Encampment Discussion beginning 11/18/11

Hi,

I got the sense that we should start a new dialogue about encampment after our GA last night. I think that was Daniel's intention but he may not have had the time to do so.

I hope that people will for now float their various ideas and proposals here so that we can try things out as a group and get feedback etc.

Lauren

Here's what I posted on Facebook last night regarding my interpretation and feelings about last night's general assembly:

We had a fantastic GA tonight. I feel like a lot of the tension within the group since yesterday has been worked out. For those of you who were unable to attend...

The only thing we really passed with consensus (which also happened at yesterday's GA) was that the proposals from finance and legal must be a priority at the Saturday GA. After that (very quick) discussion, we went on to discuss the 24/7 occupation.

There seemed to be a pretty general agreement that waiting until spring may be too slow. We agreed that we have an opportunity here in Boulder that most occupations don't have - that is, a highly sympathetic populace and a city government whose support we can most likely obtain. We are suggesting that people engage actively in a conversation on the web forum (which can be found on the website, occupyboulder.org) about a 24/7 occupation, presenting draft proposals and having a lively and respectful debate. At some point very soon, one or more of these proposals (including a definite start date) will most likely be brought to the general assembly for consideration.

I personally believe that the best way forward is to utilize the organizational structure that we've been building to move forward in a timely fashion in our coordination with the city government. I think if we all engage in this conversation seriously, with mutual respect, we can have a definite timetable set for our occupation within a couple weeks.

All in all, I'm very satisfied with the discussion we had. I've been very stressed since last night, feeling like a rift might be inevitable. My faith in our process and group has been reaffirmed in a big way, and I'd like to thank everyone who was involved with our discussion tonight. This is what democracy looks like.

So far, I've seen two proposals for occupation that are reasonably well considered.

The first one I saw was from Daniel, and can be found elsewhere on this forum. He wants to start at some point in January, with a vision of building an alternative community to challenge the American system and culture.

The second one I saw was from Cliff, who has greatly stressed the value of working with the city government. He thinks we can likely reach a compromise with the city government that would be good for all involved. As an example of an agreement we might be able to make with the city, he has mentioned occupying Chatauqua Park instead of downtown in exchange for some sort of guarantee from the city government that our grievances will be heard and taken seriously.

I like both of these ideas, and I don't think they're necessarily mutually exclusive. I can't expect the group to do exactly what I decide is best, completely removed from a group discussion. I implore everyone to keep that fact in mind and apply it to all of our discussions on this topic and all the other topics.

Peace,
Zach F.

The general sense I took away from our GA discussion on encampment last night was that we need to be having a group wide dialogue about encampment now and that waiting until March was not acceptable to many people. There was a willingness on the part of those who want to start 24/7 occupation as soon as possible to wait for dialogue and working with the city to allow us to put the most effective plan in place.
Many of us felt that we want to work with the city, that we want to win the hearts and minds of people not only in our cause but in the 'way' we promote it, as in doing so in a way that makes people want to join us, not fight us.

So we left knowing we would start having this discussion on the forum and we would also be having discussions and taking actions toward engaging the city etc in our various working groups etc. but that overall things need to move forward and we need to step up the time frame for 24/7 occupation.

There's a lot of desire to have an encampment. I keep hearing that without it we are not really 'Occupiers'. I want to help with that goal in a way that minimizes confrontation. The confrontation approach detracts from our social justice message, and that's the part that motivates me. Here's what I'm thinking ...

a. The City Council voted for what became the 2H Inititative against corporations. They are clearly sympathetic to our issues. I don't think they deserve to be viewed as our enemy.

b. The Boulder City government is certainly seeing what tent cities and civil disobedience are about in other municipalities. As a result of national coverage they are likely to view a tent city in an antagonistic manner and most likely they want to avoid the whole concept of a tent city. There is no inherent reason for Occupy Boulder and the City of Boulder to be fighting one another regarding the prospect of an encampment.

c. The idea of a tent-city is very do-able and reasonable, just not in downtown Boulder.

If OccupyBoulder could be persuaded to view the tent city idea in an open space (Maybe at Chatauqua) rather than downtown then the city would "save face". Also if Occupy Boulder could be persuaded away from the downtown area, it would double as a bargaining chip to get something from them such as an advisory board (just for an example of a tradeoff - others could envision some different tradeoffs). The advisory board could be made up of OccupyBoulder and meet with the City Manager once per month. We could be recommending that the City use it's resources and clout to advance and implement solutions to the Occupy Grievances (develop one solution per month). The tent city (especially an idealistic one such as Daniel Schwartz has mentioned) and our relationship with the city could be a success that the City could point to for other Occupy Cities to copy. An idealistic encampment could be a national model that the City brags about as a solution for the homeless. OccupyBoulder could become an Ombudsman concept for disaffected citizens of the area. My proposal requires the proponents of encampment to give a little (not much!). This is my concept of how Boulder could support a tent city as Daniel Schwartz has suggested that they should, PLUS support actions to satisfy our grievances.

