Yesterday, Bloomberg and the NYPD informed OWS that they would be evicted today at 7 AM so the park can be cleaned. OWS sent out a notice on Facebook asking for cleaning supplies and also asked for a show of support at 6 AM. A few minutes ago, the owners of Zucotti Park backed down. Here’s the Mayor’s office’s first tweet acknowledging the existence of OWS (via):
According to the AP, Bloomberg’s girlfriend is on the board of directors of Brookfield Properties, the private company that owns Zucotti Park.
David in NY
Thank God. My kid left at 5 to join them. But so apparently did lots and lots of other people, including many union members. Maybe we have a Popular Front forming again, after years of division.
arguingwithsignposts
good on the protesters for responding quickly to counter that move.
Odie Hugh Manatee
I’m actually happy to see this unfold this way as it gives the movement more momentum, a bigger sense of power/empowerment than if it had not happened. It doesn’t mean the ‘war’ is over, not by a long shot. I view this as more of a strategic retreat for the forces of darkness rather than them confronting the protesters and possibly sparking an even larger protest and garnering sympathy for the protesters.
Appearances are everything and I think the powers are going to wait for an ‘opening’, manufactured or however lame/justified, to make their move on the protesters.
This ain’t over yet, not by a long shot, but it is a victory of sorts.
burnspbesq
Brookfield is a major global player in commercial real estate. It’s a public company, listed on the NYSE and the Toronto Stock Exchange. Its roots are in Canada, and culturally it is very much a Canadian company
Like all public companies, it is concerned about its image, and logically concluded that a forcible eviction of the demonstrators wouldn’t be good for that image.
http://www.brookfieldofficeproperties.com/content/corporate-2892.html
Xenos
A private company owns a ‘public’ park? That is an interesting property law issue I have never heard before.
What is the business model? Did it come attached to another parcel that adjoins the park? I could see if Brookfield was a part owner along with other adjacent properties, but that does not seem to be the case. How does one go about getting fee simple in a park?
SiubhanDuinne
@burnspbesq:
I think there was also a big online petition push in Canada to ask Brookfield to back off. Not sure how much of a factor that was in their decision, though.
bob h
Diana Taylor has a sleek, sophisticated look, but a recent interview in the NYT reveals her to be a dumb, rightwing c#nt when it comes to politics.
The veneer on our society is very thin.
nancydarling
@bob h: Calling women “cunts” is verboten here, or should be. I don’t know why it is so much more offensive than “dick”—it just is. “Dumb, rightwing shill” would suffice.
And hooray for OWS! One small step in the journey.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Xenos: Some described it as the city requires that some private land in the city that a company buys to provide public park-like access. So it’s actually a private park that people are allowed to use.
Nicole
@bob h: Not cool. Please use gender neutral “asshole.”
Linda Featheringill
@Xenos:
privately owned park:
Someone said it was part of getting the permit to build the building just across the street. “If you are going to have that much floor space, you have to have x amount of open space.” So the company carved out an open space, planted some green stuff, and called it a park.
That is hearsay, BTW. But it sounds reasonable.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@nancydarling: We’ve been saying “he’s a dick” for so long it’s lost some of it’s edge, though it really shouldn’t be any more or less offensive than “she’s a cunt.” Is “she’s a dick” acceptable? Language, how does it work?
nancydarling
@nancydarling: I think I have the answer why c#nt is more offensive than dick. Men, at least the ones I know about, frequently refer to their members as dicks. Women NEVER call their private parts cunts.
jwb
According to my Twitter feed, there have been clashes with the NYPD making arrests this morning and NYPD are not allowing anyone back into the park who has left it. I haven’t been able to get a good sense of it yet, because Twitter hasn’t been loading properly.
300baud
@Linda Featheringill:
I don’t know about that particular park, but that’s indeed how it works. Zoning laws limit things like height, but they don’t require public space. Developers will offer public space in exchange for some profitable zoning variance, like more floors.
nancydarling
@jwb: Since I don’t twitter, can you keep us updated?
rikyrah
it was obvious what they wanted to do. I’m not all that enthused about OWS, but I’m glad they stood up for themselves.
