Occupy Long Beach Leaves Lincoln Park, Will Use January Meetings in Bixby Park to "Restructure"
- Details
- By Greggory Moore Follow @greggory_moore
- | Thursday, 05 January 2012 05:10
Lincoln Park (Long Beach, CA) Nov 27, 2011, Photo by Greggory Moore
10:00am | It remains to be seen whether Occupy Long Beach will resume physically being an occupying presence -- be it in Bixby Park, where the group's daily General Assemblies are now being held, or elsewhere -- but the Occupation of Lincoln Park has ended two-and-a-half months after it began.
"Frankly, the continued Occupation of Lincoln Park was not tenable," group member Demos told the Long Beach Post Wednesday. "People don't like to admit it, but part of attracting people is being in a place they find attractive."
Demos says that while initially Occupy Long Beach hoped to maintain a large enough presence at Lincoln Park to change the park's atmosphere, on the whole too few OLBers were able and/or willing to stay on-site to keep a continuing Occupation there viable.
"Lincoln Park is a tough park," Demos says.
On Tuesday, OLB came to a consensus that, until further notice, the group's daily General Assemblies (or GAs) will be held in Bixby Park on Monday-Friday @ 7:30 p.m. and Saturday-Sunday @ 4 p.m.
Demos says OLB's process of deciding to change location and course was far smoother and less contentious than the corresponding process leading to the original choice of Lincoln Park for the Occupation.
"I'm proud of how far we've come," he says.
According to Demos, Bixby Park was chosen as the group's new epicenter for several reasons, including its level of foot traffic, its being a "highly-utilized park" for both public and private events, and its being located in a "reasonably diverse neighborhood" -- as well as its atmospheric desirability.
"We want it to be visible, we want it to be easy to get there, and we want people to want to be there," Demos says.
But more important than the location -- or even whether OLB should resume a strategy of 24-hour physical occupation of anywhere at all, an issue they will visit at Thursday night's GA -- is what the group does.
"It's not all about where we Occupy," says Demos, "it's about what we do there. […] Some like to point out that 'occupy' is a verb."
Whatever they do, Demos says it appears the City is less willing to engage in the process than it had promised, noting that "absolutely nothing, zero" has come in the way of the "ongoing dialog" that was supposedly to take place between the City and Occupy Long Beach after City Manager Pat West compiled a council-ordered report on "on the practices of other cities to accommodate the Occupy protestors, and a discussion of options the City may consider to provide a free-speech zone or other means to address the issue" without obtaining OLB input.
"My understanding is that they [i.e., the City] have not engaged with us [since the report was issued] whatsoever," Demos says. "I think they look at the size of our group and think, 'I don't really have to listen to them right now.' […] Those folks who were supposed to deal with us clearly do not want to deal with us."
Demos says OLB's focus in January -- "a restructuring period" -- will not be its physical locus, but community engagement, whether through classes, demonstrations, or "literally knocking on doors."
"Our primary focus right now is outreach -- engaging with Long Beach, engaging with the 99%, finding out about what they'd like to see changed in the city," Demos says. "And to test in the court of public opinion whether people think things are bad enough to get active. […] But if the Citizens United decision, the Patriot Act, the NDAA [viz., National Defense Authorization Act], the bank bailouts, etc., aren't a big deal and people still want to sit at home on their couch watching TV, then maybe there shouldn't be an Occupation."
For that matter how about using the front yards of those involved since they claim to have jobs? Oh yeah, the neighbors would complain.....
How ironic that so many in the Occupy movement complain about, among other things, environmental damage and related concerns and yet the local version departs Lincoln Park leaving bags full of trash and other debris behind for someone else to have to clean up and dispose of afterward.
Hypocritical much?
- Glen Archer
occupylb.org admin
Perhaps that's just a fancy euphemism for: "We have the courage of our convictions so long as the place we choose to occupy isn't too 'tough' for us."
Commenter Glen Archer proves yet another valuable point...the perception of an overall lack of cohesiveness, organization, or unified message coming from all Occupy groups, including OLB.
Perhaps this is strictly by design. Perhaps in this way no matter what is said by anyone claiming to be a spokesperson for the group, others in the movement can always deny and take issue with it, claiming the speaker has no official standing.
Or, perhaps, they just can't get their act together and craft a cohesive message.
