Quote:

---

Occupy Los Angeles given City Hall Park eviction deadline

The mayor of Los Angeles has given Occupy Wall Street protesters in the city a deadline of midday on Monday to pack up their protest camp.

But he hopes to avoid confrontations between police and protesters that have marred evictions in other cities.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa issued the deadline of 12:01 on Monday (20:01 GMT), saying he hoped for a "spirit of co-operation" with those camped out.

A statement from the protesters quickly rejected the mayor's demand.

"As a collective, Occupy Los Angeles would like to express their rejection of the city of Los Angeles's alleged proposal that we leave City Hall," protester Jeremy Rothe-Kushel told the Associated Press.

---

Quote:

---

GRIEVANCES NOT ADDRESSED
1.
A moratorium on all foreclosures in the City of Los Angeles. The City of Los Angeles to divest from all major banks, and money to be removed from politics.

2.
A citywide effort undertaken to solve the homelessness problem which has led to 18,000 homeless people sleeping on Skid Row every night. Rehabilitation and housing must be provided for all homeless people.

3.
South Central Farm to be returned to the same LA community from which it was taken, and all other vacant and distressed land be open for the community use, and money to the tune of 1 million dollars – taken from Skid Row and given to the multi million dollar NFL firm – to be returned to Skid Row.

4.
Los Angeles to be declared a sanctuary city for the undocumented, deportations to be discontinued and cooperation with immigration authorities be ended – including the turning in of arrestees’ names to immigration authorities.

5.
All forms of weaponry used by multiple law enforcement officials – including, but not limited, to rubber bullets, pepper spray, verbal abuse, arrest, foam batons, long-range acoustic devices and more – are not to be used on those exercising their First Amendment Rights to petition our government for redress of grievances. We do not accept interference with freedom of the press and the public to document police actions in public spaces. We will not tolerate brutality.

6.
We assert our right to an open plaza on the South Side of City Hall for people to peacefully assemble, voice grievances, speak freely, hold our General Assembly and come to the people’s consensus 24 hours a day if needed.

7.
The City of Los Angeles to pressure the State to start a convention, as provided for in the Constitution, to remove corporate personhood and money from politics at a national level.

8.
The City of Los Angeles to begin a dialogue at the State and Federal level on the issues of student debt and tuition hikes.

9.
No cutbacks in city services or attacks on the wages, work conditions and pensions of city employees.

10.
A world class transit system which addresses our debilitating traffic problem and restores the quality of life in Los Angeles.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
I'm not seeing much point, unless the OLA folks just want more confrontation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Hey Geezer,

Um. Isn't this how negotiation is supposed to go? You start by demanding more than what you have any right of expecting and then some negotiation happens and you get some reasonable results?

---

Quote:

---

As a statement of OLA's values and purpose, seems pretty on the mark for OWS in general. Seems to me it's a major league meme over on the right that OWS doesn't stand for anything coherent. This list seems pretty gorram coherent to me. Sure, some of it's peculiar to L.A. but isn't that what you'd expect from a grassroots movement?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
That's how negotiation goes, but I haven't been seeing the Occupy folks amending any demands - except to add more. When mayors, city governments, etc. give in by allowing extended illegal camping, OWS takeover of public spaces, and so forth, the Occupy folks seem to just declare victory and come up with something else they want. If you can give me examples of Occupy LA, or pretty much any Occupy group, negotiating by softening a demand, I'd be glad to change my opinion, but I haven't seen it happen.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
illegal camping

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by PhoenixRose:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
illegal camping

---

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Unfortunately, to my knowledge, the issue is not Congress or Federal Law. This is a local battle, and local laws are the ones being used to savage the protesters.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Is that what you're telling me: that threats and violence are an appropriate way to negotiate?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by PhoenixRose:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
illegal camping

---

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Um. Why is one side of a negotiation going to unilaterally amend their demands when not one of their demands has even been met?

---

Quote:

---

Is that what you're telling me: that threats and violence are an appropriate way to negotiate?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Many of the grievances the Occupy folks list just cannot legally be acomplished by government fiat. They need to be legislated, and the folks who aren't making all the headlines need their voices heard as well. Many of them will also cost a bunch of money, which has to come from somewhere. This also requires a legal legislative process, rather than just decrees.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Hey Geezer,

Um. Isn't this how negotiation is supposed to go? You start by demanding more than what you have any right of expecting and then some negotiation happens and you get some reasonable results?

---

That's how negotiation goes, but I haven't been seeing the Occupy folks amending any demands - except to add more. When mayors, city governments, etc. give in by allowing extended illegal camping, OWS takeover of public spaces, and so forth, the Occupy folks seem to just declare victory and come up with something else they want. If you can give me examples of Occupy LA, or pretty much any Occupy group, negotiating by softening a demand, I'd be glad to change my opinion, but I haven't seen it happen.

