Michael Wolraich's picture

    Occupy Wall Street to be Evicted

    By Michael Wolraich on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 9:33pm | Politics

    From Paul Newell, Democratic District Leader of New York's 64th Assembly District:

    It appears that Mayor Bloomberg and NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly are planning to forcibly evict the Occupy Wall Street protesters from Zuccotti Park in the heart of Lower Manhattan.  This is unlawful, undemocratic and risks silencing what may be an important voice.

    Please call Mayor Bloomberg right away at 311 (If you are outside of NYC right now, call 212.639.9675 instead.) and tell him not to kick the protesters out of Zuccotti Park.

    The reason I have been so impressed with the Occupy Wall Street movement so far is that, for the first time in my memory, Americans are talking about economic inequality.  I do not agree with all of what is said and done at OWS.  Indeed, neither do most of the protesters. But in a country where 1% of the population controls 42% of the wealth and 80% of us control only 7% of the wealth this is a conversation we need to have.

    I also know that for many of our neighbors, the OWS protests are one more quality of life burden for a community that has borne too many over the last 10 years.  I have spoken with many people at Occupy Wall Street and most are genuinely committed to being good neighbors.  There remains more work to be done there – the drumming in particular is an issue.  But this is not a reason to shut down political protests.

    Lower Manhattan is a special community.  Part of why we love it is its symbolic power.  Let us celebrate that, and continue to work for justice.

    Please call the Mayor at 311 or 212-639-9675 tonight.  Thank you.

     

    All the best,

    Paul

    Topics: 
    Politics

    Comments

    OWS has to remain committed to non-violence, then adapt and continue the movement. If not at Zuccotti Park, then somewhere else. If not occupying permanently, then temporarily. If not occupying physically, then virtually.


    by Donal on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 9:43pm

    I'm curious as to your concept of virtual occupation.  The lawyer for the members of Anonymous that were arrested for DDOS attacks argues that theirs is precisely an act of virtual occupation, no different than flooding a phone switchboard (although I think he used the Woolworth's lunch counter as an analogy, which might not be quite as strong).  In the technical sense, he would seem to me to be correct (although blackhat botnets almost certainly compromise this principle, Anonymous also distributes a tool called the LOIC that allows users to voluntarily participate in DDOS).

    So, does this fit your conception of virtual occupation?  If not, what acts would comprise such an occupation?


    by DF on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 1:09pm

    Maybe ongoing sporadic flash-mob occupations of bank locations, local brokerage offices, and the like.


    by Rootman on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 10:09pm

    I'm headed down to Occupy New Hampshire on Saturday at noon.


    by Dan Kervick on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 10:58pm

    I'm confused--in a quick read about this issue today, I got the impression that Z. Park is actually private property. So could the protest move to a public space instead?

    At this point, even if the sentinel group had to move, it wouldn't make much difference, assuming good messaging. The point has been made--this is the 99% vs. the 1%, and the actual protesters are people who represent many more people, who couldn't be at the physical location.

    Genghis, is it public or private property?


    by erica20 on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 12:30am

    It is a privately owned park.


    by tmccarthy0 on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 8:17am

    Its owners contracted with the city to clean it up?  Or just requested the city's assistance in clearing the premises so they can pay to have it cleaned up themselves?


    by AmericanDreamer on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 9:32am

    I don't know, I just know it is a privately owned park. 


    by tmccarthy0 on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 9:38am

    Wall Street, Denver and other emerging groups probably will want to add to their long list of things to do getting access to some high-quality, trustworthy, on-call, and free legal advice, preferably experienced in dealing with the kinds of legal issues that come up in the context of mass-based protest initiatives.   There should be people like that around in just about any urban area who would be glad to help out.  

    The incident Donal reported in Baltimore that got ugly and could have gotten uglier looks as though it was marked by a lot of confusion, ignorance or misunderstanding about what was legal and what wasn't. 

    If the group wants to project itself as law-abiding (with the possible exception of--hopefully only--specific, considered acts of nonviolent civil disobedience, where they have prepared for how to do that the right way) it stands to reason their leaders, spokespersons and members need to know what is legal, what isn't, and what the grey areas are, if they don't already from previous experiences. 

    This isn't just good politics and public relations, but could prevent people from getting hurt as a result of contradictory understandings from those of the police and other city officials in particular about what is lawful and what isn't.


    by AmericanDreamer on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 10:06am

    Just FYI and for the sake of clarity, it might be worth knowing that the "private owner" of the park is not some aging philanthropist... but rather, Brookfield Properties, who are very well known up here.