Ivan Ivanovich Renko
@nancydarling: AT least, not unless they’re “doin’ th’ deed,” in which case it’s a quite welcome… ejaculation. [ducks, runs like hell]
jwb
@nancydarling: I’ll try to, but Twitter is acting very peculiar this morning, not updating properly.
300baud
I was wandering around looking for the OWS protest yesterday and stumbled into an OWS organizing meeting. (It was just held out in the open at Trinity Church, a couple blocks away. It was really well run. They were smart, very focused on getting things done, and were simultaneously balancing pragmatic issues, PR issues, and their long-term goals. And they were doing it with no obvious hierarchy, which is not easy.
I was so impressed I went with them on one of the shopping runs and bought them $1k in cleaning supplies. I have to leave New York today, but having seen them in action, I was really happy to be able to contribute.
Decided Fence Sitter
@nancydarling: Never say never. Just sayin’. And that ignores the large number of female friends who have referred to their genitalia by that term.
Cat Lady
I think the protesters may have already won – I noticed this little paragraph near the bottom in that NYT article:
BOOM. The editor may have accidentally let it slip past, but there’s no description of smelly hippies or drums or lack of leadership, just an accurate concise statement of what the protest is about and a ready made talking point for those who won’t or can’t get clear on the concept.
gene108
@nancydarling:
A man being noted for his how big a dick he is (or has, as it would sound to a real dick), would be seen as a net positive.
To paraphrase, men spend more time thinking about their dicks and a woman’s boobs, than women do about either.
nancydarling
@jwb: I seem to remember that on one of the first days of the occupation, twitter altered their page or whatever so as not to reflect the number of tweets about the occupation. I posted it here and cannot remember where I got it. Could something be afoot? I’ve misplaced my tin foil hat.
gene108
@Cat Lady:
What’s funny is right-wingers, who were howling mad about the TARP program – remember Republicans in the House and Senate voted against TARP – think Occupy movement are a bunch of clowns.
Why?
Because they are a bunch of dirty f’in hippies, who are unproductive people.
I don’t get right-wing cognitive dissonance. These guys believe putting up with corporate BS, which they dislike, is a positive. TARP was a bad idea (I personally disagree, it needed to be done), and government should’ve let everything collapse, still think they wouldn’t have been effected by a greater collapse in the financial sector.
I just don’t understand how you can take something you dislike and try to make it into something you decide should be necessary, because overcoming a general level of suck in society is a sign of manliness.
I think this pretty much drives their opposition to any and all social safety nets for “others”.
jwb
Selected tweets:
NYPD have completely shut down Wall Street. Only people with work badges allowed in.
Letter from Brookfield asking not to arrest protestors arrived around midnight. No word why stand down not announced earlier.
There is park access but only at one entrance.
Clashes at Maiden and Water, 6-7 arrested.
Many complaints about Twitter running very slow.
Police in riot gear.
NYCLU reports that events calming down.
Cat Lady
@gene108:
It’s explained by cleek’s Axiom: Whatever pisses liberals off, updated daily. Today is hate on OWS day.
jwb
@nancydarling: There are several complaints. The first is that nothing associated with OWS has been allowed to trend. Given that Twitter is a company heavily dependent on Wall Street, no surprise. There have also been reports that certain hashtags don’t feed properly. I don’t follow hashtags, so I can’t say whether or not there is any basis to that rumor. Others have been complaining that tweets from people at OWS have not been feeding properly into timelines. I haven’t noticed this at all myself. I have noticed difficulty getting certain tweets to post when I use the ows hashtag.
mistermix
@jwb: If Twitter running slow and screwing up is a conspiracy, it’s sure been happening for a long time. Though I have to admit that I haven’t seen a fail whale for a while.
