Hey, there! Log in / Register
Who died and made them king of the Greenway?
By adamg on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 4:23pm
Mike Ball considers the Rose Kennedy Greenway Conservancy's newfound reasons for wanting Occupy Boston off its land and finds them lacking:
The Greenway Conservancy folk apparently stifled their Brahmin impulse until they popped. They saw the courts refuse to clear Occupy's camp and the mayor deciding to hang back. At least Menino has the political savvy to understand the peril of smothering protest in the town that fomented the American Revolution.
In contrast, the Conservancy board has decided whom they will classify as public and what activities they will allow. Now they are stomping their feet.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
so tell me again why these guys don't need permits?
Or don't have to pay for porta-potties or electricity or police? Anybody else in Massachusetts would have to get permits and pay for their protests and the services needed to support them. The City has disgracefully caving in to the spoiled Occupiers. Can't wait til this nonsense ends.
Maybe this will be the end of
Maybe this will be the end of using the permitting process to stifle free speech. That is a good thing, right?
haven't accomplished anything?
I hear people say their commute is inconvenienced by Occupy Boston, or they haven't complied with permit requirements, or they haven't accomplished anything. Jon Keller called them narcissistic and I thought, look whose talking!
But the more free speech suppression we see across this nation, the more people agree that the right to assemble and speak freely should not be suppressed (with local statutes that usually garner a violation citation not a bash on the skull with a baton or a pepper-spray shower.)
Policeman violate the law when they use pepper-spray or a baton battery to disperse a peaceful crowd in a public place.
What I find most interesting is the claim that they haven't accomplished anything? Clearly, they changed the debate and they're not done.
In the last week, Rep Ryan gave a speech on income inequality a topic he would never have touched unless it could not be ignored.
Newt Gingrich took time to disparage people who occupy all over the US and around the world. Congratulations to #occupyHarvard and #OccupyBoston for getting under his skin ...there's a lot of shabu shabu under there, amiright?
Mike Bloomberg famously attacked at night employing a press suppression operation. He netted a city councilmen in his arrest sweep and knocked a kids teeth out ...only to accomplish getting occupy out of Zuccotti and into his own neighborhood -- right outside his front door.
Occupy was front page news above the fold in the New York Times.
Occupy remains front page news and TV broadcast news as Chancellors at U Cal Davis and U Cal Berkley shame themselves by using violence against students protesting privatization of their public university using non-violent resistance.
Even people who do not like occupiers agree with many of the issues they raise.
I think they've accomplished a lot, and I'd like to see them continue.
Anybody else in Massachusetts
Anybody else in Massachusetts would have to get permits and pay for their protests
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.
Yah, so? That's about Congress.
We're talking about the Frickin' Greenway Conservancy here, dog! They trump your little Constitution any day of the week.
Common practice
Try protesting in front of the Statehouse (or on the opposite side of Beacon, in front of the 54th Regiment bronze), or on the Common, or City Hall Plaza or pretty much any other public space. You need a permit for all of those places and if you don't have one you'll be booted directly. I believe the test is whether or not one group's use of the space precludes others from using it at the same time. Although Occupy is not actively excluding non-Occupiers, one could certainly argue that the scale of their encampment would make it difficult or impossible for other members of the public to use the space at the same time.
In this instance, while I think the Occupiers should be allowed to stay, I have some sympathy with the Conservancy. I used to serve on the board of a "friends of" organization for another public space here in the city and it was a headache and a half. It is no easy task to balance free and open public use with the responsibilities incumbent upon a board member - among other things, to see that public and private funds are used properly and ensure the space is adequately cared for in the face of budget crises. I went down to take some supplies to Dewey Square the other day and from what I saw, it's going to take some serious funds to restore that section of the Greenway if and when the Occupiers vacate.
I'm sure if this was white
I'm sure if this was white people from South Boston protesting school busing, the same would hold.
How about
space savers?
Space savers are not free
Space savers are not free speech.
Apparently it's
Political speech. Mumbles backed down and is basically allowing a illegal practice to go on that leads to vandalism and property damage because he didn't want to actually have to deal with something.
Right. The Occupy people
Right. The Occupy people brought vandalism and property damage (and drug use) to our once fair and pristine city. I get the feeling the people most vocal against Occupy Boston haven't stepped foot in the city since the 50s.
Talking Southie space saving
buffoons, not OWS'ers. Mumbles backing down against real hooligans and law breakers.
The question shouldn't be
The question shouldn't be would it hold, but should it hold. The answer is yes.
So long as they didn't bring weaponized flags ...
Notice that this guy isn't being pepper sprayed or beaten up with a baton as he "speaks freely" to Mr. Landsmark.
Poor Ted Landsmark
Those kids were from Charlestown, right? What a disgrace.
However, whenever I see that photo I also remember something that people never talk about: Evelyn Wagler, burned to death in Roxbury at the age of 24. No photos of her death, so she's almost lost to history.
I think we're digressing, though.
Attributed to Southie residents by Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Landsmark
Jimmy Kelly, once a body guard for Louise Day Hicks, later a city councillor. Gotta wonder if the Joseph Rakes cited in the same article was related to Stippo Rakes, who Whitey and Flemmi "bought" the South Boston Liquor Store from.
