Front Page  »  

Occupy SLO withdraws support for courthouse lawn occupation

October 25, 2011

By JOSH FRIEDMAN

Occupy San Luis Obispo has withdrawn support for the campground style occupation of the San Luis Obispo Superior Courthouse lawn on Monterey Street, and a former member of the organization has allegedly called the police to request a breakup of the encampment.

Erected on Oct. 19, the campground grew into a 14-tent establishment by Tuesday afternoon, housing a variety of occupants ranging from political activists to transients to dogs. Several sanitation and safety problems arose in the camp during the six-day occupation, including urination on tents, dog feces on the lawn, and a stolen goods incident Monday night.

Steering Committee Chair of Occupy SLO Evan Sylvester said the occupation has also become a legally dangerous situation. Sylvester said he was informed by a county official Tuesday that in order to legally maintain the occupation, the group would have to obtain a permit and a $1 million general liability policy.

“At this point it’s gotten out of control,” Sylvester said. “We don’t sanction what’s going on there.”

Sylvester said neither the Occupy SLO general assembly, nor its steering committee ever sanctioned the occupation.

“The initial occupation was a well-intentioned effort on behalf of a small unofficial group of Occupy SLOers,” Sylvester said. “Occupy SLO did our best to support the unofficial occupation but it has come to the attention of the steering committee that the effort was not well-coordinated.”

Sylvester said that the withdrawal of support for the camp by no means signals an end to the Occupy SLO movement.

“We’re not trying to occupy a physical environment. We’re trying to occupy a mental environment,” Sylvester said. “This isn’t necessarily about an occupation, it’s about doing what is needed to have those discussions and effect that change.”


Loading...
Subjects:         
Related:


134 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Without the efforts and investment of the capitalist, or 1 percenters if you wish, the occupy slo would not have a place to meet. Nor would they have the materials to make their signs. Nor would they have the tents to camp in. And the list goes on and on. How ironic is that!!!


0

Oh my lets all get on our knees and thank the all might wealthy for allowing us to have enough to cardboard to make signs whoo hoo, a few people are even lucky enough to have tents! It’s comforting to know that when they get kicked out of their homes because the 1%ers are taking the 99%ers job over seas or because they came down with a major medical issue, it’s comforting that they’ll have tents,,thank you wealthy people for your generosity.


They’ve got tents and cardboard, let those nasty ole 99%ers eat cake!


0

The 1% are not capitalists, they are OLIGARCHS. They have no gained their wealth through fair competition, but manipulation of the system. I am 100% a capitalist and if you would, for one minute, pull your head out of your ass and LEARN something, then you would not be so quick to make excuses for the people who gambled away other peoples’ money and then got bailed out.


0

Network – Money speech


0

That movie was profoundly ahead of it’s time. If I remember it received terrible reviews and wasn’t that popular and now it’s a one of those cult classics.


0

What a tired old argument, I guess you are getting worried we are coming for you. We aren’t, you are the 99% too. Those corps you like so much wiped out other, smaller businesses that made all those things. These were businesses that our folks had, but were wiped out in unfair competition aided by corrupt politicians who wrote laws to favor the rich, at our expense. With all their money they are ‘educating’ you about all the fantasies you said, to keep us divided and weak. We are not against capitalism, we are not against making money, we are not for robbing the wealthy.


We are for taking big money out of politics (corporations, unions-any big money). We are for a level playing field in the marketplace so all of us have a chance to make it according to our hard work and brainpower. We want safe cars and microwaves, clean air and water. Is there anything in that short list you disagree with?


0

First of all, I agree with mkaney (and to an extent hotdog and typo); but I have to take pause with hotdog’s (and in general statements about shipping jobs overseas, wiping out mom & pop stores, etc).


We have a free market – granted, it’s over-manipulated and polluted by the government and government cronyism, but technically, a free market. Now, in free markets we have competition. Competition keeps prices low, and moves advancements along nicely.


