Occupy Los Angeles, which is both the largest actually Occupy Encampment in the country and within a few days will be the longest surviving camp that has not been evicted - is running out of time.
As I documented in my diary yesterday - this week the City of Los Angeles has made an offer to #OLA to either relocate to a 10,000 sq ft. Office space in the underground "City Plaza" across the street, or face potential evicted on November 28. Yes, that's right - on Thanksgiving, the week right after Thankgiving.
The offer also includes some farm land for growing their own food as well as extended Housing for the Homeless currently living in the Park and SRO Housing for Occupy members who have nowhere else to go.
This is a crossroads for #OLA. They have some decisions to make, and they have to make them quickly.
There is good reason not to trust the motivations of the City in making this offer. As documented in this diary, the specifics of the offer all play into a narrative of the Villaraigosa re-election battle against his chief rival.
First, there is the farmland. A couple of weeks ago, LAPD demanded the removal of garden boxes that some occupiers had carried to the lawn to grow food, apparently signaling to the City some interest in farming. But elected city officials have a more self-serving motive in offering a farm to the occupiers. And mind you, this is not a "garden." A "garden" would be ambiguous; a "Farm" has special resonance in Los Angeles. Just last week, at the behest of mayoral candidate Jan Perry, the City Council sold off land promised for a soccer field at the site of the former South Central Farm. In doing so, they most likely paved the way to turn the former urban gem into another pollution-pumping, gray and cold, low-wage manufacturing site.
...The offer itself will undoubtedly get more attention and add more to the environmental credibility of the two elected officials than the nail in the coffin of the South Central Farm ever will.
So there's that.
And then there's this:
Then there is the building. The City's offer includes 10,000 sq. ft. across from City Hall" for a dollar a year. The offer is on the table is, almost assuredly, tied up with the City's frantic divestiture of its Community Redevelopment Agency money before the state Supreme Court rules in January on the legality of the governor's plan to redirect CRA funds from developers to schools and public safety.
The City is sitting on a pot of CRA cash they need to spend before the Governor takes it and makes them spend it on Schools and Public Safety Issues. So if OLA takes this offer, does it potentially take money away from Schools?
The City is asking for its front lawn back, and it's willing to let the north lawn campers remain, at least for now. In exchange, the City is offering to open up new shelter for the homeless who will be displaced. The effort to fracture the 99% along existing seams of class and political tension is transparent. What's not so evident is that if the City can establish it's provided 1,250 new beds in low-income housing since 2007, they get out from under a 9th Circuit order that allows sleeping on the sidewalk. That would leave the City free to resume citing and arresting those who do sleep outside or even sit on the sidewalk, the infamous practice Perry was fond of for cleaning up Skid Row in her district. As recently as 2010, Perry was railing against feeding people on the street. The entwinement of the protesters and the homeless, and the City's insistence on not feeding people in public spaces, already has led to the closing of kitchen facilities at City Hall encampment.
Having visited the camp on Monday, I would say the North Lawn is a much smaller space to work within and also that the Food Tent isn't closed - it's still open, or at least a version of it is. Also, based on the comments I heard directly from National Lawyers Guild member Jim Lafferty, who is part of the Liaison Team that has been talking to the City, the reason the police haven't yet cracked down on sleeping in the park isn't necessarily because of the 9th Circuit decisions - it's because of a Gentlemen's Agreement that was established between Lafferty and the Police Chief at the start of the OLA Occupation.
According to Lafferty there is no way around the Camping Laws of the State, and that although structures and/or tents may remain in place - Sleeping in those Tents is technically prohibited by law.
In the last day or so, the members of OLA have begun to build a list of Counter Proposals. Some are rather outlandish and clearly outside the scope and ability of the City of Los Angeles to accomplish, but others are highly practical.
The "counter-proposal" needs to be a rejection of the 'politics of the deal' that got us into this mess, and an assertion of what the communities of this city need.
The city should not just house the unhoused who have been camping in Occupy LA, but make serious plans for a "housing is a human right" solution to homelessness, foreclosures, gentrification, slumlord exploitation of tenants, and the privatization of public housing. The city has no power over the foreclosure process, but they can pull their money out of banks, and pressure the Board of Supes and the Sheriffs to stop evicting people in foreclosure. the city can institute rent control and slap fines on slumlords.
The city should not just give the occupiers a couple of plots of land to farm, but should restore the land of the South Central Farm so the farmers can rebuild and regrow.
...
The city should not just recognize the free speech rights of protesters in Occupy LA, and quite dramatically reign in the police in so doing, but should reign in the police 24/7 on the streets of the city by establishing a system of community control of the police.
...
