Now the strategy seems to be “annoy the protesters until they go away:”
However, that same SLOG piece reports that the Seattle Police Department are telling protesters they can’t stand under awnings, use tarps nor sit down under an umbrellas (“you can’t have an umbrella open unless you’re standing and holding it,” one policeman is quoted as saying).
Umbrellas. Really?
In other words, the mayor and the police department are attempting to break up the protesters by making itreally inconvenient for them. It’s a strategy, can’t argue with that, even if it is exceedingly pedestrian and petty.
We’re sure these moves are endearing him to somebody (or at least he seems to think so), but we are having a hard time imagining who they would be.
Most likely vague racists and fraidy-cats in the richest neighborhoods and farthest-flung suburbs, who like to talk about how they go into downtown “all the time” by which they mean a play and dinner once a year, after which they spend two weeks bitching about how a young/black/Hispanic/pink-haired person lookedright at them with their eyeballs.
That’s usually what makes up the crowd of voters who delight the most in pissing off liberals.
A.
What’s the parking situation like where they’re protesting? Find a few people with empty vans and pickups, park them legally, give the protesters a sheltered place to rest. Because if your “structure” is a car, it is pretty much legally privileged.
Another reason Portland is better than Seattle. The only thing that Seattle has going for it for it is the vast amounts of water available for recreation. Downside, mindbogglingly horrid commute, weather is worse than Portland’s, insipid sports teams by a margin of 3/1.
Hmm, in most building codes, if a structure does not have electrical service to it and does not have water plumbed to it, it doesn’t require a building permit, because, just as with prefab storage sheds, it’s considered temporary.
Bring a bunch of those in, and I suppose the cops would start evicting people because they don’t have occupancy permits.
Definitely one of those “the majesty of the law permits neither rich nor poor to sleep under bridges” things.
In other words, the mayor and the police department are attempting to break up the protesters by making it really inconvenient for them. It’s a strategy, can’t argue with that, even if it is exceedingly pedestrian and petty.
The Pacific Northwest: America’s passive-aggressive capital.
somebody needs to research law books.
Like it never rains in Seattle? Even on a nice day everyone is carrying around an umbrella knowing that it is going to rain at some time.
Seriously though, unless there is some compelling reason for the rules it should be pretty easy to get an instant injunction. Only problem though is that the city has the collective resources of the city to lawyer up – so any attempt to appeal to the courts is David vs. Goliath with appeals all the way up. Pending judicial review could translate into a decade and mega time charges from the lawyers.
I know this has been noted before, but how come the Tea Baggers are Patriots for protesting while the protests against Wall St. should be jailed and are unpatriotic. Even Repub candidate Cain has spoken against the protestors – shouldn’t have been surprised but there are some things I actually admire about the guy but he also seems to be determined to say things that alienate me.
Also, just saw on the news that the Airlines said they are cutting back on their flights by 3 per cent which is going to raise prices by 10 per cent. Like Wall St how come we let a vitally important national infrastructure. which we pay megabucks in tax monies to support, hold us by the throat while they manipulate ways to maximize what they take from us? Isn’t that what the Wall St. protests are about?
My question: did the Teabaggers get the same type of treatment when they did their thing? If not, why the difference in treatment? And if not, are we becoming a country where only certain speech and assembly (i.e.,Limbaugh-approved) are free?