I would encourage Greggory to seek out SOMEone in OLB willing to give their true and full name whenever they offer a statement or claim to be a spokesperson for the movement and then stick with *that* person. Perhaps Glen Archer might be a good place to start?
How can folks expect to be taken seriously who will not inssist that their true names be attributed or who (in some cases) feel the need to hide behind masks to conceal their identities?
Doesn't seem a bit hypocritical for some folks to decry a government that has grown distant and unaccountable while refusing (or at least declining) to be accountable for one's own true identity?
Also, I would love to hear an explanation from someone in OLB, pseudonym or not, for why they left so much trash and other debris behind in Lincoln Park when they left and whether they now plan to trash up Bixby Park in the same way.
So glad that I made that decision. Feel bad for the homeowners still in that area that will have to put up with this foolishness and worry about their property values.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBWFfilWVDs
Now that it's revealed that there is no group spokesperson named Demos it is also apparent that there is no group spokesperson, period. Demos can't possibly speak for OLB as a whole. Demos can only give the opinions of anonymous persons who are presumably involved in OLB. That is effectively what Demos is, a collection of anonymous persons sharing their opinions.
Your series of articles on OLB has lost credibility to me. It's hard for me not to think that you've helped create a narrative to suit your own agenda (and possibly the agenda of your friends), rather than (as much as possible) document a narrative that has been playing out these last few months.
1. The physical Occupation is the core of the movement, and its most important aspect. No matter what, we must continue to Occupy public space. Yes, the movement needs to grow and develop - but that is what we have affinity groups and direct action groups for - to take the movement in various directions, experiment, see what works, but still maintain the core focus of the Occupation.
2. "...people still want to sit at home on their couch watching TV" is the exact reason we NEED a physical Occupation. People, even those who don't support the Occupation, know deep down that this country is ****ed. But there are so many distractions in everyday life in America (vis a vis TV, pop music, consumer culture, etc) that they can easily take their mind off of the fact that this ship is sinking, and fast.
The -reason- we need a physical Occupation is to constantly remind people of the message. Even if we annoy them. Even if we have to fight the City week after week for our right to Occupy public space. Even if people simply close their minds off to the idea, and refuse to educate themselves and learn why we do what we do. We must Occupy.
As far as I can tell, the only time the City has attempted to intervene with or intrude upon OLB's presence in Lincoln Park was when OLB's presence and/or activities proved unlawful.
Can you please cite for me the place in the U.S. or California Constitutions or in the City Charter wherein we, the people, have granted anyone or any group among us the "right" to violate duly-enacted statutory or case laws?
Thanks!
What, exactly, is the message? My inquiry is sincere.
Thank you.
@Bill of Rights: Since you're probably the only person on here who's asked for a sincere explanation, instead of writing us off as jobless hippies and socialists, I'll give you a sincere explanation.
The fact of the matter is, we know there are always going to be rich and poor. But on the other side of the coin, we used to live in a country where the rich owned factories and made 30 times what the factory workers made. Now we live in a country where the rich make money by lying about the value of derivative bonds, and make 3000 times what a factory worker WOULD make, if the factories hadn't all been moved to China.
Capitalism is a great system. We won the Cold War because people behind the Iron Curtain looked over the wall, and saw how things were here in the West, and how we have choices, and opportunity, and freedom. Capitalism got us out of Depression, won WWII, built the middle class, and built the country's infrastructure, from highways to the Hoover Dam to electrifying the rural South. Its a system that rewards hard work and fair play, and everyone does their fair share and everyone benefits. The rich get richer, the poor get richer, everyone is happy. Its a great system.
Then after Reagan, the Republicans decide to make it their number one priority to destroy that system. Now we have a system where the richest Americans are the ones who find ways to game the system (our friends on Wall Street) and the poorest Americans are the ones who thought working hard would get them the American dream, when in fact it gets them a pink slip when their job is outsourced to a 10-year-old in a Mumbai slum. And now corporations have more influence over government than the people the government is supposed to represent.
Its not about the rich people having more money. Its about how they got that money. Its about how they take opportunity away from the rest of us, for the sake of having more money. Its about how they knowingly and willingly take risks that destroy our economy -- knowing full well what could and would happen -- putting millions out of work, while creating nothing of value, and all the while crowing that they're John Galt, creating wealth for everyone.
