After the Non-Partisan Association sent out a news release yesterday claiming that Mayor Gregor Robertson had “over-ruled” its own Large Events Oversight Committee’s recommendations not to allow tents at the Occupy Vancouver protest, media jumped on the story.
Turned out that was a teensy-weensy bit of over-hype. The committee didn’t make any recommendations, only heard various updates from the city about its plans for Occupy Vancouver.
But the misleading news release allowed us all, as we did more research, to get a glimpse into what was going on at city hall in the days leading up to Occupy Vancouver, as city managers first planned to stick to the city’s long-time policy of not allowing tents to a realization that it was going to be impossible to prevent it without a major confrontation.
12 responses so far ↓
1 Roger Kemble // Nov 11, 2011 at 9:12 am
10 Ways the Occupy Movement Changes Everything
http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/reliving-the-glorious-past-at-wall-street/
I’m distressed to read the bitterness emanating from a few people who scrimp a bit of time on the bosses dime to cast their meanness and condescension against OCCUPY.
I hope they are not typical,
No wonder they hide behind pseudonyms.
2 Melanie Jackson // Nov 11, 2011 at 10:21 am
Hi Frances,
Two days ago I was phone-polled re the mayor’s race. Can’t remember the organization. Three questions: Whom did you vote for last time; whom will you vote for this time; do you approve of how GR is handling Occupy.
3 Frances Bula // Nov 11, 2011 at 11:10 am
@Melanie. Yeah, I was robo-called with the same poll, as I blogged earlier. Results should be coming out soon.
4 Everyman // Nov 11, 2011 at 11:11 am
The Mayor, City Manager and Police Chief are supposed to be here to lead. Sometimes that involves making tough choices. The insinuation that some sort of blood bath would have ensued had the Occupiers not been allowed to set up camp on the Art Gallery lawn is ridiculous. More likely we would have seen some overturned newspaper boxes until they eventually ran out of steam. Now he have an unsightly squat in the heart of the city, with no plan in sight to disperse it.
I’d like to hear how businesses and the Art Gallery are holding up. I suspect that, like me, many Vancouverites are just avoiding the whole area altogether. I’ll do my shopping at Oakridge, Kerrisdale or even Richmond before bothering with downtown.
5 F.H.Leghorn // Nov 11, 2011 at 12:05 pm
What’s the point of going to all the trouble and grief of becoming the Mayor if all you do is pass the buck again and again on every difficult issue?
Hockey riot? Don’t look at me, it was the anarchists. Homelessness? Provinvial and Federal jurisdiction and funding responsibility. Occupiers at VAG? Senior management told me to step aside, though I sympathize (the Walrus said). Housing prices out of reach? Must be those darn foreign investors. Climate change threatening the future? You guys should raise chickens, I’m off to China.
But vote for me and I’ll make those bold decisions these challenging times require.
6 Roger Kemble // Nov 11, 2011 at 12:36 pm
everyman @ #4
“The Mayor, City Manager and Police Chief are supposed to be here to lead.”
They are leading everyman, just not in the direction of your choosing!
7 Everyman // Nov 11, 2011 at 3:03 pm
No Roger, they are not leading. On the other hand Mayor Kelly in Halifax is:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/14-detained-as-halifax-orders-occupy-protesters-out-of-park/article2233555/
Mayor Joe Fontana in London did:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/11/09/occupy-national-wrap-vancouver-london.html
But in Vancouver Mayor Dithers apparently is content to hide behind the judicial system’s skirts.
8 Anders // Nov 11, 2011 at 7:40 pm
There are a number of things that I find perplexing about this entire process…
1. It is very odd to me that the political types would leave this to management…especially the mayor who trumpets himself as having run a business. I too run a business and if my top employees were going to do something against the express policy that I have established for my business they would not do that without talking to me. So I find it very odd that he was only briefed afterwards…that just does not happen in the business world which the mayor says he comes from. What’s worse, if this indeed did happen then it is tantamount to gross negligence on the part of the mayor and he truly does not deserve the position. A leader has to be there supporting and helping his employees through the toughest times they face and abdication like this is just not acceptable.
2. This is an important decision that was taken by management, against established policy. I would expect that most people in such a position would at least want to make sure that they had communicated the rationale behind their decision to the entire council prior to events unfolding if for no other reason than to protect their own positions. Clearly no one ever mentioned a meeting or briefing – in camera or otherwise – so that did not happen. Which would lead me to believe that management is acting politically as well. That is not what we expect from our public servants.
3. Assuming the initial decision to go against established policy is right (and I can see merit in this) then why was there not a strategy put in place to manage the occupation (that is such a dreadful word) afterwards. Did more tents arrive afterwards? Were additional pieces of infrastructure added afterwards? When a person left was that person’s tent removed? I just don’t see any effort by anyone to diminish in a non-threatening manner the whole occupation over the period of time after the initial occupation. Furthermore, it did become clear that the tents had to go and the mayor even stated as much….why did it take so long for action to start on the injunction front?
I think a careful examination of the mayor’s and management’s actions are required. They say one thing but their actions indicate something entirely different.
9 Gölök Z Buday // Nov 12, 2011 at 3:12 am
Government has too many committees, quangos. and self regulated departments, some pseud-independent non-profits ran on “grants” but run by the same buddy system.
10 Gölök Z Buday // Nov 12, 2011 at 3:13 am
Melany, I got that too, once again amused to hear 10 people labeled “other.”
11 Chris Keam // Nov 12, 2011 at 12:35 pm
I’m amused by the people who say the Occupiers will not persevere due to weather. Mostly because there seems to be a huge overlap between that opinion and the strident calls to ‘kick the bums out now’. If one thinks rain and cold can do the job, why such a hurry to have the authorities step in?
12 MB // Nov 14, 2011 at 11:56 am
@ Everyman 4: “I’d like to hear how businesses and the Art Gallery are holding up. I suspect that, like me, many Vancouverites are just avoiding the whole area altogether. ”
Not I. I have been inconvenienced very little over the past five Saturdays and have not changed my shopping habits one whit, including patronizing the Art Gallery Gift Shop and Cafe and several businesses within a block of the site.
Sure the squat is unkempt, and the marches have crossed my path twice, but that’s not enough for me to advocate Truncheonating them. Inconveniencing my shopping experience? C’mon.
However, that’s not to say their message, as incoherent as it is, has not been received, and their method is not just old and tired (marches, after all, predate the average occupier age by a generation).
But the occupation of public land by groups that self-declare independence from the system of law (it’s not just the economic system) that governs us all should not become permanent. This has become more of a tragic performance art project than an effective method to fight well–known institutional injustice.
It is ironic that they declare independence from the very system they wish to change.
Leave a Comment