Occupy Wall Street crowd evicted for nonpayment of rent

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45299622/ns/us_news-life/#.TsJSe2HSOAM

Occupy Wall Street: New York police clear protest campAdvertisement
There were chaotic scenes as protesters resisted police
Continue reading the main story
Related Stories
Occupy police 'used pepper spray'
In pictures: Police clear NYC camp
An American Dream deferred
New York police have dismantled the Occupy Wall Street camp in Zuccotti Park and arrested more than 70 people following a late-night raid.

Protesters were ordered to leave at about 01:00 (06:00 GMT), before police began removing tents and property.

The New York camp was set up in September to protest against economic inequality - it inspired dozens of similar camps around the world.

A camp in Oakland, California was cleared overnight on Monday.

Police in New York gave an announcement as their operation began, telling protesters: "The city has determined that the continued occupation of Zuccotti Park poses an increasing health and fire safety hazard."

Mayor Michael Bloomberg's office released a message on Twitter saying protesters should "temporarily leave and remove tents and tarps" but could return once the park was clear.

Continue reading the main story
Analysis

Laura Trevelyan

BBC News, New York

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the city of New York, this has been a balancing act all along between the constitutional right to free speech and freedom of expression and the right of people in the city to get on with their lives.

City officials tried to walk that tightrope, but in the end the park's owners said the conditions there were disgusting and asked for police to clear it.

The message here is that income inequality is widening in America and that the banks received a bailout after the financial crisis which protesters feel they were responsible for causing.

And that message does resonate in America, where people are still struggling with a fragile economy, but equally here in New York, there has been a division.
Leaflets were handed out telling occupants to "immediately remove all private property" and warning they would be arrested if they interfered with the operation.

Any belongings left behind would be put into storage, said the notice, and protesters would not be allowed to bring camping equipment back if they returned.

The protesters' live web stream from the park showed crowds chanting "all day, all week, Occupy Wall Street" and "the whole world is watching" as police moved into the camp, close to New York's financial district.

"They gave us about 20 minutes to get our things together," protester Sam Wood told Reuters. "It's a painful process to watch, they are sweeping through the park."

The area around the park was sealed off and journalists were prevented from entering. Some of the protesters said police had used pepper spray and accused them of using excessive force.

Police spokesman Paul Browne said most people left the park when told to, but that a small group of people had refused to leave.

He said 70 people were arrested in the park itself and several more nearby. Some protesters who had chained themselves to trees were reportedly cut free by police.

Business pressure

The BBC's Laura Trevelyan, near the park, said the overnight action clearly took the camp by surprise.

Police said most protesters left the park once the order was given But the protesters have been discussing regrouping at other sites around the city and believe the manner of the clearance will only amplify their message, our correspondent adds.

Hundreds of people are reported to have moved to nearby Foley Square to continue their protest. A message was sent from a Twitter account, OccupyFoleySq, set up on Tuesday morning, saying: "We are here and growing."

The city authorities and Mayor Bloomberg have come under pressure from residents and local businesses to shut down the camp, which has numbered about 200 occupants as it nears its two-month anniversary.

Plans had been in place for an escalation of the protest on Thursday, marking the two-month anniversary, with a street carnival scheduled to descend on Wall Street in an attempt to shut it down.

Protest organisers released a statement saying that while they may have been physically removed, "you can't evict an idea whose time has come".

"Our idea is that our political structures should serve us, the people - all of us, not just those who have amassed great wealth and power," they said.

The Occupy movement, inspired by the Arab Spring uprisings and economic protest camps in Spain, is calling for a more equal distribution of the world's wealth and a fairer response to the global economic crisis.

Continue reading the main story
US

The most high profile protest has been Occupy Wall Street in New York, which began on 17 September. The protesters call themselves "the 99%" and are demanding major reforms of the global financial system by curbing the power of banks and corporations. Protests have also taken place in cities across the US, including Washington DC, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Denver, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Houston and Boston. On 15 November, police moved in to clear the Occupy Wall Street protest, earlier they had cleared camps in Portland, Oregon and Oakland, California.

Europe

A protest in Madrid's Sol Square began in May and turned into a week-long sit in. Renewed protests in Europe started on 15 October with demonstrations in Rome, Berlin, Frankfurt, Leipzig, Hamburg, Dublin, Bucharest, Zurich and other cities. Demonstrations were largely peaceful, but around 70 people were injured when violence broke out in Rome.

