda Featheringill
@jharp:
They are cleaning up the park this evening. I saw a picture in the Guardian to support that, as well as twitter comments.
dms
Did any of you read the linked article? Bloomberg isn’t changing the rules (and by the way, I’m a resident of NYC and no fan of Bloomberg). And the protesters are helping to clean up. This post is a sham, a lie, and not worthy of this blog.
Linda Featheringill
@Raven (formerly stuckinred):
Move to a public place:
Sounds good to me. I know nothing about the geography of Manhattan.
Raven (formerly stuckinred)
@dms: “Volunteers taped off sections of the park, hauled off debris and scrubbed the walkways clean — in the hope that if the park could be made spick-and-span, the city and the park’s owners, Brookfield Properties, might relent and let them stay.”
Raven (formerly stuckinred)
@Linda Featheringill: Me neither but I thought, just for fun, I’d READ the article. I had no idea it was not public property.
Thoughtcrime
@Linda Featheringill:
Funny how the 99% can monitor their own behavior and clean up their own messes while the 1% cannot.
Linda Featheringill
@dms:
Bloomberg and the owners of the park, working in concert, seem to be setting it up so there is no occupation there in that park.
Walker
Occupy Austin this week had about 20 people and, unfortunately, a drum circle. I have seen more impressive turn outs in Ithaca.
Cassidy
@Walker: It’s Austin. If it weren’t for Texas, most liberals would move there.
Jenny
Yet Bloomberg was the first one wag his finger when Mubarak tired to clear Tahrir Square.
singfoom
This guy has a good OWS flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stanleyrogouski/
One of the guys who called out a guy with an anti-semitic sign earlier: http://politics.salon.com/2011/10/12/anti_semite_gets_called_out_at_occupy_wall_st/singleton/
The privately owned park is publically accessible.
It is not an unreasonable request to keep the park clean, which is what the occupiers are now doing.
I expect mass civil disobedience and hundreds if not thousands of arrests tomorrow morning. I sincerely hope there is no violence.
JWL
Bloomberg is simply attempting to incite a confrontation, in order to detract attention from tomorrow’s nationwide rallies in support of the hippy shit-disturbers.
SiubhanDuinne
I looked up Occupy Atlanta on the link. The name of the location — this just does my heart good — is Troy Davis Park (aka Woodruff Park). It can’t possibly be an official name change, but what a signal it sends!
MacKenna
A Canadian company is behind the eviction. Sign the petition.
http://www.leadnow.ca/stop-occupy-wall-street-eviction
Linda Featheringill
@JWL:
I thought the nationwide rallies were going to be held on Sunday, 10/15. Am I wrong?
MacKenna
@Linda Featheringill:
October 15 is a Saturday.
Linda Featheringill
@singfoom: #14
I do, too.
Reportedly there will be a meeting of lots of supporters of OWS down at the park, unions and individuals, to “defend OWS” starting at 6 o’clock in the morning. [The announced time of clearing out the park is 7 o’clock.]
Mnemosyne
Wait, you guys in NYC have privately-owned parks? WTH is up with that?
soonergrunt
@dms: I’ve heard the story go either way on both NPR and MSNBC. I’ll believe whichever version turns out to be correct.
ChrisNYC
I’m really nervous about this, as a resident of the City. OWS is gathering people there at 6 am to resist being moved. The cops are coming at 7. It just doesn’t sound like a good scene. And OWS seems really convinced that clashes with the cops = good news for OWS which I’m not at all sure is true.
I don’t get why they don’t want to move to a larger park. That place is seriously tiny.
OWS (which, frankly, I’ve never been such a big fan of) really showed something freaky when they asserted that the Boston Police committed war crimes.
http://occupywallst.org/article/ows-solidarity-100-arrested-occupy-boston/
And yeah the part about “changing the rules” is total bullshit.
BBA
@Mnemosyne: It’s not an actual park, it’s an open plaza in front of a skyscraper as required by the zoning ordinances. The owner put in a couple of trees and called it a park.
ruemara
@Mnemosyne:
We have them here in CA, too. Companies create open green spaces and allow the public to use it. Simple as that. It saves municipalities monies on upkeep.
