RE: Occupying abandoned "private" property..........

[socialist_n_TN]

Most of the buildings that are built by supposedly "private investors" use public funds one way or another. If not for the actual construction, then for the tax breaks, subsidies, roads, water and sewer, and utilities.

If the people invested tax dollars into a building that's been abandoned, OCCUPY IT! It belongs to the people.

[randome]

1. Ah, a new tactic.

Use the tax laws to justify anarchy. Cool.

But who are 'the people'? Anyone who says 'I'm with OWS'?

[aquart]

3. Use unjust, unfair laws to justify an insistence on fair and just laws.

If you want anarchy, you really have to sit next to Ron Paul and baby Rand.

[randome]

4. I doubt that you or anyone with OWS can explain what laws they were trying to right.

They may have done some research to decide which specific building they wanted but I don't see how any of that helps promote economic justice.

[aquart]

6. See, OWS ain't the ones that gotta be specific, Procrustes.

But you keep inviting suckers to sleep on that bed of yours.

[randome]

8. If they are never specific, then they will never accomplish anything.

Other than to 'raise awareness'. Which is good in and of itself but hardly indicative of some kind of mass movement.

Mass movements have goals and wrongs to right, not schemes to take over buildings at night.

[socialist_n_TN]

13. Well, I would go even farther than the Occupiers do in this case

I would promote "economic justice" by occupying and reopening closed manufacturing plants as workers co-ops. Sieze them under "Emminent Domain" and give the local workers group (union) government loans to buy materials, pay salaries and manufacture goods in direct competition with the "private" company that closed the plant.

THAT would be a model of government that actually worked FOR the people.

[randome]

23. Sounds good to me.

Now can you convince anyone with OWS to push for this? Probably not, unfortunately.

[socialist_n_TN]

25. Actually a LOT of Occupy Oakland.........

would probably back this. At least from what I've seen about this particular Occupy. This is a VERY revolutionary socialist idea and Occupy Oakland is pretty socialist. I would expect this to be a future tactic in this front of the class war.

[michreject]

31. How would you handle increased salary demands?

Raise the price of the product, thus giving your competitor, an advantage?

Telling your employee's that in order to hold your competitive edge you have to keep expenditures down?

Buying raw materials from a cheaper source?

Asking the Federal Government for bailout money when you run out because of raising demands?

Where have I heard these before?

[socialist_n_TN]

36. I would leave it up to the workers............

They are the ones who would decide all of these issues, except for the last one. That one would be decided by a referendum.

[michreject]

39. Nice evasive answer.

Workers, when given a choice, will vote them self a raise. No worker thinks that s/he is overpaid.

The only way that the business would work in your scenario would be for the government to take over and run all of your competition.

Co-ops are not conducive to succeed in a free enterprise system.

[Capitalocracy]

40. You're wrong. They do quite well.

See, there's a LOT of room for decent wages and low prices when you have an organizational structure that doesn't include someone making hundreds or thousands of times as much as the average worker.

And these organizational structures often lead to very good wages for everyone, and still require management positions. They still often pay managers more than other workers, or they pay workers who have been there longer more, etc. But without one guy on the top who owns the whole thing and takes all the profit, they can charge much less and earn much, much more.

[michreject]

42. Guy on the top doesn't take all of the profits

The bulk of the profits go to stockholders who invest in the company.

What successful manufacturing co-op is thriving?

I hate to sound like I'm defending business practices but without some government protections, the business would fail and then everyone would be without a job.

That's going backward. We need full employment, not adding to the ranks of the unemployed.

[Capitalocracy]

43. The guy on the top doesn't take all the profits...

but he does take orders of magnitude higher earnings than the workers in the U.S.

What government protections are coops getting?

[michreject]

45. Agree that the CEO is getting a healthy salary

As to your question of "What government protections are coops getting?", I didn't say they were getting protection. I said they would need protection. Need it from corporate raiders.

[Capitalocracy]

50. There are numerous international examples of occupied workplaces providing a good living

for their workers for years with no government protection, and actually while fighting legal battles to stay in business and with the threat of forced removal always a possibility.

It's actually a really good business model. When given the chance to vote on it, in practice, workers tend to vote for a decent living wage for themselves, but never one that can't be sustained by the business.

[kctim]

44. So what about permits?

fines?
advertising?
lawsuits?

Do you really believe you would get your govt loan overnight and that it would be enough to cover what it takes to run a successful plant on an uneven playing field?
Not going to happen.

You would be promoting "economic justice" from behind bars if you were to try stealing a closed manufacturing plant.

[tiny elvis]

58. that is authoritarian

what does an authoritarian do when authorities and institutions lose legitimacy?
quote the rules

[kctim]

61. That is reality

What does a dreamer do when their fantasy has no chance in hell of becoming reality? Play pretend.

[jwirr]

2. That is also true of many of the residential buildings in this country - built with housing loans

from some program the government subsidizes. I am afraid that if we took this literally we would be doing the equivalent of firing on Fort Sumpter. Property is the big sticking point of capitalism. And unfortunately I think our president would back up the bankster owners.

