Forums:
Encampment evictions cannot stop this movement. In every city that has been evicted there have still been major actions planned and executed. Occupying vacant public spaces, foreclosed homes, establishing squats, and attempted reoccupations of city squares are all tactics currently being used in response to evictions.
This deal being negotiated with the city represents a unique opportunity for Occupy LA to work more closely with our local government but also represents a danger of disconnecting Occupy LA from the larger movement's struggles.
Where do we stand in relation to the worldwide struggle? There is a lot of global organizing going on at http://takethesquare.net/ , if we leave the city square voluntarily what does that say about our movement in LA? Are we still part of the occupy movement if we aren't occupying? Is it even worth it to occupy the City Hall Lawn which can hardly be mistaken for the city square?
The relation of our organizing space to our actions also must be discussed. We are currently organizing non-permitted marches, bank shutdowns, and disruptive mic-check flash mobs from an illegal encampment. If we follow the rules to obtain a space, how much will this bleed into the rest of our organization? How much pressure will the city be able to place on us if they have some control over our lease agreement on space?
It's a difficult problem and we will need some time to sort through these sticky issues, but I look forward to working with all of you on it.
Peace, love, and solidarity
-Evan
It's greedy
Submitted by invictus99 on
I have very strong reservations about this office space. It's not actually the space itself. I'm not a hardcore "tenter" as it were. I think office space would be amazing eventually. But, the thing that I am concerned about is that:
1. I do not trust the city. They have been cordial, yes. But in a very odd and eerily apathetic way.
2. My biggest concern is how slimey and greedy this feels. What the hell gives us a right to feed out fo the silver trough of the city when countrless other organizations have to pay ridiculous rent prices and also can we please remember how South Central Farm went down. Does it really feel right to take the opportunistic hand out? I don't think that this is in solidarity with other Occuy movements nor do I think it is representative of our movements ethos. In fact, it smacks way too much of the opportunism that the banksters greedily engaged in. I don't believe the city is actually doing this out of the goodness of their hearts but rather because we annoy them on the lawn and they don't have tenants in that space now so it's no loss tot hem to make an additional $12 a year plus they can then enforce stricter regulations upon us.
My vote is a strong no on this proposal or anything like it. What we should do is counter back and tell them they need to fix the mess the made out of the South Central Farm deal. That would be much more in the spirit of solidarity and occupying.
Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. -Howard Zinn
On the Move
Submitted by Partiii on
I think you make a good point Evan, We wouldn't be "occupying" the office we'd be leasing it. Regardless of the amount we'd have landlords. We would be right back in the system we've struggled against. And if the city thinks we're out of hand they can kick us out of there just as easily as they can from the park. The only difference is in the park we have full ranks and full support. In the office we are a group divided. I for one cannot justify supporting "Occupy Los Angeles City Alloted Office Space" red stapler or not. And I'm sure there are others like me. We have a people's movement. Its not time to divert this energy. We should be occupying more places not shifting to one that is more out of sight.
Earthquakes
Submitted by alivia on
That was the first thing I thought of when I heard it was located underground. No Thank you!
I Occupy because I may be physically limited but I am not dis abled.
I Occupy because everyone should have equal opportunities.
I Occupy because I am not afraid to stand up to greed and corruption
Underground? What?
Submitted by kharnal on
Underground? What?
Evan Kashinsky - Keepin' It Real #77
There's no need
Submitted by Fex on
Aye there's no need for a permanent office. Even if we're evicted. This is "Occupy." Occupy public space to express grievance(s) against the government, this is protected under 1st Amendment law. All an office space would do is move some (and not all) comittees into offices and out of the weather- while nice, it won't cover every comittee and defintely not every occupier, it'd be playing into the system, and again- it's not occupying if we're given private space. We're using public space for a public movement that's legal under law.
"Word following word- I wrought words. Deed following deed, I wrought deeds." - The Havamal
Pages