Just because a bigger company can out-perform the mom & pop does not make the bigger company bad. We do not have leagues in business, it’s the SF 49ers vs. Cal Poly Mustangs – one is just going to out-perform the other. That’s ok, though, because a smaller, leaner company can maneuver when needed (often) and potentially survive or thrive. A lot do not.


Why are jobs shipped overseas? Because the costs of doing business are cheaper over seas. Can you begrudge a company for maximizing it’s profits so it can grow? I do not know any business person that wants to just break even (though a lot are lucky to do so!); if given the option, they would LOVE to make more money, just for their own security. I am not saying it is wrong or right, but I understand why it happens, and these decisions are made by people. Corporations do not make decisions, their board of people do.


People are people, maybe we should focus on people and the problems people cause, rather than point at boogey men. If you do not like a specific corporation, find out WHO made the decision you do not like, and protest them. Lord knows what would happen if we actually brought SHAME back into vogue.


0

You can’t shame someone that has no shame.


We can and we should regulate these big corps, if they want to send jobs over seas and not pay taxes then they should have to pay extra to sell their merchandise to us. A huge tax/tariff should be placed on thier goods and I mean a big one as an insentive to keep their manufacturing here. If they don’t have the morals to do so then tax the heck out of them as an insentive to manufacture goods made by American adults as opposed to foreign children.


Of course there is a segment of the wealthy that will take their manufacturing and taxes off shore out of greed, it’s not hard to figure that out r0y, most of us don’t think that they do it because the quality of manufacturing is better in Hong Kong. You’re kinda pointing out the obvious there. But greed/higher profits doesn’t make it morally right. What happens to the right and their morals when it comes to greed? The right are the ones that say that this country is supposed to be a christian nation based on christian beliefs, that’s why they put ‘under God’ in the pledge and ‘God’ on our money (ironic). I guess that’s why I don’t believe in religion. Religion and it’s lack of morals aside, besides taking jobs from us, it’s morally wrong to ship jobs over seas to use cheap slave and child labor.

Has this country lost all their morals, we know the big corps and the politicians have no morals, what about the rest of us are we now just a moral-less country?


0

I think one thing that has to be remembered is that a lot of these companies that can supposedly outperform the mom and pop are only able to do so because a) they get government contracts b) they use connections to obtain financing that allows them to expand into markets and offer lower prices, and when the small guy goes out of business, they are able to maintain high prices and low wages c) they get special property tax or lease deals with short sighted and greedy bureaucrats whose eyes are set on the increased revenue stream from sales taxes, or additional jobs that they can take credit for.. d) I think you get the idea lol


But I agree, if someone can do it better, without the special advantages that are made possible only by the continued empowerment of government, then they have a right to the accompanying profit, growth, and market share


0

If you want to argue “classroom” free market, fine, I don’t have a problem with it. Everybody knows some form of basic economic theory. I repeat: “theory.” But don’t selectively pick out parts of the current highly distorted and unbalanced economic disorder and say “see, look, that’s an example of how it works!” A Marxist could do the exact same thing, and believe me, they are doing plenty of that right now.


0

This decision was not made by Occupy SLO. This decision was made by a few people apart of this movement, who have never met the community being developed at the occupation. If you visit the occupation tonight (and until January 1st) you will meet some of the most intelligent, purest people who are dedicating their lives to making change in this nation.


The occupation at the courthouse is not over, and the problems that were occurring in it in the past week were a few bad eggs who are gone now.


Come down and visit us, we’re still there, and we’d love to talk to you about our ideas and yours.


0

Were the “bad eggs” one-percenters? Or were they 99%ers like you and me, only with a penchant for stealing things and pissing on tents?


My point is that if this is an amorphous group of _all_ protesting The Man, who’s in charge of determining the good eggs from the bad?


0

The 99% and the 1% to me is purely symbolic. There are wealthy people who have truly given back or produced for our country, and then their are those who steal. There are the 99% who have worked their ass off to be getting screwed by our government, and their are those who are lazy or do not know whats going on in this country at all. The people who have caused a bad image in our movement, and those around the country, are people who are most likely opportunists, looking for free food or living, whilst not caring about the cause of this movement or understanding why we are there at all. It isn’t about the “good” and the “bad”, its about those who care and those who dont. Thats why we educate, that’s why we talk ideas, and thats why we are doing this.