Thymezone
One of the strangest and most disturbing threads I ever saw on this garbage dump. A group of people seizes a piece of private property from owners who apparently have never harmed anyone anywhere, and vow to hold onto it in the face of lawful attempts to clear the ground and clean it up .. and this is viewed as a victory? For what? Is OWS a strategy based on territorial acquisition now? What’s next, occupying the stock exchange, and shutting down the stock market? Maybe knocking out a few pension plans and 401ks and bankrupting a few clueless old people would be a good way to attract attention?
Meanwhile nobody here has a fucking clue what actually happened or what issues were negotiated nor what agreements were reached, but everybody has an opinion about it all. OWS, now emboldened, is going to … what? Look for something bigger than an oversized patio and designated smoking area donated to the city by a pretty good citizen of a company (well known for its efforts at doing “green” building development projects) … maybe they can seize a Starbucks, or how about a celphone kiosk or three? Maybe take over a high speed escalator in a building, or a newsstand? Something where money is exchanged. You know, for the symbolism and all.
handsmile
In addition to any unwelcome publicity that might accrue to a faceless real estate development company, globally-broadcast images of NYPD forcibly removing thousands of civilly disobedient protesters, with the likely occurrence of violent incidents, would tarnish the gravitas and sagacity of Michael Bloomberg, New York’s autocratic mayor. That could jeopardize his status as reigning darling among the Village media who pine for a third-way political Jesus.
Last night’s mobilization by “Occupy Wall Street” protesters to fully clean Zuccotti Park to obviate city-led action, coordinated between the NYPD and the sanitation department, represents a significant demonstration of the organizational and media savvy of OWS.
The true intentions behind Bloomberg’s sudden concern for public health and safety at the protest site was made starkly evident yesterday.
On the ownership/management of Zuccotti Park: Owned privately by the real estate development firm Brookfield Properties, the park is managed in partnership with New York city agencies and the local community board. The park (which is far closer to, indeed abuts, the World Trade Center area than Wall Street) was created through negotiations in 1968 to develop the large office building, One Liberty Plaza, that rises immediately to its north. Developers at that time established a public area in the vicinity in order to obtain a zoning variance for a larger building “footprint.”
For some great pictures of the area taken before the OWS protest, go to Google Maps, enter “Zuccotti Park” in the browser, and then click on “Street Views.”
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
After reading the AP article at the NY times, if I were part of the protest organizers I would actually advise against screaming “pigs” at the cops. Yelling that serves no purpose other than taking up news space.
Steve
When I passed by about 8 last night there were people hosing down the sidewalks and such on the west side of the protest. I was a little confused, because I thought that whole deal wasn’t supposed to happen till this morning. But maybe some bright people got the idea that if they did some cleaning themselves, it wouldn’t be necessary for the official cleaning to occur. I’m not sure.
jwb
@mistermix: I’m not advocating a conspiracy at all, except for the #ows not trending. But since Twitter is a corporation and it serves no corporate purpose to allow the hashtag to trend, it doesn’t surprise me and I don’t really see it as big deal, other than it tells you something about the company. The other stuff: I’m reporting what others have said and what has happened to me. My guess on the #ows tag is that there is some technical problem with hashes, since it is one of the few hashes I regularly use, the problem would be most likely to manifest itself for me when I use it.
Thymezone
@handsmile:
Wow, what a crock of shit.
Well, except for the Google part, which I was looking at yesterday.
David in NY
@Thymezone: Looking in the mirror, I see.
handsmile
Yet again let me write that for those truly interested in the “Occupy Wall Street” movement, the New York Times should NOT be your primary source of information. I say this as a longtime NYC resident and subscriber to its print edition. Since the inception of the protest here almost four weeks ago, NYT coverage of this major public event in its own city has been shockingly disgraceful. Numerous examples of its news division’s dereliction (separate from the editorial side) have been documented.
Both more comprehensive, as well as minute-by-minute, coverage of OWS protests in New York City and throughout the US has been and continues to be provided by the Guardian news organization:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/14/occupy-wall-street-protest-live
nancydarling
@David in NY: This is for Thymezone, sung by the sweet old lady who wrote it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nzudto-FA5Y
Here’s one of the comments from the youtube page.
