Thomas MacMillan Photos
Occupiers: “All tactics” are on the table.
They formed a compound in the center of their camp. They raised a defiant black flag overhead. Then New Haven’s “occupiers” stood on the steps of City Hall and ripped up a notice ordering them to leave the Green by noon Wednesday.
It was the latest salvo in a increasingly tense showdown between the city and Occupy New Haven, the protest movement that’s been camped on the Green since Oct. 15, 2011.
New Haven police visited the camp Monday morning to deliver word of the city’s deadline: March 14. They knocked on tents and duct-taped a city notice to tarp-covered dwellings.
In response, Occupy New Haven held a 12:30 p.m. press conference on the steps of the City Hall, where members defiantly rejected the notice.
New Haven’s occupation is one of the the last standing of those that sprang up nationwide last fall, when the Occupy Wall Street movement began protesting against corporate greed, income inequality, and money in politics. Occupiers claim it’s the last one in New England.
New Haven’s Occupy camp has remained while others have failed thanks in large part to the protesters cooperation with the city. That cooperation has broken down as the weather has warmed. Two meetings between the city and Occupy New Haven resulted in a city “proposal” that the camp pack up and leave by mid-March. That notion was officially rejected Saturday, and officially re-affirmed — with a new March 14 deadline — by the city on Monday morning.
The city wants Occupy to leave now only because Yale graduation is imminent, charged occupier Ben Aubin (pictured), who emceed the Monday press conference.
“We’re coming in on Yale territory,” Aubin declared. “We’re out-occupying them.”
He said the city has refused to answer any of the demands that Occupy issued Saturday along with its official refusal to vacate. The city has proven that it is not willing to cooperate with the occupation, he said.
In response to the city’s suggestion that the occupation might be able to return — with permits — to the Green for periods of up to a week, occupier Josh Heltke (pictured) wiped his butt with the city’s latest notice. Occupiers waggled their fingers in approval of his comments.
He also posted a sign on City Hall reading, “You have no right to remove people out of land that you never owned.” He later began writing on the wall of City Hall with purple chalk, until Officer Matt Wynne stopped him.
“They have no intention of working with us,” Aubin said of the city. “They have no intention of doing anything but removing us. That’s not a conversation.”
The city’s notice includes a phone number occupiers can call for homeless services. Occupier Sara Ferah, who said he’s homeless, said he does not want to re-enter the city’s shelters. Occupy New Haven is the third camp of homeless people that the city’s shut down in three years, he said.
“People want to make us invisible,” he said. The shelters “treat us like little kids. … I want to be treated with dignity and that’s what I’ve found in this movement. It’s immoral and unjust to kick us out of here.”
Aubin said Occupy New Haven has succeeded in “creating a set of people who aren’t going to stop.”
“We’re not giving up without a fight,” he said. He later clarified that he does not mean that occupiers will engage in physical violence against people.
“I Pay Taxes”
“Why are you entitled to public space?” asked a passerby, Frank Mongillo, a doctor with offices downtown.
“I pay taxes,” said occupier Ray Neal (pictured). “I’m a homeowner. I’m a family man. That’s my Green.” The occupation is a symbolic “beachhead” of a struggle against problems caused by corporate greed and income inequality.
“You’re making it impossible for anyone else to enjoy the Green,” said Mongillo.
Not true, occupiers said. People play soccer and make out on the Green all the time, one said.
The press conference ended with occupiers marching back to their camp, chanting “Hell no, we won’t go.”
All Tactics On The Table
Back at camp, Aubin and others helped move a new black flag to a more prominent position in the center of camp.
The flag is a symbol to the world that “we’re willing to move forward with tactics we haven’t previously used.” All tactics are on the table, he said. Physical violence against people is not an option, but destruction of property may be, Aubin said. Otherwise, “that wouldn’t be a full diversity of tactics,” Aubin said.
A black flag is often used by anarchists as a symbol of defiance, the opposite of a white flag of surrender.
“It’s not a threat,” Aubin said. “It’s an invitation to have a conversation” about tactics. Occupy New Haven is “putting word out to other radical communities,” he said.