I do not miss those times at all.
Important to Remember
The horrors went both ways, because that's what happens when you successfully take from poor people to give to other poor people.
In any case, Landsmark's assault is relevant here, because it occurred in conjunction with a large anti-bussing rally at City Hall.
Can I get my donation back?
Can I get the money back for the Mother's Walk paver stone we purchased?
Write them a letter with that
Write them a letter with that request. It won't likely result in a refund, but should hopefully make a statement regarding the public whose trust they are meant to have.
Why? Because you don't
Why? Because you don't approve of how the Greenway is being used at one particular moment in time? That's ridiculous. But whatever. They should pry the stone out and put it on your door step along with the money.
Why the Greenway?
Is there a reason these protesters chose the Greenway? Why not (try and) camp out on City Hall Plaza, or the Common, or wherever?
They voted on it.
Proximity to the Financial District and the Federal Reserve Bank was cited by advocates of that site. It was also argued, I believe, that a similar occupation at the Common would be more likely to be ignored.
If a protest takes place in a forest, does it make a sound?
Exactly. If they decided to sleep overnight in the Common, no one would complain or even notice. However, establishing camp there would have given them the "right" to stay without question - the Common is exactly the type of space that is made for protest, due to its unique place in history and its ownership laying in the hands of "the people", not in the city government's. The Greenway isn't "public land" in the same sense, so they are at risk of being booted out.
If their goal was to actually make a difference, they would have chosen the Common.
Or, if they had known anything about Boston history. My take is, their behavior shows they are nothing but tourists and attention whores.
What's wrong with wanting attention?
If they decided to sleep overnight in the Common, no one would complain or even notice.
Isn't that kind of the point of not occupying the Common?
Well, coupled with the fact that they're camped out across from the Federal Reserve Bank and at the edge of the Financial District, and the financial system is the focus of their complaints?
In that sense, Dewey Square is the perfect place for their protest.
And as the Conservancy itself said, at least at the beginning, where they are is the best spot because it was pretty much just a grass field -- as opposed to that other parcel where they'd just spent $150,000 for fancy plants and giant painted pumpkins. And Occupy Boston agreed to kick in for reseeding in the spring.
I still wonder...
At this point whether the camping-out element has just outlived its usefulness. The controversy and ill will generated by the tents and so on don't seem to be doing the movement any good--it's not as if they're gaining any attention from being there overnight and it seems to give so much fuel to the folks who argue that this is just a bunch of lazy, drug-addicted hippies and not "ordinary" citizens. The Occupy camp is a lively and fascinating place to be, but it's also getting more and more squalid as the weeks go on and I just feel as if by focusing on maintaining the camps, Occupy is missing their chance to cross over into a new realm.
Personally
I think deciding to antagonize commuters with marches down open streets during rush hour is their biggest mistake.
The drug problem also doesn't help, but it says more about our homeless problem than anything else. Lots of area homeless were welcomed with open arms to hot meals and shelter; but unfortunately what they need is comprehensive detox medical programs that we've long ago phased out because of the "costs" to the taxpayers.
Most of the homeless hanging around OWS are the homeless because of their addictions.
If a protest takes place in a forest, does it make a sound?
Exactly. If they decided to sleep overnight in the Common, no one would complain or even notice. However, establishing camp there would have given them the "right" to stay without question - the Common is exactly the type of space that is made for protest, due to its unique place in history and its ownership laying in the hands of "the people", not in the city government's. The Greenway isn't "public land" in the same sense, so they are at risk of being booted out.
If their goal was to actually make a difference, they would have chosen the Common.
Or, if they had known anything about Boston history. My take is, their behavior shows they are nothing but tourists and attention whores.
Because Mumbles would have to
Because Mumbles would have to see, hear, and smell the funk the Occupods are cooking, that's why. Sgt. Pepper Spray would be the LEAST of their worries then.
Occupy What Again?
Although there are many reasons that I think Occupy Boston is a failure and, moreover, misdirected, the chief among them is that they aren't occupying anything except a public park. While Occupy Wall Street has started to actually attempt to do just that (and thus shut down the stock exchange) and Occupy Oakland has attempted to shut down the Port of Oakland (which would be a huge deal), Occupy Boston sits across from the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and plays drums. There are plenty of places in Boston that could be "occupied" to make a point about economic policy, wealth divide, etc. but they don't do it. It leads to the conclusion that many have drawn, including myself, that Occupy Boston is more about people just wanting to protest than to actually protest something and to see change happen.
Louisburg Square
If they want to really accomplish something they should occupy Louisburg Sq and yell sweet nothings (or play drums) at our dear Senator Kerry who along with the rest of the dirty dozen couldn't figure out how to hammer out a debt reduction deal. Every one of these bums should be thrown out - including UH local hero Mike Capuano - we need to get rid of the maniacs on both sides and get some centrists in there committed to fixing the problem instead of making it worse. Get rid of the socialists AND anybody that signed a no new taxes pledge so we can get a few things done that need doin'.
Not going to happen
Everyone rants about Congress, but the historic reelection rate to that body is above 80% and will stay that way for the foreseeable future. It might even increase as the influence of cash in elections only goes up - coincidentally, one of the reasons for the Occupy protests.