Thymezone
@handsmile:
Really. Is that where you gleaned your fascinating insights into the inner motivations of the evil Mayor Bloomberg that appear for all the world to have been pulled out of your ass?
How many stitches did you have to get in your butt after you extracted that last whopper?
Say, you don’t think that Bloomberg was going to oust the protesters from the park because his girlfriend threatened to cut him off if he didn’t, do you? I mean, how deep is your sourcing on this story? I think we can learn a lot from you.
Thymezone
@nancydarling:
I always enjoy exchanging music links with friends. Here’s my contribution for this morning.
handsmile
@Thymezone:
Thanks for playing! You are certainly welcome to continue embarrassing yourself by the willful ignorance evidenced by your typing. You could choose instead to better inform yourself by perusing the abundant information compiled on the “Occupy Wall Street” movement that is readily available through a variety of online media sources. For your assistance, I provided one of them above.
I somehow suspect, however, that obtuse fulmination rather than self-education is your preferred exercise.
nancydarling
@Thymezone: Everything starts with a dream—this one becomes more real every day!
Thymezone
@handsmile:
Oh thanks. I have a lot of information on OWS already. What I was looking for was the source of your valuable insights into the motivations and actions of Mayor Bloomberg. You spoke so confidently about them, I assumed that you had a great source. Share?
Thymezone
@nancydarling:
I agree with that. I myself started with a dream, so I am with you on that all the way.
I’ve had a few dreams myself, if you don’t mind a few thousand words about my life story. Okay, I will be brief. I was doing civil rights marches in 1962. So, you know. Occupying a lunch counter back then was a protest against the pain that the lunch counter owner was causing people who came into his place of business. We never thought to seize private property owned by people who weren’t doing anything to us just to be assholes. But, we were young, and idealistic.
David in NY
@Thymezone And your views are based on what? The pay you get for trolling here? What are your beliefs as to Bloomberg’s motivations here? He now says (WOR this a.m.) he really didn’t want to do it, but Brookfield (on whose board his mistress sits) made him. And he doesn’t think the police will be available to work for Brookfield again. Are you down with that? Does any of that have the ring of truth (based on his past “reverence” for the First Amendment)? And what are you pulling your conclusions out of?
sparky
graphic photo at this
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/10/14/violence-breaks-out-during-occupy-wall-street-march-on-wall-street/WINS link regarding downtown violence with an OWS march
TZ: i believe occupying a lunch counter would mean you were occupying someone’s private property. the park is open to the public so it’s not really clear what the validity of your distinction is.
Thymezone
@David in NY:
Nice try, David. You are new at this. I will educate you. I have not expressed any opinion on the motivations and actions that arise from those, on the part of Mayor Bloomberg. Therefore your question is moot. However, I will say, I have no inside and verifiable information on those matters, as I suspect mister whats-his-name does not either. The difference between me and him is that I will say, I don’t know, and have no basis for forming an opinion, whereas, he also seems to not have any basis, but has formed an opnion. Upon that little distinction, my post earlier rests. Do you get my meaning? I am sure that you do.
David in NY
@Thymezone: Ever hear of circumstantial evidence, Thymezone? Apparently not. There’s an archaic line from Thoreau, “Some circumstantial evidence is very powerful, as when there’s a trout in the milk.” Look it up.
Also, your
is one of the most self-satisfied, revolting posts I’ve ever seen here, even from a snot-nosed troll like you.
David in NY
@Thymezone: Hah. “self-satisfied” and “revoling”. Did I nail it, or what?
Thymezone
@sparky:
Ah, my dear sparky, if you are looking for a distinction there, you might try the one I SUPPLIED YOU WITH in my post. The lunch counter owner was injuring customers by refusing to serve some of them for the misdemeanor of being black. IN response to this injury, we set out to retaliate by sitting at the lunch counter and singing We Shall Overcome and stuff.