The flag flies over a re-designed compound at the center of the camp. A tarp wall now creates only one entrance to the area around the central food tent. Smaller tents have been clustered inside the new cul-de-sac in preparation for an expected police raid.
“This is the last stand,” Aubin said.
Quiet Negotiations
JP, bottom left, looked on during the press conference.
Others, meanwhile, are quietly discussing alternatives with the city. An occupier who gave his name only as JP said he’s been talking with Chief Administrative Officer Rob Smuts about the possibility to setting up camp somewhere else in the city.
Smuts visited the camp Monday morning and spoke with him. After Monday’s press conference, JP met with Smuts along with Ferah and another occupier, Roger Card.
JP said Smuts might work out a place for people to meet periodically after Occupy is disbanded, possibly in the New Haven public library.
JP said he hopes the occupation continues elsewhere, maybe on a rotating basis at different locations in the city. “It’s a great way of spreading everything,” he said.
Smuts could not be reached for comment.
Irving Pinsky, the so-called “lawyer for Occupy,” announced at the press conference that he’s trying to put together a team of lawyers to bring a class-action suit to stop or rectify the city’s removal of the occupation.
City corporation counsel Victor Bolden has said that the city’s proposal is “both appropriate and lawful.”
City spokeswoman Elizabeth Benton had no other response to the occupy press conference.
City officials have been consulting regularly on tactics and response with the self-perpetuating not-for-profit group that actually owns the Green, the Proprietors of the Green (formally known as The Committee of the Proprietors of Common and Undivided Lands at New Haven). The group’s point person has been its chairman, Yale law professor and formerly Clinton Administration Solicitor General Drew Days. (Click here to read about Days’ recent meeting with the occupiers.)
To the Proprietors, “it’s really a question not so much of their political views or their analysis of the economy, but the reasonable time, place and manner of regulations” for camping on the Green, Days said in a conversation Monday. “It’s a question of to what extent, even conceding the merits of a particular point of view, whether that justifies depriving other people of a free and happy use of public spaces.”
Notice To Leave
The end is nigh, the city warned in a Monday message to Occupy New Haven: Be off the Green by Wednesday at noon.
That message was delivered in the form of a public notice handed out Monday morning at Occupy New Haven by city police.
“This notice is to inform any and everyone who has been participating in the Occupy New Haven demonstration that WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 2012 is the last day tents, other structures and any other such materials will be permitted to be on the New Haven Green lawfully,” the notice reads. “On or before that date, you must take down any and all tents and structures and vacate the New Haven Green.”
Click here to read the notice.
On Saturday, Occupy New Haven officially refused to comply with the proposal. The protest instead issued a list of demands.
Monday’s deadline notice from the city includes a phone number for those occupiers wishing homelessness services.
It also includes the following appreciation: “Both the City of New Haven and the Proprietors of the Green appreciate the dedication you have brought to the cause of economic justice, and we wish you well as you move forward elsewhere.”
The Proprietors of the Green is the private body that legally owns the public park at the center of the city.
“I guess we expected it,” occupier Neal said of the city’s deadline announcement. “We’re having an emergency G.A. [General Assembly meeting] tonight to talk about it.”
“Not A Camping Trip”
Saturday’s refusal letter from Occupy went up on the Occupy New Haven website in the afternoon.
“We, the activists of Occupy New Haven, refuse to vacate the Upper Green or dismantle the camp,” states the letter, which is signed Occupy New Haven. “Our presence is not a camping trip. Being in solidarity with the global Occupy movement, our presence is a visual testament to the growing class inequality present in our city, nation and world.”
The letter (read it below) includes a list of “grievances and demands,” including extending library hours and reducing the mayor’s and police chief’s salaries.
City spokesperson Benton had the following response Saturday: “We will review Occupy’s letter regarding broader city concerns. At this point, the city’s intention regarding the Occupy encampment is to assure that the Green remains a place for all to enjoy.”
