Is fighting economic injustice such a righteous pursuit that it entitles Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protesters and their disciples to indefinitely control whatever space they invade? Even though the whole movement is centered around the word "occupy," deciding which property to take over, or how long to monopolize it, doesn't seem to be based on any guiding principle. Occupiers need to clarify what, in their eyes, makes terrain seizable.
The owners of Zuccotti Park in New York are apparently authorized to prohibit camping and similar activities, and yesterday they gave entrenched demonstrators a day's notice to vacate the park long enough for workers to clean and inspect it. Thereafter, they warned, only those who obey park rules will be allowed to use the premises.
The decision announced early this morning to postpone the scheduled cleaning, made no mention of those rules.
The protesters say the City of New York should neither enforce the rules nor "evict" occupiers from the park. But what they haven't explained is how the police could legally or morally justify ignoring a property owner's trespass complaint.
Although occupiers pride themselves on adhering to a strict and democratic decision-making method, it's not clear how -- or if -- that procedure honors the wishes of park owners, besieged neighbors and various non-OWS users of the park.
The movement's overall mission has great legitimacy, but its land grabbing policy requires some elucidation.
This article was also published by U.S. Tour of Duty and CitizenJeff.com.
Follow Jeff Norman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/citizenjeff
When they squatted in Zuccotti Park they didn't know public from private, or about NYC law.
Because no one had ever attempting to "occupy" a private public square before, the rules of legal engagement were vague to the owners and the city.
So it has delayed the owner's "deoccupation" process.
But it's clarifying itself: Given the drama downtown, it’s unlikely that this vagueness will last much longer. In fact, the Real Estate Board of New York is reportedly preparing to ask the city to endorse universally applicable rules prohibiting future Occupy Wall Street-style use of public space, along with the automatic right to close all spaces at night.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/opinion/zuccotti-park-and-the-private-plaza-problem.html
http://www.nyclu.org/content/know-your-rights-demonstrating-new-york-city
That's exactly why this revolution is in full swing right now because the greed of man has gone overboard and must be stopped.
Likewise, my questioning of the tactics employed by OWS demonstrators’ doesn’t indicate that I generally oppose the nascent movement. I’m thrilled that so many protesters are figuring out how to fight for economic justice, and I don’t think it’s unkind to ask questions about their land use.
People questioned Rosa's tactics in any case.
Maybe only people desperate to be heard would understand the need for taking a stand, even on the ground of an "owned" park. And how is that a private, multi-billion dollar commercial real estate company "owns" a public park? Ah, they made it public in exchange for zoning variations.
There is nothing [yet] historical about it.
It's not even a footnote.
This isn't Egypt or China or a college campus.
This is NYC.
But I know about it now.
Funny thing, the bourgeoisie. They are good at buying things. They are good at managing things. And yet, despite all the millions of dollars they spend on advertising, self-promotion, and public relations, they have never been able to manage how history will remember them.
What the protestors are giving the owners is something that the owners, by themselves, could have never done. The protestors turned this space into an historical monument. And these owners, by extension, will be forever connected to it.
Whether that history will look upon them favorably or unfavorably is up to those owners. But one thing can't be denied: men of means have always had a need to attach themselves to greatness, great men, and great deeds. They have to do so, because they themselves are generally not great men who do great deeds; they merely own, and owning is no substitute for glory.
Types like these tend to place their names on buildings with the hope that something glorious or significant will happen inside of them. Often times, nothing happens. Here, however, it's happening.
You can't buy that type of place in history.
That's like saying the zoologist hates the tiger for describing how it acquires dinner.
Some are arguing seriously that the protesters have a First Amendment right to inhabit the park indefinitely:
http://rootsaction.org/featured-actions/268-1st-amendment-is-our-permit
http://www.nyclu.org/news/nyclu-cleanup-cancellation-victory-protest
Is it nitpicky to ask whether it’s civil disobedience, or a lawful occupation? Do you think the difference matters to the police, or to any reasonable person who might judge the police?
Is it nitpicky to suggest that those whose support is being sought deserve to know what they’re being asked to support?
I didn’t say the protesters shouldn’t be seen, only that they should explain how they make their land use decisions. Why the mystery?