0

The legitimacy of being ‘IN’ the 99%, simply by not being of the 1% would ignore other items of social responsibility. Mere dispossession does NOT entitle one to be a selfish malcontent, a criminal, a stealer of community goods for one’s own use or possession. …and it certainly does not absolve oneself from behaving in an ETHICAL, LAWFUL, and RESPECTFUL manner towards others.


The 1% are those economic royalists, oligarchs, plutocrats that dominate and dictate through economic terrorism.

But there is another putative group of 1%’ers that would dominate, dictate, and terrorize by violence or threats of violence and other UNNACCEPTABLE behaviors.

Both groups are made up of sociopaths….people that think the world exists for them and them alone. They are ultimate solipcists, with no regards for others.


Hopefully, the movement can now go forward; after it has identified these troublemakers and have removed them from our midst.


Joe


0

I guess you are just a wanderer without any real info of the situation. I know the whole situation and your assertions are wrong, dead wrong. The decision by Occupyslo.org (the official and original and only occupyslo group) to officially move out of the physical occupation site at the courthouse was made by a large number of people all intimately familiar with their own procedures and the situation on the ground. The whining by various people about what actually happened and who made the decisions is rumor and based on ignorance and dissatisfaction.

I was present at the formation of the first occupy group (which was done in an ad hoc nature-no official sanction by our organization). I was not a part, just an observer. I was also observant of the inward creep of transients and others not in our formal (informal) group. Our original ‘occupiers’ were soon outnumbered by the influx of ‘others’ who had no interest in our movement or maintaining any sort of order, cleanliness or friendly demeanor. We soon began to fear the inevitable fall out of the resultant problems and struggled internally about what to do about it. It was out of compassion that we even had a discussion about it since the eventual outcome was promoted early on but denied by many. The problems finally got so bad our response was inevitable-we pulled out. We left lots of food and other items for the use of those remaining.


0

Hummm, Since the “Occupy” movement encompasses the 99% and the “occupy movement” is to a large extent informal, I have to wonder how any one group can claim to be the real “Occupy” group of any city? It’s not as if the “Occupy ____(name of city)” is a registered charter or the like.


I think under these circumstances, one could expect any number of groups popping up and acting independent of each other. Here we have a clear example of two groups (one original and one fragmented) claiming to be the real OccupySLO. I know that hotdog was a part of the “ORIGINAL” OccupySLO and he was present at the first two public gatherings, he was also instrumental in organizing those gatherings. He is part of the ORIGINAL GROUP yet here we have a well meaning (sounds well meaning) “seanellenson” claiming to be the real Occupy SLO!


I guess the best that people can do is to identify themselves by the group on the lawn, the group that isn’t on the lawn and the outcast group that pees in public. There are at this point 3 group’s, am I correct? Apart from the original group, can other group’s be denied as viable off shoots? I think probably not.


0

“We’re not trying to occupy a physical environment.” Says you. Part of the whole point of OWS is physical occupation until something changes. It is also about protecting the first amendment. If we are not free to assemble on public property, where are we free to assemble exactly? Sounds like a couple of liberal Democrats have hijacked this thing for their own purposes.


0

I don’t think SLO is a hotbed of activists for social justice issues. Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians – doesn’t matter. There is a sort of political apathy that causes SLO folks to repeatedly elect such ethically-challenged “leaders”.


Evan Sylvester doesn’t seem to have read the First Amendment nor to have much of a clue about OWS – and “liberal Democrat” is off the mark imho.


0

You may be right. My “liberal Democrat” remark was rather presumptuous. But I am already seeing that most of the attempts to capitalize on this movement is coming from that sector, and that is why I made the hasty comment.


0

What do you mean Evan seems ignorant of the first amendment or have a clue about OWS? What do you know that he ‘seems’ ignorant of?