[socialist_n_TN]

9. Yep. Occupy them too........

Why should the banks who reaped profit at no (or very little) risk, make yet MORE profit from foreclosures from government guaranteed and subsidized loans?

Yet ANOTHER way the government works for the 1% and not the rest of us.

[TheWraith]

5. That also applies to your house. So it's okay to come and take that away from you? nt

[socialist_n_TN]

10. That's PERSONAL property as opposed to "private" property

Bringing up an old "Red Scare" canard doesn't help your case.

[TheWraith]

16. No, your house is also PRIVATE PROPERTY.

And the fact that you think that there's a difference between PERSONAL property and "PRIVATE" property tells me that you really don't well understand what you're talking about. There are two categories here: public property and private property. Everything that's not one is the other.

[Dreamer Tatum]

19. Um....WHAAAAAAAAT?

Personal is different from private?

How many new rules are you going to make up here?

[socialist_n_TN]

22. Marx came up with that rule 160 years ago........

I can't take credit for it. I just believe it.

[Recovered Repug]

46. My property is personal, yours is private.

Simple isn't it?

[cherokeeprogressive]

32. Now THAT'S funny. n/t

[ScreamingMeemie]

60. Your house is "real property" if it is on a foundation.

The movable things within it are "personal property".

[MNBrewer]

17. For people for whom "property rights" are sacrosanct, personal and private mean the same thing.

Objectivists believe this, for example. Others take a more complex view.

[Yo_Mama]

7. The city of Oakland owns the building

http://occupyoakland.org/2011/11/city-seeks-tenants-for-the-henry-j-kaiser-convention-center-at-10-tenth-street/

The city is trying to sell or lease it. The link shows that in 2011, the city council authorized sale to the redevelopment authority.

Should the protesters be trying to occupy it? This is public property that they are trying to seize, with the stated intent of having a party, after which I would guess the building would have to be razed, because the link above says that the building does not meet code.

Yes, it belongs to the people. Does Occupy have the right to seize public property and use it for their own purposes?

[socialist_n_TN]

11. From what I read the Occupiers are looking to use........

the building for helping the community. A "party"? RW propagandize much?

[Yo_Mama]

14. I can't find the link, but I did read somewhere that

the idea was to occupy a building, use it as a community center, and first hold a two-day party to celebrate the occupation. When I saw that it was on something that was published by those who seemed to be at least supporters of Occupy, so I was assuming that was accurate?

I gather the party idea was used as a draw to get people to come out.

But what is your opinion? Do you think OWS Oakland has the right to seize public property? They want to use it for their own group's purposes.

Since it is owned by the city, it is not a matter of private property rights. The, ah, incursions yesterday were focused on public property, not private property. They had announced their intentions, which is why the cops were beefed up.

[socialist_n_TN]

24. Well, don't you think there's a difference between

siezing a building to have a "party" and having a party to celebrate siezing a building for the long term good of the community? The first implies that that's the ONLY reason for the siezure.

[Yo_Mama]

34. To be honest, at this level of irresponsibility, no

People party in different ways.

You aren't going to answer my question, are you?

As far as seizing public property for the use of a smaller group without consent of the public, I do not support it. I think that this principle would inevitably end up destroying public property rather than putting it to true public use. I'm from the south, and I have seen too many infights in churches over this type of thing to believe that good intentions produce good outcomes, and waaaaay too much infighting and personal dealings in local governments not to immediately suspect that Oakland's government may have orchestrated all this in order to give a sweetheart deal to some property speculator, only to be caught short when the RE bust truly hit and the intended beneficiary lost interest.

You can safely consider me quite cynical about group human behavior, regardless of genuine idealism on the part of most of the participants. Genuine idealism is often exploited by the self-interested or the neurotic who do not understand their own motivations.

I think there are many good public uses to which this property could be put, but the code violations appear to have convinced Oakland's government that they would have to put too much money into the property to justify those uses. Now, if the Oakland government is wrong about that, surely OWS Occupy should go to the government and make their case.

Instead, OWS Oakland (or a faction of it, which is probably a more accurate characterization) decided to go ahead and take it. I cannot believe that they thought they would be permitted to do so, so I am guessing this was a pretext and not the true goal.
Therefore, I do not take the claim that they wanted it as a community/social center seriously.

I may be quite wrong about that. They may just be clueless babes in the woods who do not know that Certificates of Occupancy have a true public safety purpose. I'm guessing that they didn't have an engineering inspection.

As a public spectacle, I find it either a naive exercise in political narcissism or a demonstration of kindergarten anarchism, both of which (IMO) unfortunately obscure the genuine claims upon the public interest that the OWS movement should be making.

That's just my personal reaction. I was very puzzled by yesterday's events and I am trying to make sense of them, and so far everywhere I ask I do not get a good explanation of what OWS was trying to do. Instead, I get double talk and obscurantism, which is the reason I am not able to take this action seriously. In my experience, genuine activists for the public good have their shit together, explain themselves clearly, define their specific goals clearly, and are extremely focused on getting their message out to the public through the media. None of that appears to be happening here.

[socialist_n_TN]

38. I read back over this sub thread and the only question

I might not have answered is Does Occupy have the right to take over a public building? I thought I answered that one in my OP. Was there another question?

