Occupy Calgary/Do Not Merge

[woob]

Originally Posted by photon

Consensus in coming to an agreement to leave/relocate/change rather than moving them out by force. Pragmatism meaning finding an agreement that while may not be necessary (i.e. you COULD just push them all out) deciding to do that in order to avoid a less desirable outcome (i.e. deciding that the negative side of coming to an agreement is less than the negative side of going in and creating the confrontation they want).

One person's "weeks of nonsense" is another person's "letting things play out and giving people a chance for people to either show it's a reasonable protest, or give themselves enough rope to hang themselves".

"This isn't being handled the way I want" does not equate to "this is being handled improperly".

Your level headed thinking is not welcome here!

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by photon

Why? Because pragmatism and working together to find a consensus to defuse a situation often works better than bringing the hammer (at least in the real world). Or it's worth trying first.

with all due respect, most of the tents were abandoned, and they were leaving a night shift of a couple of people, so you go in and enforce the bylaws and take those tents, if those people want to stay and freeze then they can stay and freeze.

They messed up the park, probably costing us money, so why are we giving them anything?

Why are we paying for meeting rooms, if they want nice warm meeting rooms then they can do what we do and rent them and pay for them.

If they want a use of a coordinator then so be it.

I get what your saying, but why are we rewarding a occupy calgary movement that brings nothing to the table on any scale.

They were squatters, not revolutionaries or intelligent protestors.

I've never said bring the hammer down, but its pretty clear that people weren't even camping there, so how determined were these protestors?

What did they do for the city to even negotiate with them?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

with all due respect, most of the tents were abandoned, and they were leaving a night shift of a couple of people, so you go in and enforce the bylaws and take those tents, if those people want to stay and freeze then they can stay and freeze.

They messed up the park, probably costing us money, so why are we giving them anything?

Why are we paying for meeting rooms, if they want nice warm meeting rooms then they can do what we do and rent them and pay for them.

If they want a use of a coordinator then so be it.

I get what your saying, but why are we rewarding a occupy calgary movement that brings nothing to the table on any scale.

They were squatters, not revolutionaries or intelligent protestors.

I've never said bring the hammer down, but its pretty clear that people weren't even camping there, so how determined were these protestors?

What did they do for the city to even negotiate with them?

The city has to tread very carefully here, and I for one appreciate that Nenshi seems attuned to the legal implications here.

Check out Vancouver (City) v. Zhang if you're curious as to the possible implications of a strong-arm approach. Nenshi is handling this the right way.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

The city has to tread very carefully here, and I for one appreciate that Nenshi seems attuned to the legal implications here.

Check out Vancouver (City) v. Zhang if you're curious as to the possible implications of a strong-arm approach. Nenshi is handling this the right way.

I'm not so sure. I was one of the original "careful because of the charter" guys. On Friday though they reported on the radio that most of judges appeared likely to side with the municipalities. Couple that with the article posted above by Cowperson and I really wonder why were giving them anything.

The risk of their protest (from their viewpoint) was that there was no charter protection. If that comes to be the case, then its silly to still submit to demands, they should be shut down.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm not so sure. I was one of the original "careful because of the charter" guys. On Friday though they reported on the radio that most of judges appeared likely to side with the municipalities. Couple that with the article posted above by Cowperson and I really wonder why were giving them anything.

The risk of their protest (from their viewpoint) was that there was no charter protection. If that comes to be the case, then its silly to still submit to demands, they should be shut down.

That doesn't matter--for one thing, I guarantee that this will be in appellate court before long. Don't get too hung up on superior court decisions.

For another, it's always prudent to wait for a judicial disposition before taking the kind of action that's being advocated here.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by photon

Consensus in coming to an agreement to leave/relocate/change rather than moving them out by force. Pragmatism meaning finding an agreement that while may not be necessary (i.e. you COULD just push them all out) deciding to do that in order to avoid a less desirable outcome (i.e. deciding that the negative side of coming to an agreement is less than the negative side of going in and creating the confrontation they want).

One person's "weeks of nonsense" is another person's "letting things play out and giving people a chance for people to either show it's a reasonable protest, or give themselves enough rope to hang themselves".

"This isn't being handled the way I want" does not equate to "this is being handled improperly".

Firstly, they stated they don't want to leave; they want to host the great conversation of societal philosophies. Secondly, this has been going on for more than long enough to have met your "letting things play out" statement. And lastly, "This is being handled the way I want" does not equate to "this is being handled properly."

[photon]

I didn't say it was being handled the way I wanted, and of course I'm fully aware that my personal preference isn't the only path to the goal.

Which also applies to "more than long enough".

Making sweeping statements about what's enough without knowing all the factors doesn't make much sense to me. Unless someone here is privy to private meetings why certain decisions get made, I think it's a reasonable statement that everyone involved in the city is trying to make the best decisions to deal with all the goals and parameters, not just the "get rid of it!" goal.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

That doesn't matter--for one thing, I guarantee that this will be in appellate court before long. Don't get too hung up on superior court decisions.

For another, it's always prudent to wait for a judicial disposition before taking the kind of action that's being advocated here.

Couldnt disagree more....there are laws being broken every night they stay. That's more than enough to start an action to end it now and not worry about charter rights etc, because common sense alone will tell us that they dont have a leg to stand on in this particular case.

At some point the city has to take a stand to prevent this from occurring every time a group of disgruntled citizens wants attention and can force the city to cave in by squatting illegally.

The time for action is now..actually was a long time ago, but enough is enough.

[photon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

They messed up the park, probably costing us money, so why are we giving them anything?

Why are we paying for meeting rooms, if they want nice warm meeting rooms then they can do what we do and rent them and pay for them.