0

First Amendment freedom of assembly (“to peaceably assemble”) seems somewhat different from an encampment. Why not just come to the assembly area each day to make/state a case? IMO we’re stretching the definition of “assembly” to include “camping.” I notice that this portion of the 1st Amendment concludes with “and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” How does camping out on a lawn equate to petitioning the government? Gathering together to make a case directly to one’s government is how I interpret this, not “camping out” so that the community will see me/us. Seems like more of the latter and not much of the former.


0

My reading of the first amendment does not make assembling conditional upon petitioning the government. It also does not indicate whether camping out qualifies as assembling or not, but I believe that is for very good reason. As soon as we allow them to start qualifying what is a legal assembly and is not, then they can put enough requirements in to nullify the first amendment.


0

There’s more to this debate than this forum allows, I know, but I would offer there are already qualifications about what is a legal assembly. I.e., does one that includes the things mentioned by CCN (dog feces, public urination, theft) qualify as “peaceful?” If folks want to come and sit on the steps, on the lawn, etc., fine. But when “assembling” becomes “dwelling,” I suggest it fails the first amendment test. Ultimately, somewhere and at some point, this may well require a court’s decision. As I said, come “assemble” all you want but don’t turn your assembly into a new subdivision. That’s all I’m saying. Shoot, I may want to assemble down there or elsewhere at some point myself for some reason. But I’m not a camper. I may hang out but it won’t become my (even temporary) home.


0

That is the beauty of the Constitution, just say what government CANNOT do, leaving no wiggle room. Or if there is wiggle room, it’s sorted out at the State level (or local).


It is a tough roe to hoe, camping vs. peaceable assembly. It’s the whole “peaceable” part that will be the thorn in either side’s side.


0

I have to agree with you SloNative. Once more, if we want to get technical about this, camping out on public property clearly goes beyond one’s right to free speech or right to peaceful assembly. Once they begin to occupy the public property by 24/7 they are depriving others of it’s use. If they have that right, then so do all the homeless who would seek permanent residence. We certainly wouldn’t tolerate a homeless encampment on the city hall lawn!


0

Cindy.. maybe we should though. Then we would be forced to deal with the homeless problem, and it might also be a great place to pick people up to do odd jobs. Keeping the problem right in our faces might serve us well than constantly trying to sweep it under the rug.


0

The homeless is another problem unto itself. It’s no easy fix as many are mentally ill and unemployable. Lets just stick with the OWS issue and get viable citizens back to work at fair pay. Clean up the gubmint and the rest will follow. The homeless issue is far more complicated than many think, and no, the OWS movement does not need to be infiltrated by a bunch of mentally ill homeless people who are fighting, begging for food and peeing on the city hall lawn. It sends the WRONG MESSAGE ….


0

The word that is missing, but integral to this argument is “peaceably”. That is what the 1st amendement states” “. …. the right of the people PEACEABLY to assmble “.


An unpeacable assembly is NOT a right contained in our Constitution. Those that were just camping and not part of the protest were technically in violation of various laws.


( Although, an open demonstration of the hideous degree of homelessness among us should shame the rest of us, especially elected officials and supposed religious leaders and followers, into specific remedies to address this horrid condition of human blight.

For those incorrigibles of mental instability and/or criminality, they need to be attended to as well. )


0

Heh.


0

Pete and Evan will be on KVEC tonight (Tuesday) at 6:05. Tune in to 920 AM.


0

Dave,


Sometimes I get the impression you (and others in our local media) wish this whole Occupy SLO was bigger and more important than it has proven to be. It is as if folks are thinking, “wow, wouldn’t it be cool if we had some protests here? We’d be part of something!” It feels desperate and contrived.


I’ll still listen, but I’m going to guess there’s not much traction with this occupy space thing. Plus, I’ve already read and heard the “talking points” – if I have to hear the whole 99% garbage again…


Now. With your hands. Show us how you feel…


0

It is bigger than your tea bag movement and yet they get less than half of the media attention. Unlike the baggers they’re a grass roots movement without the backing of the Kochs’ and without the 24/7 coverage that Murdock was supplying. I swear that if I saw another Nazi or witch doc poster and that whole garbage again…. I’ve heard all the “talking points’ and it really is a bunch of trash, let me add stupidity to that.