UK

Protests at the London Stock Exchange in solidarity with Occupy Wall Street began on 15 October. After being denied access to Paternoster Square in front of the stock exchange, demonstrators organised a camp of around 150 tents outside St Paul's Cathedral. Protesters have been told their camp can remain until the new year, after plans to legally evict them were abandoned.

Canada

Demonstrations and protest camps began on 15 October in major cities, including Calgary, Halifax, Quebec, Toronto, Vancouver and Victoria. Police have cleared protesters from sites in Halifax and Ontario but campaigners at the biggest camp, in Toronto, have been allowed to remain.

Australia

Protests began in Sydney and Melbourne on 15 October. Police forcibly removed around 100 demonstrators from the Melbourne camp on 21 October.

Organisers in the US say most of the country's money is held by the richest 1% of the population and that they represent the other 99%.

They have received widespread support, including from many authority figures, but there have been concerns about safety and hygiene.

They have also been criticised for being a distraction from authorities trying to find a solution to the financial crisis, and for failing to suggest a viable alternative economic system.

The New York action comes after police arrested 33 people in Oakland, California as they raided the protest camp in Frank Ogawa Plaza early on Monday morning.

That camp had been marred by recent outbreaks of violence in and around it, including a fatal shooting last week. However, camp residents had said the killing was unconnected to their protest.

Officials said the Oakland camp was cleared amid fears of violence Police had declared the plaza a "crime scene" shortly before they entered.

Oakland Mayor Jean Quan said she had to act to end the camp "before someone else got hurt".

The city's police had said they sympathised with the protesters' cause, but urged them to "leave peacefully, with your heads held high, so we can get police officers back to work fighting crime in Oakland neighbourhoods".

A similar raid ended with police in riot gear arresting 50 people in Portland, Oregon on Sunday evening.

Police in a Vermont city have also evicted protesters after a man fatally shot himself last week inside a tent.

A number of other US cities have seen protests camps spring up in the past two months, and the Occupy movement has also spread to Europe, South America and Asia.

**Melissia**

Ah, police pressured into shutting down a protest by businesses.

Reminds me of history. Things never change, money buys lots of things.

**Rented Tritium**

Melissa, I say this with all due respect, and we agree on like 90% of everything else, but shanty towns are not protected speech.

**Frazzled**

Rented Tritium wrote:Melissa, I say this with all due respect, and we agree on like 90% of everything else, but shanty towns are not protected speech.

Now if they had quality barbeque, I'd have to disagree...

**Melissia**

Rented Tritium wrote:Melissa, I say this with all due respect, and we agree on like 90% of everything else, but shanty towns are not protected speech.

No, but protests generally are.

**Rented Tritium**

Melissia wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:Melissa, I say this with all due respect, and we agree on like 90% of everything else, but shanty towns are not protected speech.
No, but protests generally are.

Right, but when the police come to take down an illegal shanty town and you lock arms in their way, you are not protesting, you are obstructing an officer.

Unless you are protesting that you should be able to make shanty towns, then you should do it on purpose to get arrested and make your point. But if you do that, don't pretend like you weren't breaking the law. You were. You can choose to get arrested on purpose and that can be VERY effective as a protest tool, but don't break the law, get arrested and then whine about it. That makes you look weak and unprincipled. A protest should either break no laws or break laws on purpose and say so.

But see that's the whole problem, OWS has nothing to do with shanty towns. They're making this big thing about the tent cities and that has NOTHING to do with their position. If you are trying to protest about one thing and everyone is talking about and getting arrested over your tent cities, maybe get rid of the tent cities since they are interfering with your message.

**Melissia**

Unless, of course, that was an additional act of protest against the police's actions, because they believed it interfered with their constitutional right to protest.

But taht would never happen, we all know police would never interfere with the right to protest.

I don't agree with everything the Occupy Whatever movement has done, but blocking reporters and journalists from being able to watch and then going in and beating/spraying/etc protesters and forcing them to leave at the behest of businesses is suspicious to me, and that's exactly what the police did.

**Frazzled**

Melissia wrote:Unless, of course, that was an additional act of protest against the police's actions, because they believed it interfered with their constitutional right to protest.

But taht would never happen, we all know police would never interfere with the right to protest.

er...whatever. Thats not free speech though. So shut yer hole about 1st Amendment issues.

**biccat**

Must say, it's about time.