    Originally "Brascan," they're hard-edged builders of dams, transmission lines and mines and smelters - early on, largely in Canada and Brazil, thus the name. They also moved strongly into real estate, both mega as well as micro-holdings, which is why they find themselves holding the park today.

    More "Donald Trump with a heavy industrial bent" than "wealthy widow who likes to feed the birds."


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 10:28am

    Manhattan has hundreds of privately-owned public spaces where people can sit for a spell and enjoy a nice day in front of a waterfall or meet with a friend for a bag lunch. This is owing to deals with the adjacent building developers where if they provide a maintained public space as part of their project, they are then allowed something else, like more stories on a building or using more of the airspace or similar. It's one a them urban planning thingies, to keep Manhattan "livable."

    The ironic thing is, NYC's publicly-owned parks all have long had curfews and would never have allowed things like putting up tables, much less sleeping overnight (not to mention you can't smoke in them anymore.) Most of the corporate-owned public spaces actually have much looser rules, they are just landscaped plazas between buildings, marked as public spaces, without guards or cops.

    Furthermore, you don't see a lot of people get permits for demonstrations in like, Central Park, which is regularly policed, because generally it's agreed that it's there for everyone to share in some nature, peace, serenity and sanity in a crazy city on an island just 13 miles long.

    On Friday The Times published a good article explaining the system and the particulars about Zuccotti:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/nyregion/zuccotti-park-is-privately-ow...

     


    by artappraiser on Mon, 10/17/2011 - 11:34pm

    news on the privately-owned public space topic today:

    ‘No Camping’ Signs Begin to Sprout
    By Alice Speri, New York Times, Oct. 18

    Just in case the Occupy Wall Streeters are getting any ideas about expanding their territory or scoping out alternative sleeping sites, some of the privately owned public spaces in the city are giving notice: Don’t even think of camping here.

    Signs have gone up in at least three plazas in Midtown — one of them owned by Zuccotti Park’s owner, Brookfield Properties; two owned by another developer — forbidding “camping and/or the erection of tents or other structures” and “the placement of tarps or sleeping bags,” among other things.

    [....]

    While city-owned parks all have nighttime curfews, the 520 or so privately owned parks, arcades and plazas in the city fall into a gray area, and about half of them are required to be open 24 hours a day under the deals they struck with the city to be allowed to build more densely in return for creating public space. Even the ones open round the clock, though, are allowed to make their own rules.

    [....]


    by artappraiser on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 3:04pm

    I just do not wish to see Chicago '68 today.


    by Richard Day on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 4:48am

    Kent State or Concord Bridge? 

    The other day someone wrote that I was being too dire

    If this isn't a dire situation waiting to happen, I don't know what is.  

    Were all of the guns of "Fast and Furious"  accounted for?


    by Resistance on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 5:25am

    Same old political crap.

    Give the people the opportunity to beat on the barn door, and then send them home.

    From a barons viewpoint, "time for you serfs (sheeple), to go home and stop your whining, and complaining, SHUT UP, Put on your marching shoes; get the flock out of here".

    "Despite all of your frustrations, evidenced by your ranting and ravings, and occupation; NOTHINGS GOING TO CHANGE,

    WE'RE THE BARONS; YOU'RE THE SERFS  ..........GET OVER IT,

    You might as well go home, you're not going to win, you are powerless. 

    GO HOME and think about it. When you become rich like us, you'll understand. If you're not rich, it's your own fault, quit blaming wall street.

    If you cant beat em join em,

    We got ours, you need to get yours. 

    A fool and his money are soon departed; you need to find your own someone, to rip off." 

    "So you've been fooled/ screwed over, get over it, stop your whining, don't look back, look forward,.........MOVE ON  

    Who told you life was fair?

    (snark alert)


    by Resistance on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 5:42am

    It looks as though the cleanup has been postponed, at least for the time being:

    http://news.yahoo.com/nyc-official-protest-cleanup-being-postponed-103042129.html

     


    by AmericanDreamer on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 7:37am

    I don't see how what the City was planning to do was unlawful.


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 9:21am

    As TMC stated above, it's a private Park.

    Had it been a public park, receiving public money for it's upkeep, I could see a possible Constitutional issue involved.

