Occupy activists take over S.F. buildings as 'commune'

[arcane1]

Source: Sfgate

(04-01) 18:27 PDT San Francisco -- Occupy activists rallying on behalf of the homeless Sunday took over a pair of unoccupied buildings at Turk and Gough streets early Sunday evening, proclaiming them the "San Francisco Commune."

Scores of activists entered the adjoining buildings at 888 Turk St. and 930 Gough St. at about 5:45 Sunday, flowing a rally and march from Union Square.

The protesters immediately settled into the structures, marking off certain areas for bedrooms and public areas and handing out flyers announcing the commune's "grand opening."

Police, who had observed the marchers along their route from Union Square, stood by after the buildings were entered. There were no immediate arrests or confrontations, and no sign of officers in riot gear.



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/04/01/BAP11NTE3K.DTL&tsp=1

[arcane1]

1. I was watching this from my balcony as they arrived at the scene

about 200 people or so.

Oddly enough, even though they are crowded around the buildings and about 20 of them are still on the roof, most of the police have already left. They don't even have the street blocked off anymore.

[freshwest]

2. So this was pre-arranged with the owner, probably. That means they'll get to stay.

[joshcryer]

10. The black bloc didn't "arrange anything" with HC&M Commercial Properties.

They took the property. Of course, they will be slandered some more when shit goes bad and HC&M Commercial Properties decides to evict them.

[freshwest]

15. I agree, I didn't edit when I went to the link and I should have, but I forgot as I was on jury duty

I see that the guys in black (black bloc, probably) are the ones who let them in the building.

This is what happened during the WTO riots in Seattle in 1999 as the people in black took over a building and based their attacks and vandalism from there. The owner complained to the police and asked help evicting them, but they did nothing. A lot of people later thought these were military units doing this to disrupt the protest. And disrupt it they did, and the some of the police went wild.

I'm wondering about this story, but I don't know if part of Occupy is frustrated and has decided to join the black block that Chris Hedges wrote about. I had a hard time believing this was really not an undercover operation to give excuses for the police to arrest.

That the article says the Occupy demonstrators just walked on in after being let in by these guys, was very disturbing. This will not do what I think Occupy needs to do, and I can't see that vandalism can ever help Occupy achieve its goals of educating and moving the national narrative forward.

A building would be good; a base of operations for peaceful protest and a statement on foreclosures is also important. But I just can't believe that OWS would be wanting to link with this group.

[arcane1]

16. It was entirely peaceful, in this case, and the cops were acting quite casual

It was the usual every-other-weekend march/parade thing in San Francisco: the police had motorcycles in front to block traffic, regular uniformed police walking on the sidewalk, and a couple of cars in back. Once they got to the buildings, the police just hung around at a half-block distance while the Oakland bus thumped loud music and people took over the buildings.

It made for an interesting afternoon, that's for sure. I'm curious to see what happens from here, it's like I suddenly got dozens of new neighbors!

[joshcryer]

17. I just think the BB has good and bad and am neutral on them for the most part.

And I think that ultimately... I don't blame anyone for wanting public anonymity. If things did go bad I think that they deserve a chance to liberate themselves anonymously and not get a criminal indictment for doing so.

I think the BB accusations are more likely to be a divide and conquer thing more than anything because within OWS itself I don't see it much and they're more like "live and let live," with free association. If some idiots do stupid stuff it shouldn't be an indictment on OWS or the BB.

Just my humble opinion.

And yes this is what I've been waiting for, for awhile now. When they did it back when the BB was being bashed last time (tried to take a building, gave public notice before hand, I think it was Oakland though), I felt sick. You have to have a base of operations. Fix up an abandoned building, squat in it for years if necessary.

[SadPanda]

5. Yes, based on common law

It would appear that the building owner/owners is going with a charity strategy. It will get less press because it's non violent but this is the kind of thing that OCW benefits more from long term. The Oakland people stormed a city building and caused great damage. Bad idea.

[joshcryer]

12. We'll see. The Occupiers are using basic Christian messaging, so the archdiocese...

...might consider it in their interests to use it for a sort of good.

But if Occupy is too resistant to Catholic propaganda, then they will be summarily evicted.

[Voice for Peace]

3. this would be wonderful if they would let it stand

[arcane1]

4. They've spray-painted a "V" in a circle on the side of the building

and hung a black banner on the other building, with the "V" symbol on one side, and the circle-A symbol on the other. I can't read the text because of the wind blowing it, and the setting sun in my eyes.

The neighborhood just got a little more interesting!

(Edited for spelling, or lack thereof)

[joshcryer]

13. Very cool. Wonder if Occupy Oaklander's did that.

[99th_Monkey]

6. K&R nt

[jwirr]

7. Added to this they ought to call for all cities to set aside some empty buildings for the homeless.

[BeHereNow]

14. Germany has done this already- made deals with squatters.

My daughter stayed in one such place in Berlin-
The organizers made a deal with the city and all is well.

Why shouldn't abandoned buildings be put to use and restoration
by people who have a vested interest in finding a place to call home?

it is a "win-win" for both parties IMO.

BHN

[joshcryer]

18. I thought San Fran had a local ordainance against empty buildings or something like that?

I seem to recall somewhere having a law like that, basically, no empty buildings.

Not talking about adverse possession, btw, this was different.

[xchrom]

8. Interesting. Nt

[2banon]

9. interesting, does anyone know if this was reported on our local evening news?

I live in Oakland but haven't the tv or radio on .....

[arcane1]

11. No idea. I watched it from the balcony and then checked SFGate

I only saw one tv news van, and they were just parked, the satellite antenna was down the whole time. Hell, all the police were gone by 7:30!

It looked like nothing more than a house party until 8pm when the music stopped. Now, it looks no different than it ever did. The Turk Street place has some lights on, but the Gough Street place is still dark, and there is nobody outside now.

[2banon]

21. interesting.... thanks for the info...n/t

[EFerrari]

22. That has to be close to my old office on Turk Street. Two blocks from Van Ness?

I don't recognize the snapshots, though.

[arcane1]

23. Yep, that's it!

Right across the street from that little park... Jefferson Square, I think it's called.

[EFerrari]

24. I don't know if the park was there in the late 80s.

That neighborhood is crawling with FEDS. We translated for them out of our office, the US Attorney, FBI, DEA, & Fed cases.

[starroute]

19. Here's a photo that Tim Pool posted at Facebook

I don't think he took it himself, though -- he was in Los Angeles today, as far as I know.

[joshcryer]

20. Do they got electricity? That window to the left...

...indicates maybe so?