The area was rife with lawlessness including rape; drug use; public indecency; and who knows how many fire, safety, and health hazards.

I'm simply surprised it took them this long to clear out the scum.

**Rented Tritium**

Melissia wrote:Unless, of course, that was an additional act of protest against the police's actions, because they believed it interfered with their constitutional right to protest.

But taht would never happen, we all know police would never interfere with the right to protest.

They can believe that removing tent cities violates their constitutional rights all they want, they're wrong. Building tent cities is not protected speech full stop.

And again, it's HORRIBLE protest planning. OWS is NOT about tent cities. When you lock arms to defend your tent cities, you are no longer protesting about wall street, now you're protesting about tent cities and the police. Who the hell outside of OWS cares about your stupid tent city. Lots of people care about wall street.

Stay on message. This isn't difficult. If tent cities are distracting from your message, get rid of your tent cities. Why would you purposefully pick a fight and dig in over something that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with your protest? It's gotten so meta that now they're protesting for the right to protest and not even TALKING about wall street any more.

I mean come on, 5 minutes on the wiki pages for Mandela or Gandhi and you'll know more about how to protest than these idiots.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Right now a visitor from another world would see this and conclude that OWS is protesting about their right to camp out in the park, because they sure as hell aren't talking about wall street right now except to vaguely blame them for the enforcement of city code.

**Melissia**

Rented Tritium wrote:When you lock arms to defend your tent cities

... they're locking arms to defend their protest site. For a historical (albeit much more extreme) example, I can apply your argument to the civil rights protests too, because they kept at their sit-ins and marches despite police breaking the protests up, often violently.

Apparently they too forgot to stay on message because they didn't want to let the police bully them around.

**Huffy**

Rented Tritium wrote:Stay on message.

That being their main problem, they rapidly became disorganized, and then got a bad name for themselves over clashes with police...

**Frazzled**

Melissia wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:When you lock arms to defend your tent cities
... they're locking arms to defend their protest site. For a historical (albeit much more extreme) example, I can apply your argument to the civil rights protests too, because they kept at their sit-ins and marches despite police breaking the protests up, often violently.

Apparently they too forgot to stay on message because they didn't want to let the police bully them around.

The sit ins were protesting actual laws. The sit ins to defend the parks are protesting to protect their Obbamavilles. Thats fully two steps removed from any issue anyone who bathes cares about.

**Rented Tritium**

Melissia wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:When you lock arms to defend your tent cities
... they're locking arms to defend their protest site. For a historical (albeit much more extreme) example, I can apply your argument to the civil rights protests too, because they kept at their sit-ins and marches despite police breaking the protests up, often violently.

Apparently they too forgot to stay on message because they didn't want to let the police bully them around.

No no no no no. Locking arms to defend your illegal tent city is NOTHING like the civil rights movement's sit-ins. Oh my god you should feel HORRIBLE for saying that.

No, when the civil rights movement did it, they went to a place and said "we will sit here until you fix this SINGLE THING WE WANT or arrest us" then they sat down and peacefully resisted until they were arrested. They KNEW they were breaking the law and they KNEW they'd be arrested and that was the ENTIRE POINT.

Occupy is building stupid tent cities and defending their right to build stupid tent cities. They're going on the news and talking about tent cities. Then when they get arrested for blocking the police from taking down their stupid tent cities, they're whining that the arrests were illegal.

No either you break no laws, or you break laws and SAY SO. Defending your tent city by saying that the tent city represents your right to protest wall street is such a stretch that you lose ALL coherent message. That's AWFUL protesting.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:anyone who bathes cares about.

This is so mean but I loled

**Kilkrazy**

Apparently there is a court order against the Mayor et al breaking up the camp.

If confirmed this would show that the camp was a legal protest, and presumably they will go back in.

**Rented Tritium**

Kilkrazy wrote:Apparently there is a court order against the Mayor et al breaking up the camp.

If confirmed this would show that the camp was a legal protest, and presumably they will go back in.

A camp is not a protest.

A camp is a camp.

An order not to break it up does not make it a protest, it makes it a camp that wasn't supposed to be broken up. But it's still just a camp. Camps aren't speech.

**Melissia**

A protest can be at a camp.

They are not mutually exclusive no matter how much you might want them to be...

**Rented Tritium**

Melissia wrote:A protest can be at a camp.

They are not mutually exclusive no matter how much you might want them to be...

