Editorial: Mayor Lee is tough as hell on Occupy SF protestors, but keeps City Hall safe for PG@E and the downtown gang

|
(70)


And so Mayor Ed Lee once again shows his true colors:  he is tough as hell on Occupy SF protestors and, unlike every other mayor in every other U.S. city,  sends in the cops to roust them out in  two midnight raids and trumpets the word  by bullhorn from the mayor's office that he will harass them until the end of time. Meanwhile, he is is quietly sending  sending out the message that under his stewardship that City Hall will be safe for PG@E, the downtown gang, the big developers, the bailed banks, and the feds who are going after the dispensers of medical marijuana and the newspapers who run their ads.  (Full disclosure: that's us at the Guardian.)  B3

EDITORIAL This is what civility and compromise looks like:

At a little after 10 P.m. Oct 16, a squadron of San Francisco police equipped with riot gear raided and attempted to shut down the OccupySF protest. It was the second time San Francisco has embarrassed itself, becoming the only major U.S. city to attempt to evict members of the growing Occupation movement — and this time, the cops used a lot more force.

The first crackdown, on Oct. 5, was supposedly driven by concerns that the activists were using an open flame for their communal kitchen without the proper permits. This time around, the alleged lawbreaking was confined to a Park Code section that bans sleeping in city parkland after 10 p.m. And since Justin Herman Plaza, where OccupySF is camped, is technically under the jurisdiction of the Recreation and Park Department, that ordinance could be enforced.

But let's be serious: The encampment endangered nobody, and if any Rec-Park officials had actually complained, the police couldn't provide their names. This was all about rousting a protest against corporate greed and economic injustice. It came with police batons, several beatings and five arrests.

And the mayor of what many call the most liberal city in America hasn't said a word. Mayor Ed Lee was clearly consulted on the raid, clearly approved it — and now becomes unique among the chief executives of big cities across the country, most of whom have worked to find ways to avoid police confrontations.

David Chiu, the president of the Board of Supervisors, issued a ridiculous statement saying that "Both the Occupy SF protesters and the San Francisco Police Department need to redouble their efforts to avoid confrontations like the ones we saw last night." No: The protesters didn't start it, didn't provoke it, didn't want it — and frankly, did their best to avoid it. The crackdown is all about the folks at City Hall trying to get rid of one of the most important political actions in at least a decade — and doing it with riot police.

This is what the civility and compromise so touted by Mayor Lee and Board President Chiu looks like. And it's a disgrace.

In Oakland, where the encampment at Frank Ogawa Plaza, renamed Oscar Grant Plaza for the event, has far more people than Occupy SF, city officials approached the activists and offered to issue whatever permits were needed. Mayor Jean Quan visited the general assembly, waited her turn to speak, and then politely asked the group not to damage the somewhat fragile old oak tree on the site. In deference to her wishes, the group surrounded the tree with a fence.

In New York, the private owner of the park where Occupy Wall Street is camped agreed not to evict the demonstrators — or even move some of them to all for a regular park cleaning.

Why is San Francisco acting so hostile? Is this not a city with a reputation for political activism and tolerance? Is it really that big a problem to allow activists to peacefully occupy public space to denounce the greatest corporate thievery in a generation?

San Francisco ought to be supporting the OccupySF movement, not harassing it. Lee should immediately call off the police raids. The Board of Supervisors should have a hearing on this, bring Police Chief Greg Suhr, Mayor Lee and representatives of Rec-Park and the Department of Public Health and work out a solution that doesn't involve repeatedly rousting the protesters in the middle of the night. And if this continues, perhaps OccupySF should move to the plaza in front of City Hall.

Sup. John Avalos is the only person at City Hall who is making an outspoken effort to protect the protest; he needs some support.

 

Comments

The previous commenter made the distinction, you didn't in your comment starting this thread. Now you're contradicting yourself.

Are you an attorney Eric? Or are you basing your expansive knowledge of the law on Wikipedia, internet searches and a book you read?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 9:12 pm

Wrong 'Guest'. Read it again, nice and slow. Maybe two or three times. Eventually you'll figure it out. Let us all know when you do.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 9:34 pm

Eric is now an apologist for Haymarket like state sanctioned attacks on free speech in the name of his values.

Posted by meatsack on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 11:52 pm

It's exactly like the Hound of The Baskervilles with Eric and all the others.