And with my hand you get a bit&ch slap to try and knock some sense into you. Come on Roy step away from dark side, follow the light, come on. We’ll help you, we can deprogram your brain from the washing that has taken place in there from the right wing media.


0

Well heck typo, I kinda, sort of want to agree with you. I wish you folks wouldn’t get quite so passionate with the “bit&ch slap”, “dark side/follow the light”, stuff! The tea party and the Occupy movements both have their legitimate talking points and I can see both sides. As a person who truly finds myself in the middle where I could take a bit from both sides and reach a happy medium, I’ve decided that the only thing to do to end this insanity is not to vote for a Democrat or a Republican. Both sides have lost their marbles as far as I’m concerned.


0

” I wish you folks wouldn’t get quite so passionate with the “bit&ch slap”, “dark side/follow the light”, stuff!”


Sorry Cindy, that’s my sick humor, I was actually trying to lighten it up a bit with sarcasm. I’m a mom of many, I would never bitch slap anyone and if I thought that my kids or any kids ever read this I wouldn’t even say that, for that matter if you saw me you’d understand that I’m not the b!tch slapping kind. I always tell my republican siblings to step away from the dark side and they always give me cr@p as well. Of course I’m not serious,,well I’d like them to step away from being rupubs but the whole dark side thing is a joke.


0

Roy old boy you are the 99% too, I wonder how they (1%) got to you. Through Rush, Glen? Are you a dandy for the Koch’s? Somehow you do their bidding like a fine troll should.

Occupyslo is for those who have awakened, and invites those who wish to wake up. You might wake up sometime, and want in once you come to your senses.


0

Roy will find out what it is to be 99% when he loses his job, or the Teabag lunatics that have hijacked the Republican Party have enough political power to take away his ‘socialist’ safety net programs and he has to fend for himself like a seal in a sea of sharks.


Course, by then it might be too late.


0

Hehehe. This with only 14 tents? Doesn’t take many of them to break down…


Well, back to bashing “tea baggers” no doubt.


0

There are a lot more people involved in the SLO Occupy than those people with tents.


Where are your Tea Baggers, has Koch decided that you guys need to lay low for awhile?


0

Yea while OWS sits and sucks up George Soros money. Talk about Hypocrisy.


0

got a link for that?


0

YOU BET!!


http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47009


Also just goole George Soros giving money to OWS and watch how MANY links come up from all different sources. Now I’m sure that many will come up and say hog wash. Well I don’t write them, I just read them.


0

lol


Your author:


Matthew Vadum is Senior Editor at Capital Research Center, a Washington, D.C. think tank, and author of Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off Taxpayers,


REAL FACTS NOT FROM RIGHT WING SITES, WITH A LINK TO REUTERS!


No Soros Money Has Backed ‘Occupy Wall Street’


http://philanthropy.com/blogs/philanthropytoday/no-soros-money-has-backed-occupy-wall-street/41013


Keep up the right wing talking points, distortions and lies it’s ALL you have Roy!


0

JonnyB right on! thanks for that link.


0

Ouch, someone just got schooled.


That’s a much better and un biased artical but I wonder why BeenThere doesn’t’ have a problem with the Koch brothers owning the tea party, our prisons our politicians etc.. The Koch Bros spin circles around Soros financially and politically.


0

Umm where did I say I didn’t have a problem with the Koch Bros? Go back and read my responses to your posts. Never said it. I commented on the article days ago about the Prisons. I comment about the numbers you posted. NEVER did I say anything one way or the other about Kochs. YOU DID!! NOW WHO JUST GOT SCHOOLED?!!!


I personnelly think from what I’m reading that both Koch’s and Soro’s all sound like pieces of shit. They are just like Gearhart on a larger scale. I would prefer that Koch’s don’t back the Tea Party and that Soro’s doesn’t back the OWS (yea I know no one wants to hear the truth) and we get all them back to a true grass rootst, then might be more believable without the added baggage.