A protest can also be in a building. That doesn't make buildings protected speech. I never said they were mutually exclusive, just that they were not the same thing. A protest can be at a camp and that PROTEST might be protected, but the camp is not. The camp is just a camp.

**Melissia**

... no, but it does mean that since the camp was (possibly) a legally allowed form of protest in this instance, breaking it up was an illegal act on the part of the cops.

**Frazzled**

Kilkrazy wrote:Apparently there is a court order against the Mayor et al breaking up the camp.

If confirmed this would show that the camp was a legal protest, and presumably they will go back in.

The mayor wiped his butt with the court order, and rightly so. NY is vowing no tents in the park.

**Rented Tritium**

Melissia wrote:... no, but it does mean that since the camp was (possibly) a legally allowed form of protest

I am not sure how many times I have to say this, but a camp is not a form of speech. It is legally IMPOSSIBLE for a camp to count as speech, be protest and be protected. People protesting counts as a form of protest. A camp is not a form of protest.

If there is an order not to break down the camp, it has NOTHING to do with the first amendment and everything to do with a mayor's discretion as chief official. If said order exists, I PROMISE you it's just a temporary stay while they listen to arguments.

**daedalus**

Rented Tritium wrote:
Melissia wrote:A protest can be at a camp.

They are not mutually exclusive no matter how much you might want them to be...

A protest can also be in a building. That doesn't make buildings protected speech. I never said they were mutually exclusive, just that they were not the same thing. A protest can be at a camp and that PROTEST might be protected, but the camp is not. The camp is just a camp.

You're entirely right. They should not have even been protesting in the park at all. They should have protested directly on Wall Street. It's public property, so then people couldn't complain about the crowd squatting on semi-private land, right?

I wonder why the protestors didn't think of that.

**Rented Tritium**

daedalus wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
Melissia wrote:A protest can be at a camp.

They are not mutually exclusive no matter how much you might want them to be...

A protest can also be in a building. That doesn't make buildings protected speech. I never said they were mutually exclusive, just that they were not the same thing. A protest can be at a camp and that PROTEST might be protected, but the camp is not. The camp is just a camp.

You're entirely right. They should not have even been protesting in the park at all. They should have protested directly on Wall Street. It's public property, so then people couldn't complain about the crowd squatting on semi-private land, right?

I wonder why the protestors didn't think of that.

Don't strawman me, dude. They can protest in the park all they want. What they can't do is pitch a shanty town there.

There are two actions here, camping and protesting. You guys keep trying to equate them and that's simply nonsense.

**Frazzled**

Rented Tritium wrote:
Melissia wrote:... no, but it does mean that since the camp was (possibly) a legally allowed form of protest

I am not sure how many times I have to say this, but a camp is not a form of speech. It is legally IMPOSSIBLE for a camp to count as speech, be protest and be protected. People protesting counts as a form of protest. A camp is not a form of protest.

If there is an order not to break down the camp, it has NOTHING to do with the first amendment and everything to do with a mayor's discretion as chief official. If said order exists, I PROMISE you it's just a temporary stay while they listen to arguments.

The judge's arguments were that the no tent rules were not in place before the protest. Sophistic nonsense. There were already rules about being their overnight - its a freaking private city park - they could kick them out at any time. Activist judge rightly ignored.

**Rented Tritium**

Frazzled wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
Melissia wrote:... no, but it does mean that since the camp was (possibly) a legally allowed form of protest

I am not sure how many times I have to say this, but a camp is not a form of speech. It is legally IMPOSSIBLE for a camp to count as speech, be protest and be protected. People protesting counts as a form of protest. A camp is not a form of protest.

If there is an order not to break down the camp, it has NOTHING to do with the first amendment and everything to do with a mayor's discretion as chief official. If said order exists, I PROMISE you it's just a temporary stay while they listen to arguments.

The judge's arguments were that the no tent rules were not in place before the protest. Sophistic nonsense. There were already rules about being their overnight - its a freaking private city park - they could kick them out at any time. Activist judge rightly ignored.

Unless the tent rules grandfathered in existing tents, it makes no difference when the rules went into effect, they were in effect when the action was taken and they were warned loudly on megaphones repeatedly that the tents were not allowed.

Yeah, it's dumb.

HOWEVER, we have the judicial branch for a reason. The mayor's office is gonna be in trouble for knowingly violating a court order, even a bad one, assuming this isn't rumor.

