Citizen Blogs are a public space for news and commentary from the community. The views expressed here are those of the individual bloggers, not The Bay Citizen. We aim for this to become a robust forum for discussion of a wide range of issues. If you are interested in becoming a Citizen Blogger on the site, please send an email to info@baycitizen.org and let us know who you are and what you'd like to write about. We look forward to working with you.
Occupy Oakland’s belief that it was entitled to occupy the Kaiser building as a movement command center should force Occupy backers to think hard about what this entity has become.
A movement focused on economic inequality and the undemocratic abuses of the 1% now feels free to substitute the decisions of a very small group for the entire body politic of Oakland. Occupy Oakland did not care that ILWU leaders opposed the port shutdown in December because the group claimed it “spoke to workers” and concluded they supported a closure; in other words, Occupiers saw themselves as better representatives of ILWU members than their elected union leadership.
As for the Kaiser Convention Center that has remained vacant for six years, the obvious question is why is it vacant and what efforts have been made by community groups to either put it to good use or sell it for city funds. Shouldn’t the city’s elected leaders, with the input of community and labor groups, be the entity deciding a public facility’s future?
Occupy Oakland spokespeople defend their public targets by arguing that politicians are bought and paid for, union leaders do not represent members, and other rhetorical strategies designed to obscure a critical fact: there’s nothing “democratic” about a small group like Occupy seizing public facilities or closing them down.
It’s easy to shift attention from Occupy Oakland’s undemocratic processes – and, no, a consensus process by a very small, unrepresentative group in a major city is not how democracy is supposed to work – to Oakland’s excessive and even outrageously violent police response. Oakland Occupiers get the moral high ground when focusing on police abuse, yet speak little of who granted them the moral authority to speak for “the people” in dealing with publicly owned entities.
What Happened to the 1%?
When I heard that Occupy Oakland was prioritizing the seizure of public buildings, I wondered: what do these facilities have to do with the 1%? What happened to occupying banks and other institutions that, unlike the Kaiser Center, actually have a connection to economic inequality?
Some involved with Occupy Oakland have focused on stopping foreclosures and occupying foreclosed houses. Yet their efforts are now eclipsed by high-profile marches and protests whose public targets appear almost random.
After President Obama’s recent State of the Union speech, pundits came out in droves to note the impact of Occupy on his comments about income inequality and what is happening to the middle-class. Nobody doubts Occupy’s central role in shifting the national debate.
That’s what makes Occupy Oakland’s focus on public facilities rather than the 1% so sad. Instead of using the momentum created by the massive November 2 general strike to build a broader coalition against banks and the financial industry, Occupy Oakland shifted its target to public facilities and the city’s police and elected officials.
What Happened to Organizing?
Social movements are built through grassroots organizing. Is Occupy Oakland organizing to broaden its base, or operating as a group that is defined by those who show up at a particular meeting?
Organizing involves more than posting a flyer or sending an email announcing a meeting. Yet Occupy Oakland seems satisfied to operate as a small group that calls mass protests, missing the critical intermediary step of reaching out to neighborhood groups, churches and labor unions to achieve broad support for their actions.
One risk of organizing is that the people organized may have different opinions on strategy, tactics, and targets. A broader cross-section of Oakland residents might question targeting the Kaiser Center instead of empty, foreclosed homes where low-income people could live.
Occupy Oakland has dissipated much of the positive spirit that emerged from the November 2 general strike. It either gets back on track, or becomes yet another sectarian group disconnected from the 99% they claim to represent.
This post originally appeared at Beyond Chron.
© The Bay Citizen, 2012
Michael Boyd
Sorry for the double posting.
Ouch,
Looks like more pro-City of Oakland propaganda to me. Sorry you can do better than that I know.
So that's the side of Oakland City government and OPD talking about all the bad things the protestors did, but what about the rogue City of Oakland government?
On November 20, 2011 I filed a Notice to Correct or Cure violation of a central provision of the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Codes Government Code Section 54950-54963, in that proper written notice was not provided to a regular meeting of the City Council of Oakland on November 9, 2011.