    The Right to Assemble, not being undermined by barriers erected, to prevent the Right to Assemble   

    The right to assemble allows people to gather for peaceful and lawful purposes. Implicit within this right is the right to association and belief. The Supreme Court has expressly recognized that a right to freedom of association and belief is implicit in the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/First_amendment

    Court Cases - Right to Peaceably Assemble

    http://www.illinoisfirstamendmentcenter.com/research_CourtCases_RightToPeaceableAssem.php


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 10:06am

    It's not.   And I agree that it would be best if these "occupations" would focus on public spaces, as so many of them have across the country.

    I'm going to Occupy New Hampshire tomorrow, both to listen to other people's ideas and contribute my own ideas.   But I have to say that to the extent that this movement begins to appear as an undirected youth revolt organized and manipulated by professional revolutionaries trying to engineer an extra-political "direct action", it's going to turn of about 95% of the 99% of Americans they purport to represent.

    The United States is not Syria; it's not Egypt; it's not even Spain.  The democratic tools already exist here for a resurgent democratic commitment to social justice and equality.  Engage with the political process, for heavens's sake.


    by Dan Kervick on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 10:45am

    Maybe it was established as a private park, to protect against the Freedom to Assemble? To suppress the First Amendment..

    I wouldn’t be the first time; Wall Street has brought the country to its knees.

    In anticipation of future protests, they got the city to approve a private park.  Where the First Amendment couldn’t apply.


    by Resistance on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 10:25am

    Zuccotti Park, formerly called Liberty Plaza Park, was created in 1968 by United States Steel in return for a height bonus for its adjacent headquarters at the time of its construction. That building is now known as One Liberty Plaza.

    As is common, the developer agreed to maintain open space at ground level so they'd be allowed to build additional stories of rentable office space. They could have built a lower building and left almost no open ground, but they would have had to rent more windowless office space.

     


    by Donal on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 10:37am

    Thanks, that makes sense.

    Maybe as a people we should demand more open space anyway, instead of concrete jungles or heat islands.


    by Resistance on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 3:26pm

    There are those who claim the concrete jungle is actually better for the earth than sprawling low-rise developments. That was the rationale of early city planners, but American cities always seem to be surrounded by sprawl, instead of parklike vistas.


    by Donal on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 3:43pm

    What do you think?

    I think we should spread out and fill the Earth. Making the Earth the paradise it was meant to be.  

    From a scriptural basis, I believe when the language became confused in the land of Shinar (Babel)  it made us spread out.

    I have heard of lab studies where rats are confined and the negative results. Aggressive behavior with cannibalism.


    by Resistance on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 3:56pm

    Wow, and I thought I was paranoid.


    by Richard the Ele... on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 3:27pm

    A fine line?

    cyn·i·cal adj.

    1. Believing or showing the belief that people are motivated chiefly by base or selfish concerns; skeptical of the motives of others: a cynical dismissal of the politician's promise to reform the campaign finance system.

    2. Selfishly or callously calculating: showed a cynical disregard for the safety of his troops in his efforts to advance his reputation.

    3. Negative or pessimistic, as from world-weariness: a cynical view of the average voter's intelligence.

    4. Expressing jaded or scornful skepticism or negativity: cynical laughter.

    par·a·noid adj.

    1. Relating to, characteristic of, or affected with paranoia.

    2. Exhibiting or characterized by extreme and irrational fear or distrust of others: a paranoid suspicion that the phone might be bugged.

    n.

    One affected with paranoia.


    by Resistance on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 3:39pm

    I am very worried that people are going to hunt me down and torture me because I am a cynic. Do you think I'm being paranoid? There you go.

    by erica20 on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 1:13am

    Thats a good one Erica

    Are you a heretic?

    If so, be afraid, be real afraid, if the Evangelicals reintroduce their own Inquisition.

    2. heretic - a person who holds unorthodox opinions in any field (not merely religion)
    recusant, nonconformist - someone who refuses to conform to established standards of conduct

     


    by Resistance on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 2:32am

    OWS 99%

    Bloomberg 1%

    He shoulda' known better.

    We can do this.

    Occupy Wall Street.


    by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 12:20am

    The Dwarf mayor confounds me at times.

    I mean why would he spend all his millions to be king of the castle if he were not to benefit from his position?

    I get a kick out of his appearances on cable.

    It is a wonder to behold; he is a genius.

    But damn! I mean he controls the 'set up' so to speak.

    There is an argument that the homeless and the hookers and the neerdowells screw up his ability to do biz! That is a given!

    But placements; I mean the ability to put this building over here and that building over there must have something to do with power and the ability to make bucks.