If they want a use of a coordinator then so be it.

I get what your saying, but why are we rewarding a occupy calgary movement that brings nothing to the table on any scale.

They were squatters, not revolutionaries or intelligent protestors.

I've never said bring the hammer down, but its pretty clear that people weren't even camping there, so how determined were these protestors?

What did they do for the city to even negotiate with them?

The city isn't just dealing with this group (who I agree haven't done much at all to show they're worth paying attention to), they're dealing with all groups in a way since their actions will be used in considering other cities' actions and what goes on in the courts.

That and offering them the things they are is a way to call their bluff.. if they do have something meaningful to say (not sure where they're hiding it) then they can say it. If they don't, then it's obvious and the public opinion of them will go down even further (if it can).

I don't mind the cost as being able to protest or communicate with your government should be dependent on personal wealth, and I think I'd want to be careful in limiting things based on what I personally thing is a worthy message or not.

If these guys were protesting slavery or something (in an extreme case) I wouldn't care about some damage, and I'm not sure I want to draw the line between what's reasonable and what isn't, that's something better left to courts.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

That doesn't matter--for one thing, I guarantee that this will be in appellate court before long. Don't get too hung up on superior court decisions.

For another, it's always prudent to wait for a judicial disposition before taking the kind of action that's being advocated here.

So should we just permit our elected leaders to sit on their hands and defer all unpopular/controversial decisions until such time a court rules on them first?

I'm about as liberal as you can get and I don't have any problem with 'limiting' the protestors to 16 or 18 hours of protest each day.

Get that filthy mess out of our downtown park.

[Bunk]

So he should do what - command the police to move in and forcibly remove people? People might forget that the Mayor has absolutely no authority to do so.

There has been a lot of time and energy at the City dealing with this issue, a strategy is in place and it needs to be followed.

[Southside]

Can we just have our park back? Please. All this legal talk is ridiculous. I cant help but wonder what sort of exposure the city might have if I trek down to the Plaza and trip on a tent peg (the tent is there illegally and all, the city knows it and does nothing about it) and during my trip, which breaks my leg I also fall and get a mouthful of one of those packages Bylaw Bill was talking about and I contract Hep.

[Pizza]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Cory Morgan is becoming like the Occupy group, he has made his point, but it's getting ridiculous.

I might be in the minority here, but I do like that Cory Morgan is making frequent visits to Olympic Plaza. The Sound bytes shows how ridiculous these Occupiers are.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Southside

Can we just have our park back? Please.

No matter what happens in the next [insert time frame], that park needs to be re-done and re-vamped. It's became an eye sore before this occupy crap ever started. Just look at the new Central Memorial park for inspiration.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

That doesn't matter--for one thing, I guarantee that this will be in appellate court before long. Don't get too hung up on superior court decisions.

For another, it's always prudent to wait for a judicial disposition before taking the kind of action that's being advocated here.

So we should let this run for a couple of years until it gets to the Supreme Court (assuming they would hear it)?

The other thing to note is that no one here is advocating anything drastic. I would just like to see an even handed approach though. If I were camping out in a public place I would get ticketed. That doesn't change just because its a protest. The charter protects your right to assemble and say your message, clearly though it doesn't absolve you from other laws of the land. You can clearly protest, and I support that without question, but you can't do whatever you want under the guise of that protest and expect to have charter protection.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Bunk

So he should do what - command the police to move in and forcibly remove people? People might forget that the Mayor has absolutely no authority to do so.

There has been a lot of time and energy at the City dealing with this issue, a strategy is in place and it needs to be followed.

No, you don't give them meeting rooms and offer them city planners on the tax payers wallet.

You keep ticketing them, whenever a tent isn't being used you take it, you fine them for using heaters, and setting fires.

If the ticket expires and they haven't paid it you issue a bench warrant and arrest them. You know treat them like the rest of us would be treated.

Whenever you write them a ticket you forward it to UI and Welfare to make sure that they're not getting paid to sit in these tents.

You take down their addresses and when they finally leave you do a assessment of the park damages and you sue them for damages to the park.

And then you make sure in the spring that you don't let them setup again.

[jayswin]

Captain Crunch for mayor!

[Bunk]

Yes, to ensure they don't/can't come back in the spring again certain steps need to be taken.

[First Lady]

Occupy Calgary will be facing several chilly days: the camp is not electrified and Bill Bruce, the city's head of bylaw and animal services, said the city has no plans to change that.

"They've requested it, but that would take weeks to set up. We have to get permits," he said.

Further, power isn't free and "I just don't feel taxpayers would be very supportive of the city paying the electric bill for that."

The city is continuing to negotiate with Occupy Calgary protesters and Bruce said he hoped to see some progress in the next week.



Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Sh...#ixzz1eDVBc9yG


FYI: The quote I've highlighted is from end of the piece.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

No, you don't give them meeting rooms and offer them city planners on the tax payers wallet.

I rolled my eyes at the whole "sit down with them and let them discuss their issues with a city planner" idea too, but holding a meeting with them in city hall, and having some city planner in the room isn't going to break the bank. It's certainly cheaper than all the ticketing, court dates, CPS overtime and every other expense that would come with a harder-line appraoach.

To steal from someone above, it's another way to give them just enough rope to hang themselves.

"We listened to the protesters, allowed them their Charter rights and gave them every opportunity to outline their concerns, including a formal meeting with city representatives, but in the end they were unable to offer any coherent arguments or provide the city with a list of reasonable or even actionable suggestions. And bla bla bla bla."

Any support they do have is going to be gone after that. And there ain't no ugly scenes or even a remotely reasonable complaint that anyone can make that they weren't allowed to express themselves.