---

Quote:

---

Many of the grievances the Occupy folks list just cannot legally be acomplished by government fiat. They need to be legislated, and the folks who aren't making all the headlines need their voices heard as well. Many of them will also cost a bunch of money, which has to come from somewhere. This also requires a legal legislative process, rather than just decrees.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
None of this is news to anyone, Geezer. But I haven't heard any talk or any movement remotely in that direction.

To paraphrase your own argument: if you can give me examples of someone in the L.A. Mayor's office, or pretty much any municipality, negotiating by making a pledge to work toward any of OWS goals, I'd be glad to change my opinion, but I haven't seen it happen.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
None of this is news to anyone, Geezer. But I haven't heard any talk or any movement remotely in that direction.

To paraphrase your own argument: if you can give me examples of someone in the L.A. Mayor's office, or pretty much any municipality, negotiating by making a pledge to work toward any of OWS goals, I'd be glad to change my opinion, but I haven't seen it happen.

---

As noted, the L.A. government has been trying to cooperate with the Occupy folks, and the mayor praises them for "awakening the country's conscience". However, do you consider it democracy if a couple if thousand people can dictate how the city changes laws or handles it's finances, outside of the laws decided on democratically - whether those people be rich and powerful or folks camping in the park? If the Occupy folks have as much support as they think, they should be able to advance their goals through the democratic process, which is not what they're doing now.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
None of this is news to anyone, Geezer. But I haven't heard any talk or any movement remotely in that direction.

To paraphrase your own argument: if you can give me examples of someone in the L.A. Mayor's office, or pretty much any municipality, negotiating by making a pledge to work toward any of OWS goals, I'd be glad to change my opinion, but I haven't seen it happen.

---

As noted, the L.A. government has been trying to cooperate with the Occupy folks, and the mayor praises them for "awakening the country's conscience". However, do you consider it democracy if a couple if thousand people can dictate how the city changes laws or handles it's finances, outside of the laws decided on democratically - whether those people be rich and powerful or folks camping in the park? If the Occupy folks have as much support as they think, they should be able to advance their goals through the democratic process, which is not what they're doing now.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Do you consider it democracy if a couple of billionaires can dictate how the nation changes its laws or handles its (not "it is", but "its") finances?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
It's a protest. That is how they work. If people moved when asked, then it wouldn't be a protest, would it? It would be a bunch of shoppers.

They won't get their demands met and that isn't the point, its about raising a profile on a whole bunch of issues that have a lot of people really pissed off.

---

Quote:

---

Okay, so if my religion requires the sacrifice of Occupy LA participants, you'd be all right with that, since free exercise of my religion is guaranteed in the Constitution?

Well, no. Because it would violate other laws, just like camping where it is prohibited while petitioning for redress of grievances is still camping illegally.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
None of this is news to anyone, Geezer. But I haven't heard any talk or any movement remotely in that direction.

To paraphrase your own argument: if you can give me examples of someone in the L.A. Mayor's office, or pretty much any municipality, negotiating by making a pledge to work toward any of OWS goals, I'd be glad to change my opinion, but I haven't seen it happen.

---

As noted, the L.A. government has been trying to cooperate with the Occupy folks, and the mayor praises them for "awakening the country's conscience". However, do you consider it democracy if a couple if thousand people can dictate how the city changes laws or handles it's finances, outside of the laws decided on democratically - whether those people be rich and powerful or folks camping in the park? If the Occupy folks have as much support as they think, they should be able to advance their goals through the democratic process, which is not what they're doing now.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Do you consider it democracy if a couple of billionaires can dictate how the nation changes its laws or handles its (not "it is", but "its") finances?

---

Uh, Mike, I kind'a answered that right here.

"... do you consider it democracy if a couple if thousand people can dictate how the city changes laws or handles it's finances, outside of the laws decided on democratically - whether those people be rich and powerful or folks camping in the park?"

Maybe you were too busy making spelling corrections to actually comprehend the sentence.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Byte, you rock. Ditto to everything you said.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Well, you said you have a problem with it at the CITY level, but you've never seemed to have any problem with it at all at the NATIONAL level.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
I think Geezer and Rap are missing the point of illegal camping as a strategy for negotiation. They chose to disobey a local law on purpose, to spotlight the Constitutional override of such local laws.

The strategy is called "Civil Disobedience." You might have heard of it. Thoreau? Gandhi? Martin Luther King Jr.?

The "disobedience" part wouldn't be very meaningful of the camping were legal, right? Get it?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
My problem arises when Occupy, or any group, presents a list of demands and says, in effect, you must submit to these demands or we're going to cause trouble. This is nothing more than extortion, just like the local gang threatening to cause problems for a shop if they don't get protection money.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
When government doesn't work, it's one of the few ways to deal with it which doesn't involve violence.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Once again, if the Occupy folks have the support they claim, why not use the petetion/referendum/vote process to implement the changes they want?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Sorry, Wish, but I gave up on that show. I liked it last season when she was the scrappy underdog without any real staff or decent office, and everybody thought she'd lost it and was going down.

---