|
I hope that DUers understand that we are seeing in Zucotti Park the ultimate goal of privatization: the destruction of democracy.
Bloomberg's message is: You cannot exercise free speech in this "Park" because this is private property.
Why is land that is used for public recreation owned by private parties?
Why is so our recreational land, and why are our cultural resources (certain of our most popular museums, historical monuments, etc.) in private hands?
Because that way the owners, those with the means to buy the land can keep the public out or pass rules about the use of the property that may or may not serve the public interest.
Public parks may prohibit the use of sleeping bags, etc. in the park. But if enough citizens object to the prohibitions, they can be changed or set aside temporarily through the democratic process. Here, the regulations regarding the use of this private land are totally up to the arbitrary desires of the owners.
I have no objection to private property that really is private -- say someone's back yard. Not all museums and historical sites need to be under public control. But here, the property is situated in a city in which public space is very limited, and it purports to be open to the public. That illusion is now lost. This property is in fact not controlled democratically by the public.
In LA, the City Council appears to have suspended normal limitations on the use of the public property in front of City Hall in order to accommodate protestors. But in New York, perhaps with the intention of creating confrontation, the private owners of the property refuse to suspend their rules.
The principle that private ownership and financial interests of our very scarce public accommodations deprive us of our democratic right to control as citizens the regulations regarding the use of those accommodations applies in a broader sense to the sale of interests in other public facilities and land as well as the privatization of government work. Examples are toll roads, the privatization of community hospitals, even private "courts" and military contractors.
As states and local governments face budget crises due to the outsourcing of jobs and the unwillingness of the wealthy to pay the taxes that are needed to make our society work for everyone, more and more of our public assets are being sold or mortgaged or simply leased out to private control. The parking meters in Chicago are a good example of this as are toll roads.
Schools are also a good example. What rights will the public have within the privatized charter schools? Will those schools ultimately go to court and claim that they are not subject to the laws and regulations and due process requirements that apply to publicly owned schools?
Remember the contractor in Iraq that insisted that a rape victim arbitrate her rape claim rather than sue or prosecute in a court? As a private company operating outside the country, it could immunize itself from the arm of our laws in various ways.
The private owners of Zucotti Park claim that the park is open to the public. In most states that means that the park owners are not bound by the First Amendment. (The Bill of Rights limits the government, not private parties.)
The owners of the park would pay a public relations price if they evict the demonstrators from their encampment -- but since "owners," i.e., the extraordinary wealthy individuals and corporations who "own" properties like this park also have tremendous influence over our media, it is unlikely that the stigma they would suffer would be remembered for very long.
The Constitution permits governments to exercise eminent domain and take properties for just compensation. That would be an alternative at Zucotti Park. But, of course, it would take enormous political organization to make eminent domain a reality.
As was pointed out by a British journalist, so far, the Occupy Wall Street movement has been a wonderful example of people working in harmony and creating a beautiful, inspiring, peaceful movement.
Unfortunately, the fact that ordinary people can live in such a peaceful way without the "supervision" of the rich and powerful or even the government angers the rich, the powerful and the bureaucrats.
Bloomberg is trying to incite violence in order to establish an excuse for using the ugly, brute force of the police against the peaceful demonstrators. The result is hard to predict, but judging from the antics of the NY Police Department thus far, it could make the Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt look like a picnic.
It will become increasingly difficult but also increasingly important that the demonstrators remain nonviolent at all cost.
They also need to maintain the cleanliness and order of the park if they are to show the public that they should have the right to stay there.
I wish them good luck in trying to maintain their nonviolent intention and clean environment under the attacks that are likely to come.
But let this be a lesson. We need to end privatization and place common areas and activities that should serve a public, not a private, interest under democratic, public control.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