For the record I have some things I agree with, with the Tea Party and some I don’t. Same with the OWS group.


0

So Soros henchman, I mean spokesman said it, so it must be Gospal truth. YEA RIGHT!! You have a better retort than this link?


0

You are actually quite wrong about this. The Soros money was funneled through another organization, I will find the name for you in a bit, and then given to Adbusters.com. Nonetheless, I still support OWS.


0

organized by this fellow from an idea


0

Here he admits planning the occupation


0

I’m with Graeber. I’ve been saying for a few years now that I see anarchy coming down the line and we are there, this is the tip of the iceberg. The dem politicians (including Obama) had better hop on the bus or they will get left behind and we will see riots and people will die, I’m old enough to remember Kent State in 1970. The politicians had better get involved and stop this insanity. If they started with just getting money out of politics that alone might help to prevent what might become deadly fighting in the streets.


Good links once again zap and good for those that insist that this wasn’t a grass roots movement.


0

Gosh could you find anything more conservative or biased?


0

It’s funny how when you post it isn’t liberal or biased but if something doesn’t fit your view you always see it as extremism etc. You are playing a typical ploy of your left friends to try and change and discredit, when it doesn’t fit your world view. Why not put up something substansial like Zaphod or others, instead of your worn out slogans? Do you have any original thoughts?


0

Two words; Ann Coulter. If you don’t think that anything with a column by her isn’t to the extreme then you are clueless. Do you really think that any thinking person could take something that she’s part of serious?


I agree, zap posts the best links to be found, the best of the best. I’m not trying to compete with him/her,,or anyone for that matter. Original thoughts,, LOL that coming from you HA! Truth be told, I don’t really care if you think that I post ‘worn out slogans’, no one is forcing you to read my posts.


0

Nah no one is forcing me to read your posts. I just want to make sure that someone else that reads them doesn’t get duped by them. Gotta set the record straight.


0

Always looking out for your fellow man eh BeenThere. You are here to set the record straight, to make sure that mean ole Typo doesn’t take over their brains, what a guy.


0

Where’s the proof and where’s the hypocrisy?


0

See above link. You posted right as I replied to zaphod.


0

Fail!


Funny link, thinking people like sources aren’t so biased. I did a few chuckles out of Ann Coulter’s column though, she’s aways good for few laughs.


0

Hotshot, what hypocrisy? We receive no money from anyone, no support of any kind from any source. Armchair insults are indicative of the lower classes…


0

Is that all you got? At least have some thought process and post something like Zaphod and others of substance. Talk about lower cromagnon man.


0

Wow, the dog simply said that they receive no money from anyone and remarked about your insults. Is this a pissing contest to see who can out wit who? Lets hope not because if you wanted to go that route you’d be in way over your head.


Two things that Repubs will never learn, they have no wit and they’re not funny, but they just keep trying. I have ‘Red Eye’ on the tube right now from Fixed News, those dweebs try so hard to be funny but they just can’t cut it. Sadly that’s the best that you’ve got.


0

Thanks for taking the time to address every post I type, LOL even the ones you supposedly don’t read.


0

Hey no problem. Glad to be of service.


0

Too bad the movement here has become partisan. I was onboard, but now I guess I’m at odds with the bickering amongst what could be a united force. Kudos to those who have obstructed the movement so far from becoming dangerous or safety/health challenged. Good luck to those who are all-inclusive and have a serious motive. The courthouse is way more appropriate than Wall Street, imho.


0

Careful rOy, there’s kool-aid in that teapot.


0

I love that line, I’m going to steal it.


0

Actually, I never touch the stuff. It clouds our reality.


Try it, you might like it.


0

Tyopqueen – here’s another you can steal.

“There’s Koch in that Teapot.”


0

Should I switch to your brand of kool-aid, then?


0

Sorry – out of order.


Actually, I never touch the stuff. It clouds our reality.


Try it, you might like it.