**Frazzled**

Rented Tritium wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
Melissia wrote:... no, but it does mean that since the camp was (possibly) a legally allowed form of protest

I am not sure how many times I have to say this, but a camp is not a form of speech. It is legally IMPOSSIBLE for a camp to count as speech, be protest and be protected. People protesting counts as a form of protest. A camp is not a form of protest.

If there is an order not to break down the camp, it has NOTHING to do with the first amendment and everything to do with a mayor's discretion as chief official. If said order exists, I PROMISE you it's just a temporary stay while they listen to arguments.

The judge's arguments were that the no tent rules were not in place before the protest. Sophistic nonsense. There were already rules about being their overnight - its a freaking private city park - they could kick them out at any time. Activist judge rightly ignored.

Unless the tent rules grandfathered in existing tents, it makes no difference when the rules went into effect, they were in effect when the action was taken and they were warned loudly on megaphones repeatedly that the tents were not allowed.

Yeah, it's dumb.

HOWEVER, we have the judicial branch for a reason. The mayor's office is gonna be in trouble for knowingly violating a court order, even a bad one.

Actually they didn't. The order (IIRC) came after. Activist judges tend to sleep in.

Now the rule is in place for any new Obamavilles so can be fully enforced.

**Rented Tritium**

Frazzled wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
Melissia wrote:... no, but it does mean that since the camp was (possibly) a legally allowed form of protest

I am not sure how many times I have to say this, but a camp is not a form of speech. It is legally IMPOSSIBLE for a camp to count as speech, be protest and be protected. People protesting counts as a form of protest. A camp is not a form of protest.

If there is an order not to break down the camp, it has NOTHING to do with the first amendment and everything to do with a mayor's discretion as chief official. If said order exists, I PROMISE you it's just a temporary stay while they listen to arguments.

The judge's arguments were that the no tent rules were not in place before the protest. Sophistic nonsense. There were already rules about being their overnight - its a freaking private city park - they could kick them out at any time. Activist judge rightly ignored.

Unless the tent rules grandfathered in existing tents, it makes no difference when the rules went into effect, they were in effect when the action was taken and they were warned loudly on megaphones repeatedly that the tents were not allowed.

Yeah, it's dumb.

HOWEVER, we have the judicial branch for a reason. The mayor's office is gonna be in trouble for knowingly violating a court order, even a bad one.

Actually they didn't. The order (IIRC) came after. Activist judges tend to sleep in.

Now the rule is in place for any new Obamavilles so can be fully enforced.

Oh ok. If the order came after then it's a non-issue. They acted in good faith and it'll all shake out properly in a higher court later.

**daedalus**

Rented Tritium wrote:
Don't strawman me, dude. They can protest in the park all they want. What they can't do is pitch a shanty town there.

There are two actions here, camping and protesting. You guys keep trying to equate them and that's simply nonsense.

No intended strawman, just trying to extrapolate upon why you feel it's 'wrong', based upon other, similar arguments I'd seen elsewhere. Apparently I was wrong. Unlike a lot of OT, I rather enjoy it when I'm wrong. That means things are less fethed than I think.

Let's do this bit by bit then. What makes the 'shanty town' illegal? Your use of the word 'shanty'? The presence of tents? Why are tents illegal? If they did not have tents and stayed in sleeping bags, would it have been more illegal or less illegal?

Let's also ask a side question at this point: Assuming you're attempting to stage a prolonged protest; that is, one that lasts multiple weeks, how are you supposed to manifest the protest from one day to the next, in particular, if you traveled from somewhere to actually get to the protest? You can't exactly go back to the comfort of your own home, and I'd imagine staying in hotels gets prohibitively expensive. Not to mention that the hotel idea sends the message that "the ability to protest is directly linked to your income". I gotta say though, anymore I'd believe it if people tried to convince me of it.

I gotta say, I think the shanty town thing if anything impressed more upon me than the protests do, which is actually saying quite a bit. Here were a bunch of people, in spite of inclement weather, who spent weeks living out of tents to stay in NYC in the name of showing off just how pissed they were. Think about it, I mean, while I enjoy it, the majority of people don't normally go camping in November, because it's so god awful cold outside. These people were pissed off enough to do it.

**CptJake**

Melissia wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:Melissa, I say this with all due respect, and we agree on like 90% of everything else, but shanty towns are not protected speech.
No, but protests generally are.

Melissia wrote:A protest can be at a camp.