[Yo_Mama]

59. Okay, if that's your position

I gather you are in favor. You think that OWS groups should be allowed to take over public property.

I don't - but at least we can disagree civilly, and perhaps that's some hope for the future. The reason why taking over public property is more problematic to me as a protest than taking over private property is that almost by definition, you are taking something from more people than will be benefited by the takeover when you take over public property. Civil disobedience aimed at private property held by misbehaving private entities is a message I can grasp easily. We all know that such entities have wrought havoc in our country.

I thought the OWS protest was aimed at the bad acts of NON-governmental groups/agencies/corporations/special interests.

To me, that distinction is important. Because the cure for governmental misbehavior is political participation, whereas out-of-control private interests are not very susceptible to elections at this precise moment in our history.

[socialist_n_TN]

18. Nope not at all in jest...........

Don't mistake personal property (your pensions, your house, your car, your iPod) for "private" property. Unless you don't think that the people should benefit from closed buildings and even manufactories that they've invested in with those tax subsidies.

Do you think that the 1% should get all those perks from the people who were investing in their community and "jobs" and then just close it down when it's no longer "profitable" enough? And then SELL it off at a profit without having to pay back the people?

[guardian]

47. Please elaborate

"Don't mistake personal property (your pensions, your house, your car, your iPod) for "private" property."

What is the difference? Are you equating 'real property' with "private property"? Are they synonymous? What are are your criteria to deem something as "private property"? If it is deemed that your car could greater benefit society by an alternative use (e.g., shuttling homeless people to free clinics) as opposed to your private use is it then okay to deem your car as "private property.?

[Dreamer Tatum]

21. No, you just owe us a return on our investment.

Start TROTTING, boy.

[Dreamer Tatum]

15. Great - let the occupiers then pay taxes on their property.

Ooops - weren't expecting that, were you?

[socialist_n_TN]

20. I would imagine that that could be covered......

And probably fairly easily.

[oneshooter]

28. You seem to imagine a lot of things.

[socialist_n_TN]

29. Why do you think that taxes would be a problem?

I'd donate to taxes on that building and I would think that a lot of others would too.

[dems_rightnow]

27. Any building with a toilet now belongs to the people?

Excellent. well-thought out!

[Starry Messenger]

30. k&r

[Odin2005]

33. The anti-Occupy BS in this thread is DISGUSTING!!!

If you bash the Occupy movement you are no Progressive.

[hack89]

35. Can I still be a Scotsman? nt

[white_wolf]

48. Yeah the DLC types are out in force in this thread.

At least they make themselves easy to spot with their constant attacks on Occupy.

[AngryAmish]

37. Exactly

[brooklynite]

51. I'm willing to bet she wouldn't endorse property siezure...even for a progressive cause.

The fact that Elizabeth Warren is running for Congress means she believes in working within the political system. The Convention Center belongs to the people of Oakland AS A COMMUNITY. They have chosen to make decisions through elected representatives. You may believe that all the elected officials are sell-outs to the banks, but they are the people that the community has chosen. If you choose to endorse making decisions outside of the political system that the voters have chosen, you have no recourse if another group, with completely different political leanings, decides it wants the building for themselves.

[T S Justly]

41. K&R (nt)

[EX500rider]

52. So can any body seize public property or just groups we agree with?

Can the Tea Party or the Aryan Nation do this also? Westbourgh Baptist Church? Nazi Party?

How about if they hand out food or gives classes there to further their cause?
Or let the homeless move in with them?

Or is the Occupy Movement the only one allowed to?

[randome]

54. Yes.

Get with the program!

The 1% will soon be on their knees when OWS has occupied every nook and cranny of every public park and building.

That'll teach 'em!

[backscatter712]

53. People pooh-poohing Occupy Oakland's tactics should also be condemning Rosa Parks...

And condemning Gandhi's salt-making protests, and condemning the sit-ins during the Civil Rights movement, and condemning the mic-checks of Newt and Romney...

[randome]

55. OWS is not equivalent to civil rights.

You do a disservice to that period of history when you invite that kind of comparison.

[badtoworse]

56. So what constitutes "abandoned"?

...And who gets to decide what is and what isn't abandoned?

[Luminous Animal]

57. Floating in Oakland's Lake Merrit

[Nuclear Unicorn]

62. Some confusion of terms here

First, a tax break is not public funding. It's a person paying less of the money they earned to the government.

Second, you don't have a choice to not use public utilities. The government builds and maintains the roads and there is no opportunity to NOT use those roads. To claim use of public utilities = government subsidized might as well abstract itself into claiming if the police indirectly protect your property it is government property so the police can inspect government porperty at their leisure.

Third, the buildings aren't abandoned necessarily abandoned. They may be vacant but there is a serious difference. Somebody somewhere owns the property. Unless the issue has been researched to show a legal document declaring the property abandoned you risk criminal liabilities.

Fourth, it isn't for OWS to declare itself the adjudicator and enforcer of the law. No other group should be allowed to do so (think: patriot militias) why should OWS just because their policy prescriptions are slightly more palatable? Nobody elected them to speak for the 99%.