Mnemosyne
@ruemara:
Huh? I’m in Glendale, north of downtown LA, and I don’t think we have any private parks here, just city and county (and a bit of state). I think the closest we have is the Americana, which is a private business that has a public park in the center, but the city very specifically zoned the park as public property, not private property, even though it’s surrounded by the mall.
@BBA:
Ah, okay, that makes sense. So it’s not like they’re camping out in Central Park and someone is saying it’s private property or something.
Linda Featheringill
@MacKenna:
Ooops. Right. Saturday is the 15th.
[does anybody really know what time it is?]
ChrisNYC
@Mnemosyne: The public/private distinction doesn’t matter, as far as I know for the regs. You can’t camp in Central Park any more than you can pitch a tent inside Bloomingdales.
singfoom
@ChrisNYC: Didn’t they choose that because it was the closest park to Wall Street?
Also, I think if it was actually a city public park, there’s a curfew the authorities could use in order to prevent an occupation from even being started?
dms
@Raven (formerly stuckinred): And what does that have to do with changing the rules?
ChrisNYC
@singfoom: I don’t know why they chose it but your reason makes sense.
As far as the curfew, I don’t know. A lot of the privately-owned public spaces in midtown (which are physically accessible 24 hours) have signs saying 8 am to 11 pm or whatever — so that may be true in Zucotti as well. But it could very well go according to neighborhood — downtown is all under the LMDC umbrella since 9/11 and there is a fair amount of local control in Manhattan so really anything is possible.
Here’s the thing with the curfews and the other regs tho — OWS seems to be saying they want to violate regs. And they have been up to now — you can’t sleep in a park and you can’t set up a mattress and tents and all that stuff. But if they want to violate, then they should violate, get arrested, AND go back. That’s the part that I don’t follow — are they doing civil disobediance (sp?) or not? Really, I’m trying to give them a fair reading but I don’t get why they think they can just suspend the rules and not get arrested. The fact of arrests and returns would be just as newsworthy as the confrontations.
Dougerhead
@Mnemosyne:
I said gonna take you out to Glendale, take you out for a real good meal.
MikeJ
@Dougerhead: What about Deborah?
handsmile
I have been writing about this very scenario on several OWS threads here since Monday, and Bloomberg has behaved exactly as those who have followed his autocratic reign would have predicted.
It beggars belief that links are still being provided to the NYT for coverage of this matter. Their news division coverage of “Occupy Wall Street” has been utterly disgraceful since the inception of the protest more than three weeks ago. (The separate editorial division has been belatedly supportive.)
Far more comprehensive and reliable has been the reporting from the Guardian (which should surprise no one). Here is their current article on the situation: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/13/occupy-wall-street-zuccotti-park-cleanup
This afternoon I visited Zuccotti Park, providing cleaning supplies as had been requested in an #OWS alert earlier today. A full-site clean-up of the park has been organized by protest participants for this evening in an effort to obviate city action tomorrow morning.
The atmosphere today was very tense, with protesters deeply suspicious of Bloomberg’s true intentions. Many expressed great concern about the prospect of undercover police provocateurs if, as expected, protesters and their belongings are forcibly removed. While they anticipate arrest for non-violent civil disobedience, there is an expectation of spiraling NYPD aggression if there are incidents of violent resistance.
And briefly, there are a whole slate of city ordinances that apply to activities on New York City public property, e.g., curfews, duration permits, limits on number of participants, limits on personal property one can bring to the site. These ordinances do not apply to the same degree on areas such as the unusual public/private partnership that manages Zuccotti Park, a site closer to the World Trade Center area than Wall Street.
jwb
@Walker: Austin had a decent turn out the first day, though too many Paulistas and LaRouchies for my taste.
jwb
@Mnemosyne: The park was part of a variance to allow a bigger building is what I read. Part of the deal is that it had to be kept open to the public 24 hours a day.
Cain
@Thoughtcrime:
I went to waterfront Park on Monday after the protests in Portland. I could not detect any evidence that a protest was held there.
I think people are respectful of properties, as long as they can control the anarchists that show up.
Dougerhead
@MikeJ:
Check out this version.
PurpleGirl
@Raven (formerly stuckinred): Public parks have closing times. Zuccotti Park has to be open 24/7 by agreement with the City probably for some zoning preference that the owner Brookfield Properties got.