That's what the protesting, the conversations, dialogue, and soul-searching are all about. When Liberals ran the country for 30 years following the New Deal, the American economy doubled in size, and wages doubled along with it. That's fair. When Conservatives ran the country for 30 years following Reagan, the American economy doubled again, and wages stayed flat. What happened to our share of the money? All of it went to the richest 1%.
That's not "there are always going to be rich people". That's an unfair system. That's why we're upset.
That's why we Occupy.
http://www.lbpost.com/news/greggorymoore/12565
Read footnote 1
I repeat: Can you please cite for me the place in the U.S. or California Constitutions or in the City Charter wherein we, the people, have granted anyone or any group among us the "right" to violate duly-enacted statutory or case laws?
Thanks!
Therefore, by definition, any "statutory or case law" to the contrary is unconstitutional. We can argue all day about a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution vs. a living document that can be reasonably restricted by duly-enacted law, however, the fact of the matter is, the Framers wrote exactly what they meant to write; a guarantee that our natural right to occupy (lowercase) space and speak freely should not and can not be taken away from us. I refuse to accept circular logic that states that a "law is a law is a law", or that a law is just and right simply by virtue of it being a law.
The term is not, however, applied to the specific rights of either speech or assembly but, rather, to the broader rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Within the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution we find that Congress shall make no law, among other things, abridging the "freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble.."
The question then becomes: Do our duly-enacted local laws that regulate camping in public spaces represent an "abridgement" of the right to peaceably assemble or to speak freely?
These are serious and important questions, as are all questions related to our various Constitutionally-enumerated rights. So serious and so important, in fact, that they should in all cases be resolved before the U.S. Supreme Court, rather than on local news/opinion sites such as this.
The point being, TS, that the proper way to address and resolve those questions would be to file a lawsuit against the City in the appropriate court alleging constitutional rights violations in this case. Do you know whether any such suit is in progress?
I agree with you that the Founders wrote precisely what they intended to write. They necessarily wrote, however, in the broadest of terms and gave us a Supreme Court to sort out the details. This we have since done many, many times on many, many questions of Constitutional rights and this I am sure we will (and should) continue to do.
To be quite honest, I was thinking of the preamble to the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states:
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people...
Please read the full text here:
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
Regardless, the problem in the argument regarding Occupation of public space is the definition of "camping". Occupiers do not "camp" for the sake of recreation, or even for lack of somewhere better to be. Occupiers occupy public space in protest - the message being, that when the average person's voice can no longer be heard above the din of corporate personhood and corrupt politics, the only thing left to do is use one's own body as the sign of protest - that is, to occupy space, to draw attention, to refuse to be moved. Like a lone protestor laying in the road in front of an oncoming tank, the Occupiers use their bodies, the simple act of being, as their means of protest.
It's a far cry from the overnight camping which our city codes were designed to regulate.
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/11/15/1321396158261/Using-a-tent-doesnt-equal-001.jpg
If the problem in Long Beach is truly its definition of "camping" then those who take issue with it should make efforts to see the definition changed. There are several ways in which to do this which do not involve violating the law itself. By OLB's illogic, a robber could continue committing theft by force or fear because he believes the State has not properly defined the term "robbery."
Unfortunately for OLB, the challenge is a little more complex than the City's basic definition of "camping."
LBMC 16.16.010 (E) is quite clear that certain listed activities "constitute camping when it reasonably appears, in light of all the circumstances, that a person(s) is using a park or beach as a living accommodation regardless of their intent or the nature of any other activities in which they might also be engaging."
Further, there is the issue of park closure times. LBMC 16.16.010(K) is also quite clear that it is unlawful to "Remain or stay, or store personal belongings, between the hours of ten o'clock (10:00) P.M. and one hour before sunrise at any public park, public beach, public building or enclosure or public amphitheater or plaza."
Thus even when OLB did away with the tents, easy-ups, and bedrolls, they still had a lawful duty to leave the park by 10pm each night and so this is what they did. And if you'll recall, LBPD did nothing to prevent OLB from remaining on and near the sidewalks adjacent to Lincoln Park after 10pm. They were permmitted to freely assemble in thos areas to their hearts content.
@Summer: I, for one, am not interested in black lists. I am interested in perople demonstrating the courage of their convictions and appending their true names to their public comments. I am interested in people appending their true names to any potentially libelous comments they may choose to post so that those they target can exercise their right to seek s aredress of their grievance in court if it is their desire to do so.