Whereas, in the case of Zuccotti Park, I am not aware that the owners have injured anyone represented by the occupiers, who apparently chose to ignore the clearly posted statement of permission to use the park posted on signs that, ironically, are visible in the Google views referenced by my adversary above! I can furnish you with a Google link to the street view that shows the signs, if you will PM me at ty.emzone at facebook dot com. Then you can see the signage and wonder, why would the protesters just set up camp on a private piece of land and then fake outrage when the property owner asks them to please step aside long enough for them to clean up the space? And to please observe the signs and act accordingly? It seemed a reasonable request to me. But, I am just naturally reasonable by nature, as everyone knows.
Thymezone
@David in NY:
Definitely revoling. I have always prided myself in that. Thanks for noticing.
gene108
@Cat Lady:
I get the, “if it makes liberals mad, he (she) must be doing something right” mindset. That’s the knee-jerk reason to disapprove of OWS, “if liberals approve of it, I should disapprove.”
I just think there’s something deeper in the right-wing psyche that makes it hard to reason with them, even if they agree with your general premise.
For example:
Q: Wall Street, MNC’s, etc. don’t have your best interests at heart and are looking to maximize profit. Doesn’t it suck that you work for ‘x’, where your middle-class job could be outsourced because your MNC didn’t beat Wall Street’s earnings expectations for the quarter?
RW: Yeah it sucks, but what do you want to do make it worse by getting government involved? We need to make people tougher and more adaptable, rather than suck on the government teat. Yeah, it’d suck, if I lost my job, but I’ve done ‘x’ and can get another one. I’m not a whiny lib, who can’t take care of himself.
I seriously get into conversations like this with right-wingers on other sites. Yes, they agree with my premise that losing your job sucks. They just somehow have convinced themselves that losing those jobs is part of some sort of social-Darwinian-selection process, which America needs to go through (though, evolution is a theory and cannot be backed up by scientific data).
I just don’t understand what drives that sort of cognitive dissonance.
I’d think, if you thought you were in a bad situation, you’d work to make sure you could get into no more bad situations. They somehow have convinced themselves that suffering is somehow a badge of honor, which is preferable to government stepping in and preventing said suffering by introducing universal healthcare, for example.
Thymezone
@David in NY:
Ah, circumstantial evidence. Of course, why didn’t I think of that? I thought Bloomberg’s deferential statement that the protesters could stay indefinitely was pretty good mindfuck-fu the other day, eh? That was a master stroke! What does your intuition tell you he was up to there? Setting you up for a big double-take and tongue-swallowing a couple days later? What do you think? The man is clearly deranged.
Thymezone
@David in NY:
David, thank you for raising the subject of my pay. Not only is the rate so low as to be considered abusive, really, but there is also the matter of the checks apparently never being sent at all. At all. Not a dime. I have had to resign myself to doing this for love.
If you could look into these complaints for me I would be forever in your debt.
Thymezone
@David in NY:
Ah, in other words, you have nothing, and must resort to “I know you are but what am I” as the theme of your response.
I can save you some time by stipulating here that my mother does, in fact, wear combat boots. In fact, she is wearing them right now.
David in NY
@Thymezone: If you actually understood anything, you would understand that this is not about private property at all. The property in question is only “owned” by Brookfied (Bloomberg’s girlfriend’s company) in a limited degree, it having ceded rights to that property to the city of New York. Such as the right to close the park to anyone or at any hour. That’s in the city contract with it. Furthermore, those rules were just formulated the other day with, as the circumstantial evidence clearly shows, the purpose of suppressing First Amendment protected activity, that is giving the city (which bows to every wish of the financial center) the chance to end the whole thing. For that is what those rule would do. Given what is evident, in light of the clear circumstantial evidence, that the city and Brookfield were conspiring to suppress the rights of the people of OWS, it was the city and Brookfield who were acting in violation of federal law, not the people of OWS.
Oh, and fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
David in NY
@Thymezone: Readying to apply them to your hindquarters, without any doubt.
singfoom
Those poor owners of private parks that allow public access. They have suffered for so long under a uneven playing field, with those damn DFH oppressing their property rights.
Oh wait, this is about the corrupting influence of corporate money on our political process and not about property rights.