According to a November 9, 2011 Oakland Tribune article “Occupy Oakland protesters hijacked a news conference at Lake Merritt.” According to the article a quorum of the Oakland City Council conducted an un-noticed meeting of the City Council to take action.
"At one point, the business leaders and [5]council members, who along with Reid included Libby Schaaf, Desley Brooks, Patricia Kernighan and Ignacio De La Fuente, shouted back: "Occupy Oakland must go!"
According to this same article Oakland Mayor Quan then authorized this unlawful "Occupy Oakland must go!" action.
As far as protestors breaking in to City Hall goes and Occupy Oakland trying another location to lawfully assemble goes the City government brought that on them selves too. It's because of their arrogance and self aggrandizement this all happened.
There was less costly options to what happened last Saturday I provided by e-mail to the City government on December 9, 2011 that would have prevented all of this but the City wouldn't even give me a hearing and your publication wouldn't cover their Brown Open Meeting Act violation on November 9, 2011. WHY?
"In my observation the City has incurred a high cost to bring in riot police to contain the purported risk to "health and safety" without making clear whose health and safety is at risk. Is the City Council's health and safety at risk? Is City Hall at risk? Is the surrounding community at risk? Maybe it is the occupants of the Occupy Oakland protestor? If this is the case there are clearly less costly methods to contain the risk to "health and safety". For example the City could assign both a male and female police officer [without the riot gear] 24/7 at the Occupy Oakland encampment and 2 each City maintenance workers to deal with all these so-called risks without the need to confront the lawful protestors with riot police which costs much more and creates greater animosity between all involved. And how about opening up the rest rooms to the Occupy Oakland protestors and assigning security staff to keep an eye on City Hall 24/7? I am sure there are many talented folks in City Hall that have their own creative ideas in this regard."
Below is the text of the e-mail I sent the Oakland City government:
Re: Final Response to Public Records Request #7551 NOT TO: Notice to Correct or Cure Violations of the Brown Open Meeting Act by the Oakland City Council and Mayor on November 9 to take the following unlawfully noticed action ”Occupy Oakland must go!”
Friday, December 9, 2011 8:20 PM
From: "Michael Boyd"
To: "KarenBoyd" <KBoyd@oaklandnet.com>
Cc: "ArletteFlores-Medina" <AFlores@oaklandcityattorney.org>, " Vicki (CAO)Laden" <vladen@oaklandnet.com>, occupyoakland@googlegroups.com, meshairizarry@gmail.com, facilitation@occupyoakland.org, LCohen@oaklandnet.com,
officeofthemayor@oaklandnet.com, RKaplan@oaklandnet.com,
LReid@oaklandnet.com, DBrooks@oaklandnet.com, IDelafuente@oaklandnet.com, LSchaaf@oaklandnet.com, NNadel@oaklandnet.com, PKernigan@oaklandnet.com,
JBrunner@oaklandnet.com, JRusso@oaklandcityattorney.org, swalter@baycitizen.org,
Karen,
This appears to be a response to the records act request not a response to my Notice to Correct or Cure Violations of the Brown Act. If you are denying the City violated the Brown Act you need to tell me in writting that is the City's Final Response and under what statutory authority you can make such a response in the place of the City of Oakland Council or Mayor who I copied on this notice. I am asking for a meeting before the City where the City rescinds its November 9 , 2011 unlawful action, and subsequent actions taken in violation Occupy Oakland protestors' Constitutional rights under color state law, in this case the Brown Open Meeting Act.
I do not seek to repay evil with evil but to give thought to what is noble in the sight of all. I don't see this as anything more than an opportunity to balance the scales of justice and I am concerned that come Monday with the 12/12/11 port shutdown the City will confront protestors with riot police; compounding the City's violations of federal civil rights under color of state law.
In the internal e-mails I received in response to my CPRA request I sense that the City Council is supportive but at the same time afraid of Occupy Oakland. I am here to tell you that fear is your biggest enemy; not Occupy Oakland.