The official Occupy New Haven statement reads:
Dear City of New Haven Administration,
Occupy New Haven has received a letter from the City of New Haven stating that the City would like the encampment on the Upper Green dissembled and removed by “mid-March”. After this time, we would be allowed to return every so often, pending the granting of permits by City Hall. Seeing that significant changes have not occurred in our government and the broader society at large, we at Occupy New Haven would like to take the opportunity to deliver an official reply to the city’s request:
Globally, across the nation, and here in Connecticut, the 1% and those acting in the interests of the 1% have carried out a one-sided assault on working-class people, which has been exacerbated by the economic crisis created by the same 1%. Lawmakers, politicians and corporate interests have eroded the living standards of ordinary people, as Wall Street criminals have lined their pockets with taxpayer-funded bonuses. At the same time, our rights have been taken away by the PATRIOT Act, NDAA and other violations of civil liberties. We, the activists of Occupy New Haven, refuse to vacate the Upper Green or dismantle the camp. Our presence is not a camping trip. Being in solidarity with the global Occupy movement, our presence is a visual testament to the growing class inequality present in our city, nation and world.
The following list of grievances and demands outlines the corruption and moneyed interests that plague our city. As Occupy New Haven is a broad collective of people from many struggles and walks of life, this list does not represent every interest, but some of the most critical for our city at this time.
Fund all public schools equitably and sufficiently. Stop all public school giveaways to for-profit corporations and charters.
Extend library hours.
Provide funding for community-led youth and social programs, so that youth have access to safe spaces that offer engaging and enriching programs. For example: reopening the Dixwell Ave. Q House
Provide safe and adequate low-income housing. Replace all low-income housing that has been removed to make way for luxury living units. Utilize and repair currently empty houses to prove stable living situations for the city’s homeless population.
An immediate end to foreclosures and gentrification processes that marginalize the community to create profitable opportunities for corporations at the expense of working-class people.
Establish a real All-Civilian Review Board for the NHPD, independent of the police department, that would be transparent and accountable to the public and able to discipline officers who commit crimes against the people.
Invest in meaningful, well-paying union jobs in our communities and stop privatizing public-sector jobs.
Seeing as the mayor makes $127,070 per year, and the police chief make $150,000 per year while the average family income in New Haven is $35,950, limit the salary of elected and appointed city officials to match the average income of a family in the city.
End tax exemptions for Yale, which is the among the top 5 richest universities in the world.
As we have not seen the change we demand in the city, the nation, and the world, we will not be leaving the Green at this time.
Sincerely,
Occupy New Haven
Some of these demands are spot-on, and I am personally disappointed in our civic leaders.
People I see at cocktail parties and events, who do have the power and the platform to advocate for some of these demands, say absolutely nothing about them, but instead issue snide remarks about Occupy & Occupiers.
The demands that I believe are particularly reasonable and doable include:
This is a serious need in our city, and it is beyond disappointing that very few of our civic leaders stand behind this.
The poor, the voiceless, and those without significant political connections have experienced any number of problems at the hands of a small number of individuals.
Those individuals--a very small percentage of our police force--are allowed enormous lee-way and latitude, even after severely beating innocent citizens.
Our own Mayor speaks out against the excesses in East Haven, but refuses to implement a citizen review board with any teeth.
Rob Smuts--who is the direct supervisor of the NHPD--has not acted on this despite direct communications from people in his peer group and first-hand evidence of the realities of abuse.
Why shouldn't top officials salaries be pegged to annual income? I'd even be willing to compromise on this and see it be "no more than double" the average annual income. Why should we be paying our BoE president, Mayor, and Chief of Police so much more than their constituents?
The city currently plays games with non-profit funding, promising large sums while knowing that our budget doesn't balance, and then rescinding them. After public outcry, they restore a portion of the original promised funding.
Why not just deal honestly from the get-go, and either tell non-profits they need to seek funding elsewhere, or come up with a smaller number?
Some of the non-profits are providing essential services that are the cities responsibility--they do it cheaper than the city could, so they get funding. This is good, but the city should honor this and institutionalize the funding, treating the non-profits as contractors.