For me, First Amendment > Property rights, especially when it’s a private park that is publically accessible due to an agreement between the municipality and the owners of the park. YMMV
Thymezone
@David in NY:
No, I don’t think you are correct. If the property had been “ceded”, why would Brookfield be requesting a cleanup? If the city wanted to clean it up and it had been ceded, why would a request from Brookfield be either necessary or useful? Where did you get the information that the property had been “ceded.” I don’t even recall the use of such language in cases where private property has been given over to public authorities. I have some personal past experience with such property transactions, and this does not ring any bells. Perhaps you can point us to a source for that. I think we need more information on that.
Can you spell out for me how a park owner is “in violation of federal law” by putting up what amounts to a “no camping” sign on their property? Which is what was being reported earlier that they had done. And of course, the signage, as I said, is visible right on the Google street view. It appears that the signs are awfully prominent and visible. What rights to camp on the park site are being violated by the park owners? I am not familiar with these camping rights, I had not heard of them before. Of course, I dropped out of the Boy Scouts early to pursue my love of entomology full time.
Thymezone
@David in NY:
Sexual abuse of horses is really pretty barbaric, David. I urge you to curb your bestiality impulses and get a grip on yourself… figuratively speaking, of course.
BobS
Bloomberg and the park owners just handed OWS good sign/chant material- WE CLEANED UP THE PARK, NOW YOU CLEAN UP WALL STREET.
Thymezone
@David in NY
So David, if I understand you, which is definitely not established at this point … you are saying that a little park built by a private developer out there in the middle of all these big buildings full of fat cats and their nubile employees has always been open to public camping, and that only in the face of OWS has a mean spirited rule against this camping been imposed deliberately to thwart the wandering protesters who only wanted a place to rest their heads? Is that your assertion, David? Just trying to be clear here, I don’t want to misunderstand you.
I guess that would explain the complete and total lack of camping visible in the Google street views of this property? Imagine, such a great camping opportunity, ignored right there on the doorstep of WTC?
Thymezone
Say, David old bean, I was reading this article yesterday, and I for the life of me can’t find any verification of anything you have said today on this subject. Can you examine the article and point me to the error of my ways? I am always looking to be corrected when I am off the reservation, as they say, information-wise.
You are a prince for helping me with this, I really appreciate it.
Just a little excerpt:
Because Zuccotti Park is not a publicly owned space, it is not subject to ordinary public park curfew. New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said on September 28, 2011 that the NYPD could not bar protesters from Zuccotti Park since it is a public plaza that is required to stay open 24 hours a day. “In building this plaza, there was an agreement it be open 24 hours a day,” Kelly said. “The owners have put out regulations [about what’s allowed in park]. The owners will have to come in and direct people not to do certain things.” A spokesperson for Brookfield Properties, the owner of the park, expressed concern: “Zuccotti Park is intended for the use and enjoyment of the general public for passive recreation. We are extremely concerned with the conditions that have been created by those currently occupying the park and are actively working with the City of New York to address these conditions and restore the park to its intended purpose.”[14]
On October 6, 2011, it was reported that Brookfield Office Properties, which owns Zuccotti Park, had issued a statement which said, “Sanitation is a growing concern… Normally the park is cleaned and inspected every weeknight… because the protestors refuse to cooperate… the park has not been cleaned since Friday, September 16th and as a result, sanitary conditions have reached unacceptable levels.”[15] To protect and clean the park, protesters volunteered to sweep the areas of the plaza and posted signs urging each other to avoid damaging the flower beds.[16]
On October 11, 2011 Brookfield Properties requested Police Commissioner Kelly to “clear the park” as its use by Occupy Wall Street “violates the law, violates the rules of the Park, deprives the community of its rights of quiet enjoyment to the Park, and creates health and public safety issues”.[17] Occupants were advised to clear the park on October 15 by 7 AM, however, shortly before this time facing potential of a confrontation, the owners withdrew the request.
—//
I am calling it a tempest in a teapark.