ChrisNYC
@handsmile: Handsmile, I know they were cleaning today and I saw the code of conduct that they came up with. And I know they have gone to community board meetings, which I thought was great.
The thing that seems misguided to me is to take the position, automatically, that the cleaning (and the enforcement of the regs) is purely pretextual. It just doesn’t seem sympathetic to me, particularly for the people in that neighborhood. It is an imposition for those regular people and to just cover their ears about that — and yell pretext — seems counterproductive. From the start, OWS has *seemed* really not to give a crap about the people around them and it’s so counter to the larger message. And now the thing of “Occupy the Subways”? Geez, want to make yourself totally unappealing to regular NYers? Occupy the subways.
I was reading comments at the ows blog today and someone suggested continuing BUT complying with the regs — doing shifts in the park. I know that would be hard but, to me, it seems so much more powerful. But it’s their thing (and your thing!) so I don’t say what goes obvs.
PurpleGirl
@Mnemosyne: For example: Real estate developer wants to make the building 85 stories, the zoning would only permit 60. Developer talks to the whichever commission/department and says “you let us build 85 stories and we’ll set aside X space as a public access park”. City says “okay”. However I know of several such parks that ended up behind locked gates and not even residents of the buildings can use the park or bench area. Of course there’s also Gramercy Park which is private, members only and you need a key to get in. But Zuccotti was built as open space. Brookfield also owns the World Financial Center and has park space there too.
cynn
They’re gearing up in Denver; should be interesting. Saw the protests today; remarkable number of boomer types.
cynn
Incidentally, I would totally stand with this movement, but I would lose my job, which I suppose is the whole circular fuck-squad we live in now.
300baud
I happened to be in NYC today with some spare time, and the OWS camp looked reasonably clean to me, and they were obviously working on making it cleaner to defang Bloomberg’s DFH media narrative.
From everything I saw, this is indeed pure pretext on Bloomberg’s part. The goal is to break up the occupation of the park.
Baron Jrod of Keeblershire
@ChrisNYC: Yes, clearly the problem with OWS is that they’re too… noticeable. No doubt they’d have your full-throated support if they’d only protest somewhere less conspicuous. Perhaps they could break up into really tiny groups and protest from their homes!
Also they are smelly hippies with drum-circles and giant puppets.
PIGL
My two cents, as a passive supporter:
The OUS movement needs to keep occupying, or it will wither. That means, they need to stay put and welcome more participants, even after the authorities tell them to stop.
The local authorities will eventually feel that they myst tell the protestors to stop. I expect and hope that the majority will refuse. That means many people will be arrested and that violence of some degree will ensue.
We will discover then just how far everyone is prepared to go. By everyone, I mean the current protesters, their supporters in the public and in government, their opponents in the public and the government, and the authorities themselves, many layerered and multi-faceted as they are.
There will have to be a confrontation at some point. I think the best outcome would be if the police and fire fighters (in NYC and other major cities where the protests are too large to ignore) down tools and support, or at least refuse to break the heads of, the occupiers. Then, the state and federal governments will have choice. They can either militarise the conflict, or let it persist until the 2012 elections, see what effect it may have on the outcomes, and proceed accordingly.
Because I think the USA is a generation or two away from downright revolution, I think the “stay-put until November 2012” is the most promising outcome in every way.
If things reach a head where the civic government attempts suppression and fails, we will finally discover, for real and for sure and beyond all bullshit and spin, which side President Obama is really on.
I hope that nobody will be harmed as these events unfold.
PIGL
@Baron Jrod of Keeblershire: what you said, but less gentleman-like.
AA+ Bonds
This is exactly how Bloomberg thinks, up and down, not to mention the people who own that park.
Thomas Friedman! He’s got opinions etc.
Maude
The AP story facts were thin on the ground.
It looks like some of the media is trying to gin up a confrontation.
Bloomberg was mealy mouthed. His girlfriend works for the park owner.
They might be told no sleeping bags and that kind of thing.
The problem is that the park owner and the city should have been consistent about that from the beginning.