Posted by meatsack on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 12:37 am

Nope. I am not an apologist for anything of the kind.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 10:24 am

Because I said so bitch. And anyone who has read this blog for any length of time knows I'm right about everything. You are all just peons at the mercy of my deep brilliance. Too bad none of you know it...

Posted by meatsack on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 10:39 am

We should arrest and jail the banksters and Wall Street fraudsters. And while we're at it, most of the upper echelons of the Lee administration including Lee should be arrested for corruption. If we actually did apply the law equally, there'd be no need for the protest.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 9:40 am

That applies whether you're a Banker or a Protester.

But disliking the bailouts doesn't excuse illegal behavior by others. It's entirely possible and reasonable to make a protest without breaking the law. Try it.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 11:28 am

Any SUSPECTED crime can be prosecuted. You PROVE it during the prosecution.

Whether you SHOULD prosecute every single crime is another matter. Police and DAs have limited resources and need to deploy those resources where they can do the most good.

Defrauding people, stealing their homes, wrecking the economy... I think those things should be prosecuted. Sitting on the sidewalk to protest criminals defrauding people, stealing homes, wrecking the economy... maybe not so much.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 1:53 pm

investigated and prosecuted based on a politics. You're taking a partisan ideological position and then demanding that the cops and the DA bias their activities towards what you personally happen to think is the greater crime.

It's become a cliche that bankers are all criminals and yet, from what I've seen, that's a very small minority. Whatever blame there is is spread very widely indeed. It's just not that simple.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 2:01 pm

There's always a value judgement involved in deciding which laws have priority. If a cop sees someone knifing someone on one end of the street, and sees a jaywalker on the other, I say go after the knifing suspect first, and let the jaywalker go. If you happen to be free later and you catch up with the jaywalker, maybe let him off with a warning.

What you're suggesting is that the two crimes are of equal value and because they're both crimes, it really doesn't matter which the one the officer prioritizes. That's both absurd and immoral.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 5:44 pm

Blacks sitting at whites-only lunch counters were attacks on the Jim Crow laws. Yes, those protesters broke the law. But you know what? If they hadn't been brave enough to do so, legal segregation would still be a reality in the South.

As for the concept of making a protest without breaking the law, you come across as the anonymous version of a supporter of the police's "free speech zones." Said zones are entirely legal..but they oddly have the result of muting the effectiveness of protest.

The essence of civil disobedience is precisely breaking the law to achieve a greater social good. You have offered nothing to prove why civil disobedience should not be an option with the Occupy protests.

Posted by Peter on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 8:54 am

The idea that free speech is allowed on one piece of ground and not on another is totally absurd and is -fundamentally- and utterly at odds with the First Amendment.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 10:34 am

MUCH LOVE TO YOU FOR BRINGING THE MEDIA IN A NEUTRAL WAY.
TOGETHER WILL WILL REBUILD WHAT WAS DESTROYED

Posted by Guest on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 12:39 pm

It's the method of choice used by the communist government of China, the junta in Burma and a lot of dictators. They would standby and watch who is involved during the day time and go after them during the night when nobody could see. A lot of Tibetan monks, activists, human rights advocates disappeared at nights. In the case of Burma, only traces of bloods to be found in the morning in a lot of monastries. Ed is widely known to have tie with the Chinese consulate in SF through Rose Pak. He flew the communist red flag outside his office at city hall on Sept 30 to celebrate annivery of founding of Communist China.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 1:01 pm

Correct, an alternative name for a Free Speech Zone is a Gulag.
Appreciate your critique/criticisms.feedback on my lengthy rant at end of "OccupySF appeals to City Hall'

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 11:48 am

ed lee is so cruel on human right advocates. He is so inhuman!

Posted by John Womg on Oct. 24, 2011 @ 11:01 pm

San Francisco people don't need an inhuman mayor. We don't need a guy to be our mayor who fails to keep his words!

Posted by John Womg on Oct. 24, 2011 @ 11:04 pm

San Francisco people love you long time. You so right!!

Posted by Guest on Oct. 24, 2011 @ 11:12 pm

Related articles

  • Guardian editorial: Mixed report on Mayor Lee

  • Guardian editorial: PG&E's system fails again!

  • Editor's notes

    We've got to make the push to public power if we care about our environment's future