Thymezone
@David in NY:
I don’t know, David. You will have to speak to her directly on that matter to resolve the question. I can furnish you with some contact information. However, I have to warn you that she is about 90 years old (nobody in the family really knows for sure what her exact age is, she has never been forthcoming on the subject) and her recall is not all that great any more. But anyway, let me know if you want that information.
Xenos
@David in NY: Is there indeed a contract between the city and Brookfield? I would expect some sort of contract, signed off by brookfield and the city, recorded in the property registry in the same way that zoning settlements get recorded and establish the rights and duties of the parties and the governments involved.
In the absence of an argument citing the terms of such a contract, any speculation or arguments based on private property to be so much bloviation. Brookfield might have full power to clear the public off that park, or it may not.
Either way, we are talking about civil disobedience here. Either the occupiers want to get arrested or they don’t, either they want to clean it up or they don’t. The exact nature of private property in this context is not very relevent.
(FWIW, I can’t imagine why Brookfield would want an ownership stake that includes maintenance obligations in the park – why not actually cede the development rights and all other rights to the city, and keep a bare reversionary right should certain appropriate conditions not be met?)
Thymezone
@Xenos:
Wow, that’s quite interesting, Xenos. The occupiers, in your narration, have all the power, and the “nature of private property is not relevent (sic).”
Amazing. If only people with grudges knew that they can just do whatever they want wherever they want, and property owners can just go and suck on an egg ….. Once “civil disobedience” has been declared, it’s Katie Bar The Door, eh?
But then as you say, Brookfield may have full power to clear the park, or not. Hmm. There is a lot of hidden meaning in your post. I will need time to let it all sink in. Based on what we have heard and seen in the last 24 hours, Brookfield seems to be under the impression that it owns the park and makes the rules about what can go on there.
I didn’t think it was possible, but your post has actually increased the lack of information we need to really understand this issue. Quite a feat, if I may say so.
I am interested in investigating the correlation between complete absence of information, on the one hand, and bold assertions of facts not in evidence, which are then mistaken for facts in evidence, in blog threads. I would be interested in knowing whether such a correlation would point to a sort of cognitive black hole which could suck the entire solar system, and ultimately the universe, into oblivion before we could stop it?
Any thoughts on this would be greatly app
me
@Thymezone:
It’s amazing how someone so obnoxiously verbose is so incapable of reading.
Thymezone
@me:
Do you have a point? Both the city and Brookfield have stated publicly in the last 24 hours that Brookfield regulates the activity in the park. The city, via Comissioner Kelly. Protesters would be allowed in the park, but Brookfield did not want camping in the park.
Given that, WTF is the referenced post supposed to mean? The nature of private property is not “relevent (sic).?” Maybe you can rearrange the words to make sense of them, but I can’t. Of course, I am assuming that the order of the words would form sentences and scan in some way, but that’s just me, the eternal optimist. A glass half full sort of guy.
ornery
This thread was an excellent example of why trolls should not be fed.
Thymezone
@ornery:
This thread was an excellent example of what happens when a blog throws down a statement that is worthy of the worst nonsensical crap on cable tv and then entertains a gaggle of posters not one of whom have any fucking idea what actually happened, or why, but are perfectly willing to make it up and pull shit out of their asses until they bleed. We thereby learned that Mayor Bloomberg deliberately blindsided the protesters with the park cleanup ruse because he had been waiting for a chance to fuck OWS all along, his girlfriend put him up to it, and private property issues are not relevant to what we can do on, um, private property in a case like this since “civil disobedience” has been declared. Educational stuff, don’t you think?
But yeah, what you said makes a lot more sense. If you have had a lobotomy, I mean. And you know, assuming the lobotomy in cases like this is always a good idea. It’s like a baseline, a sort of lighthouse in the storm, if you get my drift. I know you agree with me, don’t fight it.
Tone In DC
The Freepers and/or Redstaters are coming.
Dandy. Witness the repetitive spamming of this thread.
Doubling back to the actual point, are the protesters being evicted/arrested or not? Mistermix, Odie, Kay? Any B-J regular?
Maude
@David in NY:
I couldn’t listen to Bloomberg on WOR. I did hear the tone of his voice. He’s the prince, waiting to be king.