Why are they doing this now?
tkogrumpy
@cynn: That is why I am going for you.Don’t worry there are millions of us fumblefucks who are too old and used up to be useful to the machine and will be glad to stand in for you. (as long as my hip holds out) :)
David in NY
@ChrisNYC: Of course it’s a pretext, dope. About two days ago Bloomberg said they could stay forever. As for the “neighborhood” — I mean, Christ, it’s a bunch of enormous office buidlings surrounded by enormous city noise. My wife works near City Hall and has worse from demonstrations all the time. If you’re really from NYC, you’ve endured far worse in your neighborhood at sometime or other. This is a set up designed to stop the demonstrations, pure and simple. I’m just afraid (for someone in particular) that people will get hurt. The police have really earned that ’60’s moniker, you know it, in this situation.
ChrisNYC
@Baron Jrod of Keeblershire: Nice how you totally avoided what I actually said.
ChrisNYC
@David in NY: Right, thanks for the namecalling. He said they could stay but why do they automatically get different treatment from everyone else? Why do they get regs not enforced — no one’s going to throw them out of the park. The regs aren’t new. They’ve just not enforced them before. OWS can stay — they just can’t sleep *there* or pitch tents or keep the generators they have. Homeless people get booted every night. Taken to shelters and if they don’t want to go to shelters, they have to go someplace else. Even if you’re just sleeping it off in a park, if a cop sees you, he’ll boot you. Why does OWS get exempted from the regs that other people follow?
And if they do, does every group get that same treatment? Can any group decide, “We’re gonna set up here and make our statement about whatever.” Or is it just if the statement is ok to liberals or whatever group. I just don’t get how this works and I don’t think all the moral force is behind OWS.
ChrisNYC
@David in NY: I’ve lived in the city since 1992 and I don’t remember people taking over a public space for an undetermined amount of time. Maybe I missed something.
And I don’t buy the line that nobody lives in the neighborhood. I know people who live there. But again, it just seems like OWS supporters wave away any problems. Which is fine. Like you, I don’t want anything bad to happen down there. I’m not a supporter but I have no real beef with them, individually.
handsmile
@ChrisNYC: (#40)
[Returning from a late dinner, I wanted to reply in the event that you are still checking this thread.]
Thanks for your response. I’d like to address several points you’ve raised to my comment as well as to other, later commenters.
As for pretext: suspicion was first provoked by Bloomberg’s statement on Monday that OWS protesters could remain in Zuccotti Park indefinitely as long as they obeyed all laws. His declaration followed a variety of stories in NYC print and broadcast media the previous weekend that focused upon issues of personal hygiene and garbage accumulation at the protest site, perhaps culminating in the NY Post’s “Sex, drugs, and hiding from the law at Wall Street protest.”
With his seemingly benevolent statement, which was widely reported, Bloomberg effectively shielded himself from criticism in the event of that police began to enforce minor civic ordinances and regulations that had heretofore largely been ignored. As the city sanitation department had refused to collect garbage and debris at Zuccotti Park and with reports that permits for portapotties and large-scale garbage bins had been denied by the department, this sudden concern for public health and safety seems rather “pretextual” to me.
As to the disruption of daily life of nearby residents, I too am a longtime NYC resident and one very familiar with the area. There are virtually no residences in the immediate area adjacent to Zuccotti Park. Co-op and condominium apartment buildings are located several blocks away, and there is ready access via a network of main and side streets. Never-ending construction projects are a far more chronic impediment to peaceful life in the vicinity.
Many of the OWS protesters with whom I’ve spoken on a number of visits to the site fully expect to be arrested at some point for civil disobedience or for infractions of civic regulations. Their expectation is not to be treated differently from other groups, but it seems to me a legitimate question why this sudden insistence on enforcement on dubious grounds.
I recall a years-long homeless encampment in Dag Hammarsjkold Park (46th Street between 1st and 2nd Aves) during the 1990s until it was forcibly dismantled by the Giuliani administration.
I had not yet heard of an “Occupy the Subways” action. Given how crowded and noisy NYC subway cars usually are, how could one tell?
Dougerhead
@ChrisNYC:
Awfully concern-trolly. Do you work for Michael Bloomberg? I will check your IP.
The Spy Who Loved Me
@Dougerhead:
That’s a little Orwellian, don’t you think?
debbie
As someone who spent many summers lying down in Central Park to work on my tan, I can’t wait to see how these regulations go over. Or maybe magically, they won’t apply above 14th Street?