0

Sounds like Evan Sylvester found out that the rest of us are living on a planet with rules, liabilities, expectations.


0

Evan Sylvester nobody gives a damn what you think. You are not the “chair” of anything. The moment you took this official title upon yourself, the moment you became irrelevant.


0

What’s up with the attitude? You are often a thoughtful writer, this post is full of vitriol and errors. You made four points, you made four errors.


0

Because OWS is leaderless, and I have a lot of friends out in New York risking life and limb participating in it, I resent this clown coming across like he is the leader of something and then trying to build up his own legitimacy by turning against other people who may not want to follow what he wants.


0

Actually, though you may have a point somewhere Evan is not a clown (amazingly literate and thoughtful). And he IS the leader. And he hasn’t turned against others, he has turned towards the majority of folks he represents and the vast public.

I don’t know about OWS, but we are here in support of them, because of them and we almost worship them, those heroes on the fronts lines. I love them. But we are not them. We do our own thing here as long as we do not stray from the overall ideals of the movement. Those ideals are evolving.

Some of us feel a leaderless movement would be like a ‘no kill’ shelter for abandoned animals-a childish fantasy. Any shelter like that would eventually collapse without massive outside support-not sustainable. So we have structure with a leader. He has little power to order people around, we all work together but we need a spokeperson and someone to coalesce around.

I hope this might encourage you to retract your remarks about him. He did not request or grab the position, it was thrust on him.

If you are so passionate about OWS have we seen you at our events or have you signed up at occupyslo.org?


0

I have been mass distributing OWS information and I have been funding specific individuals to keep them agitating. I have not been involved with Occupy SLO in any capacity. I guess I will have to agree with you that this is San Luis Obispo, and not New York, and that is why I haven’t participated here. I don’t think that it will have the same effect here, and you’re probably right that there needs to be a different approach to effect changes here.


I just don’t think it was necessary to sell the others down the river. If you wanted to separate from them, fine. What really riled me up was the statement that someone called the police. But I apologize for my attitude.


0

The old “it’s not working out so we never supported it” defense. Of course, these people wouldn’t accept any responsibility. How do you withdraw support for something you now say you never supported? Welcome to the real world.


0

I guess the article is not very clear or complete. The physical occupation was instigated by a small group from the occupyslo crowd after a meeting. They did not ask, nor receive, official sanction from the larger group. But their efforts were supported by the main group until it became obvious that unsavory elements had moved in, actually outnumbering our occupyslo folks. Because of compassion for those less fortunate the newbies were welcomed in camp, and fed. Within days negative forces within that new group moved in and began to upset the activities of camp, and maybe upsetting the public strolling by.Occupyslo cannot tolerate activities that violate our code of non violence sane behavior and peacefulness, with a strong interest in obeying the law. Some of the new campers attempted to take control of the camp, and like a parasite that kills its host, they ruined it for all.

As of about 5 pm on Tues night all personnel and property of the occupyslo organization were removed from the site and any lingering activity is by others with no affiliation to occupyslo.


0

Hotdog-Kudos! Some of the activities occurring elsewhere are destructive to the cause and I’m not surprised that the SLO element is more responsible and goal oriented than that. Good luck.


0

Don’t let them get you guys down dog. It takes a lot of work to get this type of thing together without huge amounts of money backing you up. This courthouse debacle is just a little bump, they might make the movement look a little reckless but you will overcome. Hang in there!


One suggestion, and if I get to one of the next rallies then I’ll do it. Take voter registration forms with you when you’re having public rallies. You might already be doing that. Every vote counts. You are doing a great job!


0

HDog: I look at the recent developments in the conrext of the Stienbeck story: “Lifeboat”.

One never knows who you will end up ( temporarily ) grooped together with …who are the civilized, who are the incompetent, who are the selfless and courageous, who are the self servers that will seek any opportunity to vaunt themselves.


At least now, some in this local movement may know who their true friends are; and who to avoid.


Course, you and I are ‘old dogs’ and have seen this before. The young people had to find it out for themselves.


0
1 2