They are not mutually exclusive no matter how much you might want them to be...

You wrongly assume that the protestors have all the permits and permissions needed to make their gathering legal, and that the shanty town was raised and occupied legally. Legal protests require permits (ask a Tea Party member how that works).

Any one wanna make guesses as to how many health code violations that a business would get shut down for were rampant in the shanty towns?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

daedalus wrote:
Assuming you're attempting to stage a prolonged protest; that is, one that lasts multiple weeks, how are you supposed to manifest the protest from one day to the next, in particular, if you traveled from somewhere to actually get to the protest? You can't exactly go back to the comfort of your own home, and I'd imagine staying in hotels gets prohibitively expensive. Not to mention that the hotel idea sends the message that "the ability to protest is directly linked to your income". I gotta say though, anymore I'd believe it if people tried to convince me of it.

I suspect if you want to NOT pay to rent land (be it a hotel room or a legal camp site) then you are restricted. The 1st Ammendment protects political speech, not squatter's rights to land. No one has been guaranteed the 'right' to take what is not theirs as part of a legal protest.

**Rented Tritium**

daedalus wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
Don't strawman me, dude. They can protest in the park all they want. What they can't do is pitch a shanty town there.

There are two actions here, camping and protesting. You guys keep trying to equate them and that's simply nonsense.

No intended strawman, just trying to extrapolate upon why you feel it's 'wrong', based upon other, similar arguments I'd seen elsewhere. Apparently I was wrong. Unlike a lot of OT, I rather enjoy it when I'm wrong. That means things are less fethed than I think.

Let's do this bit by bit then. What makes the 'shanty town' illegal? Your use of the word 'shanty'? The presence of tents? Why are tents illegal? If they did not have tents and stayed in sleeping bags, would it have been more illegal or less illegal?

Let's also ask a side question at this point: Assuming you're attempting to stage a prolonged protest; that is, one that lasts multiple weeks, how are you supposed to manifest the protest from one day to the next, in particular, if you traveled from somewhere to actually get to the protest? You can't exactly go back to the comfort of your own home, and I'd imagine staying in hotels gets prohibitively expensive. Not to mention that the hotel idea sends the message that "the ability to protest is directly linked to your income". I gotta say though, anymore I'd believe it if people tried to convince me of it.

I gotta say, I think the shanty town thing if anything impressed more upon me than the protests do, which is actually saying quite a bit. Here were a bunch of people, in spite of inclement weather, who spent weeks living out of tents to stay in NYC in the name of showing off just how pissed they were. Think about it, I mean, while I enjoy it, the majority of people don't normally go camping in November, because it's so god awful cold outside. These people were pissed off enough to do it.

I'm definitely not going to get into "right" or "wrong". Just "legal" and "illegal".

Their tent camps are illegal by city policy and ordinance. I don't claim encyclopedic knowledge of their local ordinances, but I know enough about local law to know that it's almost always illegal to pitch camp in a park. In some places, it's even illegal to stay overnight. The intricacies of what they could do to make their "settlement" legal are not something I want to get into, but I am sure there's some way to make some semblance of what they have legal.

And yes, if you have a large protest where tents are not allowed, the correct play is to commute and have people there in shifts. I live in a capital city and I've seen DOZENS of protests with continuous presence for months with no tents. They do it by working shifts or just all going home over night, depending on the location. And in this particular case, we're talking about NEW YORK CITY, a place with PHENOMENAL public transportation. There's no reason they can't commute to the protest and run shifts.

Now the beautiful thing about protests is that they don't actually HAVE to be legal! It's great, you can just break the law on purpose and go to jail on principle. It makes you look super srs and everything! It's worked WONDERS for some very famous people. The problem is that the OWS guys are breaking the law and claiming they aren't, then whining when they get arrested a handful at a time.

And again, all this defense of the tent cities is hugely distracting to what OWS is actually about, but if they REALLY wanted to fight the city over this tent issue, they would have gotten in their tents and sat there, saying "we want this one thing to happen or we want to be arrested" and MADE THEM arrest EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM and it makes the police look TERRIBLE even when they're following the law. This business where people are claiming the cops are in the wrong is stupid and counterproductive. The cops are following the law to the letter.

I mean OWS is CONSISTENTLY making classic protest blunders and allowing the message to get lost. They're not serious enough to get themselves arrested. They just want to live in tent cities and complain that everyone doesn't love them for it.