    I do not think that Bloomberg gives a shite about New Yorkers, but he gives a damn about Bloomberg Inc! And he can hide behind a facade that he cares about metropolitan peeps and make more money than he loses with that masque.

     


    by Richard Day on Mon, 10/17/2011 - 7:35pm

    the laws are written by the rich to protect the rich

    Oh, you mean like civil rights laws?  Like Constitutional protection of free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and freedom of association? Like workplace health and safety laws?   These are all written to protect the rich?

    The King-led part of the civil rights movement strove mightily to project an image and a practice of rectitude, including, most impressively IMO, respect for those whose practices they sought to change.  They did deliberately violate the law at times, in the context of prepared-for, thought-through acts of civil disobedience where they did not resist arrest for violations they deliberately committed. If there were instances where the leadership of that part of the civil rights movement displayed a casual attitude about breaking laws I've not come across any in the reading I've done on the history of that effort.  

    I don't think it was at all unrelated to that aspect of its MO that it was able to draw a great deal of support from right-thinking people of other skin colors, who appear to have concluded from the practices and symbolism of that movement that it was not attacking them personally as "evil people", or all aspects of American life, but rather specific aspects of American life which were asserted and quite well-demonstrated to have violated America's own most-honored and respected commitments. 

    If you're cool with a casual atttitude about breaking laws, picking fights with the police, dissing widely respected societal values, all I can say is I hope that people who think differently than you do on these matters end up attaining leadership roles with OWS and similar efforts in other cities.


    by AmericanDreamer on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 2:17pm

    Sister/brother Anonymous, we know that violence has very often been inflicted on those who pursued social justice.  My comment was in reference, not to what will be done to seekers of justice, but what they are willing and not willing to do to others in pursuit of those aims.

    With the MLK Memorial the subject of considerable attention in downtown Washington, D.C. this weekend seems as especially apt time to recall some of what made his legacy so enduringly powerful.  The civil rights movement to a remarkable degree made good on its commitment to foreswear even retaliatory violence.  They won over enough of public opinion, eventually, by making sure they were the ones who were subjected to violence, at heavy cost, rather than the ones who initiated it.

    The labor movements at times acted illegally, as for example when workers occupied factories in a way meant to provoke management to call in police or troops to evict them.  Violence ensued in some of these instances where it was difficult if not impossible to determine who started it.  But what was generally clear in those cases was that workers were unarmed or very much less armed than were the folks sent in to evict them.  In other instances management didn't make much of a pretense about trying terribly hard to avoid inflicting violence on workers of whose actions they did not approve.

    Those committed to bringing about progressive change through direct actions or as part of social movements run risks of being subjected to violence.  We know that.  My point is that rarely have they been successful, in this country anyway, when they are either initiators of it or perceived as such., or when they are perceived as lawless thugs, by the public they are trying to win over.

     


    by AmericanDreamer on Sun, 10/16/2011 - 10:59am

    Here's an account of the Occupy activities that's probably going to get read by a lot of ordinary Americans who aren't 1%-ers and who probably don't have very set opinions about the Occupy phenomenon at this point:

    http://news.yahoo.com/anti-wall-st-movement-grows-dozens-cities-142217261.html

    Here's a part of it:

     

    In Chicago, about 500 people had set up camp at the entrance to Grant Park on Saturday evening after a protest earlier in the day involving about 2,000, the Chicago Tribune reported. Police said they gave protesters repeated warnings after the park closed at 11 p.m. and began making arrests when they refused to leave.

    Officers also asked protesters to take down their tents before beginning to cut them down to clear the area, police said. Protesters who were arrested would be released after background checks were done to make sure they didn't have any outstanding arrest warrants, police said. They could face fines for violating a municipal ordinance.

    The arrests signify a new phase of civil disobedience for Chicago's wing of the movement, organizers said Sunday.

    "It was very much a choice and calculated," said Randy Powell, a 27-year-old student at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago who was arrested. "I feel like I had to."

    Unlike the park in New York City, Grant Park is a public park.  From the account we don't have information on whether, say, the 11:00 pm curfew was just enacted three days ago or whether it is longstanding, whether the City makes exceptions for those following a specified process to seek them that was sought and rejected, etc.  We don't have enough facts and other information to judge.

    I can say that on reading it I am left to wonder why Mr. Powell "felt like he had to" get himself arrested over this issue, though.

    Synchronicity wrote the other day that she's willing to get herself arrested if need be, but not for refusing to evacuate private property at the request of the police.