The city should not just lower back the fares on the DASH buses it controls (raised twice in the last year or two) through the LA Department of Transportation, but the Mayor should use his clout on the board of the MTA to restore cuts in bus service to the levels that existed back when the MTA was under a civil rights consent decree to fund adequate levels of bus service to predominantly Black and Mexicano/indigenous poor people.
The mayor should also use his influence on the LAUSD school board to break the school-to-prison pipeline, reign in the LA School Police Dept, cut class sizes and end the giveaways of public schools to private interests.
The city so concerned about the trees and landscape at city hall should commit to planting trees and building parks in all the poor and underserved neighborhoods of this city, which have some of the worst green space-to-resident ratios of any big city, and community gardens at every school in LAUSD..
These are all good ideas, and I'm sure there will be some more. Everything reasonable should be placed on the table.
One of the other main requests I've heard is that representatives of the City come to and speak at the General Assembly itself. I think that request should be expanded to not simply a one time visit, but an ask for a regular attendee from the City to be assigned to communicate with the General Assembly.
Further I think members from the GA should begin to regularly attend city council meetings and consistently put forth the further ideas and suggestions generated by the General Assembly. What you don't want is for this offer to become a way to either divide and scatter the movement, or else to placate it into irrelevance.
If you're going to "demand" that the City Council come to your space, or your terms, you should also be willing to go to their space on their terms. Even if OLA doesn't get a written agreement for all of it's requests from the City, they should at least get an agreement that the City Promises That it Will Continue to Listen to it's Constituents including those in the 99% and OLA.
IMO OLA should not allow this to become their "One Shot" at accomplishing something significant in the city, but instead use it as a springboard to accomplish much greater things in the future for the people of Los Angeles, as well as the Nation and World at large.
Taking all this into account, including the downside of "divide and conquer" - I think Occupy LA should adopt an All of the Above and More strategy. They should IMO strategically accept the space, the farm (with the stipulation that the South Central Farm also be restored), the Housing (with the stipulation the that 9th Circuit Order for sleeping on the sidewalk will not be abridged), but... but, that they also reserve the right to continue having structures in the park, that they reserve the right to continue having general assembly in the park and have the city acknowledge and affirm their 1st Amendment Rights to Redress their grievances.
I know that some Occupiers will object and probably Hard Block this idea, but bear me out. People should be allowed to make their own individual choices, that's what freedom is. If some want to stay, they should stay and they just might continue to face eviction and/or arrest. That's fine, it's their choice. Those that want to go, should be able to go and make use of the Housing and/or Space - but understand, this is not "Divide and Conquer", rather it should be seen as splitting forces into equal armies with their own means, but both attacking the same enemy, and reaching for the same goal. Think of it as "Good Occupier/Bad Occupier" - using different methods, which individually would be less effective than what they accomplish together.
It's part of being a team, you have your Offense and then you have your Defense.
If OLA wants to stage a Direct Action Protest and/or Marches - having a permanent offsite space doesn't prevent that. In other words, I believe they should get everything they can reasonably get, but give up nothing that they don't need to give away.
From what I've seen many of the Occupiers are against taking a deal on principle, because well, that's the "old way of doing business". However, there are practical concerns that have to be taken into consideration in order to preserve the life and longevity of the movement. This isn't just about November 28th, it's about November 2012, and November 2015 and November 2020.
The way that other encampments have been attacked has been over the "Health and Safety" issue. Accepting the space, for those inclined to do so, may be a way of taking that issue off the table. While I was there I heard that they've had problems with food being stolen overnight, and that some members have specifically slept in the food tent to prevent such losses. Moving Food Storage to the New Space would both increase safety and aid with health concerns such as refrigeration.
If there is an Eviction on or shortly after November 28th, there are physical assets that need to be preserved ahead of time - including the Library. So I suggest that the Library should be relocated to the Space along with Food Storage.
All of this I suggest merely as practical and logistical concerns, but the primary focus and energy of the current movement can and should remain in the Park, but that doesn't preclude expanding the movement out into the City, into the Neighborhoods and the Suburbs.
Lastly, I think the significance of having at least One City actually make a move to fully Legitimize The Protest is symbolic and inspirational, and an opportunity that should not be tossed away lightly. This could help spark a National Change in the approach to #OWS. Instead of coming at people with Pepper Spray and Batons, other cities may begin to come back with similar offers, but Only if This One is Seen as a Successful Win/Win for all those involved.
If this deal fails completely, then this door may be closed for all other Occupations as well. This is may be the first, best chance to shift the entire Occupy Movement to the Next Level, to becoming a Permanent Force for the Voice of the 99% in our Society.
Let's all hope, even if my humble suggestions here are not followed, that OLA makes the right decision.
Vyan