He almost stepped in it by wanting OWS cleared out. It was his opinion that Wall Street folks are the Job Creators and pay a lot of taxes.
singfoom
@Tone In DC: No, they are currently not being removed. Please see http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/14/occupy-wall-street-protest-live for a good summary of events of the last 24 hours.
Petorado
Occupy protesters have been cleared out of Lincoln Park in Denver.
What an exercise in the banality of law enforcement: the public across the nation is spurred to protest in large part due to the illegal and immoral activities of the Wall Street crowd … and law enforcement dons riot gear to make sure that a public park’s curfew rules are strictly upheld.
suzanne
I just read this story from MSNBC, and the accompanying photo from the AP reads, “A New York City police officer runs over a National Lawyers Guild observer as Occupy Wall Street demonstrators march through the streets near Wall Street, Friday.”
It shows a man knocked to the ground, being run over my an officer on a motorcycle. It looks very Tianamen.
Awesome.
Throw those moneychangers out of the temple already.
Satanicpanic
@ornery: At least don’t feed the wordy and pedantic ones.
three dots
Last night I attended the General Assembly at Zuccotti Park, where the demonstrators voted on two requests from the local community board: 1.) Limit the drum circles to two hours per day. 2.) Make sure that a rep from OWS.org be present in the park at all times. After a lengthy discussion, the motion passed.
These compromises were sent to the community board and to Brookfield, along with a plan by which the demonstrators would do a thorough cleaning of the park at their own expense, and replace the flowers in the planters.
The demonstrators’ team leaders said that Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer supports Occupy Wall Street.
I’m pointing out these details to show that the demonstrators agreed to some mild compromises so as to make peace with the neighbors and gain some goodwill, and this may have helped Brookfield arrive at this decision.
I was at the park at 6 a.m. today, and the protestors were preparing for possible eviction and confrontation with the police. The legal team leader was advising those who were willing to be arrested to take their places, and advising those who were not prepared to be arrested to cross Cedar Street and watch from the sidewalk.
In the middle of these announcements came the breaking news that Brookfield would not clear the park. A great cheer went up, and it was a nice predawn moment.
A minute lader, the “stack” leader said that a group was going to immediately march down Wall Street. My own thought bubble said, “Maybe not a good idea,” but they went ahead, and there were a few arrests.
Just pointing out some details for people who were not there.
I Was There
The public/private argument is missing the point. While it remains ambiguous, though implied, that Brookfield Properties can set regulations for the park, the larger and primary issue is that the park, under the agreement made between the City of New York and the developer of 1 Liberty Plaza (in 1968), REQUIRES that park remain open to the public 24 hours a day (citation: New York TImes article, fifth paragraph, at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10…..ublic.html)
I cannot answer conclusively if Brookfield Properties can subsequently ban “camping gear” upon re-entry to Zuccotti Park. What cannot be done is forcing the protestors out, per the reported 1968 agreement (along with the First Amendment’s right of the people to peaceably assemble, as the protestors have).
OccupyWallStreet understands this and realizes that as long as they remain in the park, their round-the-clock operation remains both legal and viable (the confiscation of their property without due process being forbidden under the 5th Amendment). Once they leave, they potentially lose their rights as initially constituted, hence the planned act of civil disobedience to remain in the park after 7am this morning.
Make sense?
handsmile
@three dots: (#77)
Thanks very much for taking the time to inform us here with your detailed report on recent actions at Zuccotti Park/”Occupy Wall Street.” Such first-hand accounts provide much-needed perspective for these threads.
nancydarling
@handsmile: Ditto. Muchas gracias!
Baron Jrod of Keeblershire
Shorter Thymezome: “When I protested by occupying private property, that was different. That’s because I’m inherently better than those icky kids these days.”
Patrick Phelan
Man, if the pie filter doesn’t make everything better…
ornery – October 14, 2011 | 11:43 am · Link
This thread was an excellent example of why trolls should not be fed.
Thymezone – October 14, 2011 | 11:50 am · Link
Your comment reminds me, I could really use some pie!