    What is the point Mr. Powell is trying to make?  Who is this principled act targeted towards?  What message does it communicate about him and the effort of which he is a part?  We have no indication that he hurt anyone.  But neither is your typical reader likely to have the faintest idea of what he is really taking a stand against.   Is it against immoral public park hours-of-operation and terms-of-use laws? 

    If people are going to get arrested on purpose, it helps if they are getting arrested on purpose for breaking an unjust law that is related to the core issues they are upset about.    

    Four African American college students deliberately got themselves arrested in North Carolina on February 1, 1960 for having sat at a department store lunch counter, contrary to the state's segregation law at that time.  

    When the media covered that story, the very law the students broke communicated to readers, listeners, or viewers a lot about the nature of their grievance.  It helps if something close to the hoped-for story partially tells itself.  By September 1961 some 70,000 or so individuals had participated in protests of immoral segregation laws (with the planned and mostly invisible efforts of behind-the-scenes adults who sought to make it go viral, as it were) this incident touched off.  

    Syncrhonicity is clearly thinking through her actions.  It's not clear to me that Mr. Powell is.  I realize it takes time for fledgling protest movements to sort themselves out.  But I think it's also true there is a window open here, in terms of the potential for broad public receptivity or support.  It isn't clear for how long it will remain open.  Certainly, opponents are working assiduously to close it, on this group of efforts, asap. 


    by AmericanDreamer on Sun, 10/16/2011 - 2:57pm

    Well, FWIW, I found a few pages talking about Grant Park. This one appears the most authoritative:

    http://www.chicagoparkdistrict.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/parks.detail/obj...

    It doesn't mention hours or closing any where on that page. That doesn't mean there wasn't a sign somewhere giving hours, of course. In an effort to find a counter example, I looked up our own Ivy Creek Natural Area in Charlottesville (which I know to have a closing time), and it also doesn't mention hours or a closing time as near as I can tell. On the other hand, Shenandoah National Park, which is always open (although not all of its facilities are), does list its hours of operation:

    http://www.nps.gov/shen/planyourvisit/hours.htm

    It would be interesting if someone could find the text of this "municipal ordinance". It's also worth noting that, evidently, this decision to arrest protesters came from none other than Rahm Emmanuel.


    by Verified Atheist on Sun, 10/16/2011 - 3:15pm

    Does it occur to you at all that a resistance to a dictum that says you must exercise your free speech rights ONLY within the restrictions placed upon it by the authorities might be sufficient reason to welcome arrest?

    Beginning with the demonstrations in NYC during the 2008 GOP Convention, I've been amused and then horrified to see that demonsrtators are herded into officially approved sites to do their demonstratin'. That these sites are quite purposefully placed to limit their impact is a foregone conclusion, and compliance with such rules is kinda' self-defeating, don't you suppose?

    Or do we all abide rules and laws that insist we can't sit at lunch counters and we must sit in the back of the bus?


    by SleepinJeezus on Sun, 10/16/2011 - 4:01pm

    Or do we all abide rules and laws that insist we can't sit at lunch counters and we must sit in the back of the bus?

    In the comment you responded to I cited getting arrested for sitting in at a lunch counter as a very positive example of civil disobedience in the face of an immoral law, partly because it's hard for the reporting of it not to create openings for protesters to send a clear message they want to send.  

    I also said we didn't have enough facts to fully assess the Grant Park situation, just noted that it wasn't clear to me what point Powell was trying to make.

    If Powell wanted to make a point about arbitrary suppression of freedom of political expression, don't you think it would likely be more effective if that was something the group talked about and tried to get agreement on so that either a lot more of them supported the actions of Powell and the others, or perhaps none did?  That's part of my point as well.  This way it looks as though it was just a few members of the group meaning to send this message, if in fact your supposition about the message Powell and the others arrested for this wanted to send is the one they actually wanted to send (as opposed to something more amorphous, like proving a willingness to defy authority, whether justified or arbitrary or whatever).  

    Getting arrested can be a smart, potentially effective thing to do to advance a worthy cause.  And it can also be a not particularly smart, not particularly effective thing to do to advance a worthy cause.  My point was, and is, that being thoughtful about when to do that is a good idea for protestors who want to gain sympathetic public attention.  If you think getting oneself arrested is inherently a smart and useful thing to do, and we all should just jerk the knee and applaud someone who does that, no matter the reason or thinking behind it, we just disagree on that.


    by AmericanDreamer on Sun, 10/16/2011 - 4:48pm

    ​If Powell wanted to make a point about arbitrary suppression of freedom of political expression, don't you think it would likely be more effective if that was something the group talked about and tried to get agreement on so that either a lot more of them supported the actions of Powell and the others, or perhaps none did?