Non-violent political protest demonstrations achieve change in at least two ways: 1) raising awareness of issues by virtue of the media coverage of the protest; and 2) building community and solidarity among the protesters and sympathizers that can lead to bigger demonstrations and high turnout in relevant elections. The change most protesters seek is ultimately achieved by election of candidates, adoption of legislation, or amendment of the constitution.

An occupation style protest involves populating a space in the community with protesters through either a daily picketing presence or encampment. Daily picketing generally involves few legal issues and is treated as a legal expression of free speech. On the other hand, encampment is usually a form of civil disobedience that may involve violations of city codes and laws such as trespass. It is also a tremendous drain on the participants due to the tremendous effort required to provide food, shelter, medical care, waste removal, and security to the encampment. Bad weather also wears campers down. This is lost energy they could be devoting to picketing, reaching out to other citizens, and organizing.

Given the greater problems involved with encampment, the burden would seem to be on those advocating it to show that it has benefits beyond daily picketing occupation that outweigh the additional problems. Considering its costs and benefits, does encampment do more to achieve the objectives mentioned above?

Occupy is an unusually promising populist movement in that it claims to represent 99% of our people. If that is really a goal, how much of the 99% are alienated by the issues surrounding encampment? Does it marginalize the movement and doom it to failure?

The Occupy movement has been a huge success by dramatically increasing the awareness of issues involving economic injustice in our society. Does that mean that encampments were the reason for this success? Or was it really the massive demonstrations? Will the 99% identify with the people disobeying the law by camping in prized public spaces? Even if the encampments can be credited with part of the success, does that success translate from Wall Street to Main Street? Arguably, the ill will people feel towards Wall Street means they welcome the problems caused there by encampments. Does that mean they will welcome it in their hometown, especially if it is one that doesn’t represent the excesses of the 1% as Wall Street does?

I get it. I do understand the desire to work with the city. One of the reasons I remain committed to the Boulder group and haven't gone to Denver is because I think the movement can set an example here without disrespecting the citizens of Boulder and without breaking the laws. We do have a lot of support from both the citizens and the city, and I reject any behavior that breaks the laws or disrespects the citizens.

I have worked on organizations that have dealt with the city. I am currently a director on one board and the president of another non-profit that have both dealt with the city council and city planning on several matters. I can tell you from experience that support doesn't always translate to action or votes. I have seen several propositions that have failed despite the support of council and the city. The political realities of certain actions, while having support, can be so caustic and controversial that a vote or action can be difficult if not disastrous for their career.

What I like about the Occupy movement is that it operates outside of the confines of politics; it doesn't have to get bogged down in the politics. This doesn't mean that it is illegal or disrespectful. When the city voted on 2b, 2c, and 2h, they did it because citizens like us packed council chambers. By filling every seat and having so many eloquent speeches, we gave council the power to vote on those measures. That is how I feel about Occupation in Boulder. The tent is the symbol of this movement; it is "occupy." By setting up tents in a legal and respectful manner and then packing chambers when asking for permission, the members will be empowered to support Occupation. They will then be able follow their support with votes and actions.

BankAmeritown
WellsFargoCity
Chaseopolis
AIGty
Lehmania

better than obamaville i think
-a

This system will not let me type the htpp part with the rest of the link but that's all you need in front of this:

irvine.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=22&clip_id=2939&publish_id=&event_id=

I have decided to look at as many examples of cooperative occupations that I can find while we have discussions moving toward a 24/7 occupation.

Please note that the forum won't let me post the link with the http part attached but here is the rest.

latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-occupy-las-vegas-nevada-economy.htm

Lansing MI cooperating with the occupy movement

thinkprogress.org/special/2011/11/15/368887/as-cities-crack-down-lansing-distinguishes-itself-by-respecting-occupy-lansing/

San Antonio gets along this one needs www in front of it.

mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Occupy-S-A-and-city-get-along-2266552.php

Modern browsers will fill in 'http' and 'www' if they aren't there and they are necessary. Some websites will only recognize a URL you post as a URL if it has those elements, but when actually going to a URL you don't have to type them in.

One barrier I see to having an encampment at all is that we don't have an active Security/Peacekeeping team. We already need this but need it most when beginning an encampment.

Here is an article regarding including the homeless.

"4 Occupations Embracing the Homeless (As Cities Increasingly Can't Take Care of Them)"

this has a www in front of it:

alternet.org/story/153020/4_occupations_embracing_the_homeless_%28as_cities_increasingly_can%27t_take_care_of_them%29/?page=entire

Thanks for posting the article Lauren. The article's subtitle - "It is impossible to separate homelessness from Occupy Wall Street's struggle for economic justice." What better statement of about our inequalities can you find than the homeless? They have been excluded for far too long. Each one has a story and each story is a profound statement about our society's socio-economic inequality. They should be included and interviewed with some of their interviews broadcast on our Facebook.

Cliff