What I see as your biggest fear is people camping out with tents. Why is this; is it because the First Amendment of the US Constitution says you can not assemble in tents when you are between the hours of 10 PM to 6 AM? Once again this is because of fear; in this case the fear is of the homeless. Why do you fear the homeless? Is it because the homeless sleep outside in violation of state law? Did you know the right to sleep is a
fundamental right protected under international law and UN Declarations? So my conclusion is you are denying protestors lawful rights to assemble in tents during the hours of 10 PM to 6 AM under color state law to violate their federal civil rights, because you fear the homeless, and you violated the Brown Act.
My degree is in Physics and I am an engineer by profession. To assess the risk associated with any failure mode you are best to always error on the side of precaution. This is what is called the precautionary principal in risk assessment. In my observation the City has incurred a high cost to bring in riot police to contain the purported risk to "health and safety" without making clear whose health and safety is at risk. Is the City Council's health and safety at risk? Is City Hall at risk? Is the surrounding community at risk? Maybe it is the occupants of the Occupy Oakland protestor? If this is the case there are clearly less costly methods to contain the risk to "health and safety". For example the City could assign both a male and female police officer [without the riot gear] 24/7 at the Occupy Oakland encampment and 2 each City maintenance workers to deal with all these so-called risks without the need to confront the lawful protestors with riot police which costs much more and creates greater animosity between all involved. And how about opening up the rest rooms to the Occupy Oakland protestors and assigning security staff to keep an eye on City Hall 24/7? I am sure there are many talented folks in City Hall that have their own creative ideas in this regard.
So now lets talk a little about the City's response to Occupy Oakland. Following the unlawful meeting of November 9, 2011 the City brought in a phalanx of riot police to clear out Oscar Grant Plaza of Occupy Oakland protestors and their tents.
I do not live in Oakland and I haven't been to Occupy Oakland ever. I read about the unlawful meeting on November 9, 2011 in the Oakland Tribune. No member of the City Council denied they had participated as reported in the newspaper to my CPRA request
in the meeting.
Finally you stated that "Press conferences are exempt from the Brown Act under 54952.2 (c)2, and therefore there is no agenda." I am not challenging any ones right to call a press conference or issue any type of press release. I am challenging the action taken by the five members who constituted a quorum of the City Council who took unlawful action by voting 5-0-0 that "Occupy Oakland Must Go". It is the action taken which we would have required the 72 hours notice and and agenda not the press
conference itself. If the City had just held the Press Conference [with just the 4 members listed on the press release] with out taking any action as a quorum of the City Council there wouldn't have been any issue with violation of the Brown Act.
Finally I want to make clear to you and the Council and the Mayor that I come in peace not to destroy you but to save you from your fears. You must not be afraid since that makes you act irrationally. My mother used to always tell me when I screwed something up as I made excuses for what I did wrong "honey you know your just digging yourselves in deeper". So please do not fight me but admit that you are human and we all make mistakes. That's how we learn and get better. Often times you have to screw it up first that's all.
Respectfully,
Michael E. Boyd President
CAlifornians for Renewable Energy, Inc.
(CARE)
Source: The Bay Citizen (http://s.tt/15y5g)
M L
I'm trying to remember analogs to the narrative of Mr. Shaw -- a person who makes his living as the masthead of corporations that depend on the city government for their revenue, while at the same time running a news organization that aggressively promotes its corporate owner's self interests. Hearst? More likely Hustler.
Victoria Hudson
"a phalanx of riot police to clear out Oscar Grant Plaza of Occupy Oakland protestors and their tents.I do not live in Oakland and I haven't been to Occupy Oakland ever"
That is evident from your post; it's called Frank Ogawa Plaza - hardly anyone knows what's meant by Oscar Grant Plaza (that's because the majority of the OO mob contains the same morons who destroyed the city, at that time using Oscar Grant as the reason.) And it was not "riot" police - it was just police getting rid of the rioters, the lawbreakers, the scofflaws, the terrorists within our midsts.
OO is not even near being anything like the OWS movement; it's a joke, a scam and most interesting, given that Oakland is 25.9 percent white, why are the majority of these protesters "white"?
OO is a disgrace. A joke - to even the town residents. Why not just do a survey of Oakland residents and find out for yourself?