    If there was a curfew or a rule in place banning the demonstrators from being on the site at the time of Powell's arrest, then I expect EVERY ONE of them who were present knew the potential consequences and supported Powell. Indeed, they all put themselves at risk of arrest.

    Powell was one of the many who were arrested. Others weren't. Call it serendipity. But also call it point made. These guys aren't going to "ask for permission" to exercise their free speech rights as they see fit. Got a problem with that? They probably don't give a shit. Neither do I.

    Civil disobedience is that, precisely. And if these guys don't want to be banished to Naperville to hold their protest under proper roolz, and they're willing to suffer the consequences of their civil disobedience, more power to them. (For reference, I suggest you look to see the disquiet MLK caused in the beginning - among his own black preachers and other supporters of Civil Rights, no less.)

    If - on the other hand - there were no roolz to be violated, then the arrest was specious and illegal. That's a whole OTHER can of worms.


    by SleepinJeezus on Sun, 10/16/2011 - 5:47pm

    Rules? Now the government wants to talk about Rules?
    Where would you have us go?
     

     

    Thanks Ramona for this picture


    by Resistance on Sun, 10/16/2011 - 6:17pm

    No problem.  Go for it.


    by Ramona on Sun, 10/16/2011 - 9:53pm

    This is how it's done:  The water fountain scene from "The Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman".

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lL3ywKT7GCM&feature=related


    by Ramona on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 4:40pm

    Thank you for sharing that, Ramona.  I hadn't seen that before.  I didn't have sound--and it didn't seem as though I needed it to really appreciate that scene.


    by AmericanDreamer on Sun, 10/16/2011 - 10:52am

    You're welcome. It's on my list of flawless scenes -- perfect from beginning to end.  And no, you don't need the sound, but the music accompanying it is pretty perfect, too.


    by Ramona on Sun, 10/16/2011 - 10:04pm

    A The New Yorker description of what ended up happening. It reminds me of a Dad confronting his kid and saying "I'm only going to say this once: clean up your room." And the kid did, and Mom stopped her bitching.

    Wall Street Postcard: Preoccupied
    by Lizzie Widdicombe for the October 24, 2011 issue

    [....]

    A little before seven, Mayor Bloomberg arrived. He entered the park, flanked by a cameraman and a bodyguard, and worked his way down the narrow path to its center. It was dark out, and the crowd pressed in around him. “You have a right to protest,” he said, almost inaudibly, and brought up the park’s owner, Brookfield Office Properties, which was planning to send in a cleaning crew. “Brookfield, they have some rights, too.”

    The crowd began to chant “Billionaire Bloomberg go to hell!” and “You are the one per cent!” The atmosphere was tense, and the Mayor looked a bit frightened. He proceeded quickly to Trinity Place and sped off in a black sedan.

    “He’s the richest person in the country,” a protester said (erroneously) as he left. “We don’t welcome him in this park.”

    “Yes, we do,” said Bob Trimper, an art installer with a ponytail. “We welcome everybody.”

    “Fuck that.”

    “Anger is an expression of fear.”

    By Friday morning, at 5 A.M., the park looked completely different. The library and the comfort station had been tidied up, the tarps and pillows had been stacked in piles next to storage containers. More than a hundred people milled around holding brooms and scrub brushes: the protesters had transformed into a cleanup crew. The air was muggy—a Biblical storm had swept in during the night—and the park smelled of cigarette smoke and disinfectant. Some nervous policemen guarded the perimeter, but by 6 A.M. the Brookfield crews hadn’t shown up.

    “I’m excited to be defending this space,” said Ben Shepard, a CUNY professor who writes about public spaces, holding a fleece blanket around his shoulders. “We never knew exactly how publicly accessible this kind of park would be, and now we’re testing it.” A little after seven, someone shouted, “I have an announcement from Brookfield Properties!,” and said that the cleaning would be postponed....

     


    Personally, I suspect Bloomberg is figuring that there's no sense in making a big scene when the weather will assist mightily in changing the situation in a few months time.

    by artappraiser on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 3:20pm

    Grand Central Station, maybe.


    by Oxy Mora on Tue, 10/18/2011 - 3:24pm

    Latest Comments