Response from Occupy Los Angeles G.A. to Mayor's Office, LAPD

Submitted by OLA Web Team on

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY’S RESPONSE TO THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Para Todos Todo, Para Nosotros Nada: For Everyone, Everything, For Us, Nothing

History: passed with full consensus at GA on Wednesday 11/23/2011. The language, ideas and grievances contained herein were culled from the minutes of 2 special City Liaison Committee Meetings, 2 General Assemblies devoted to the issue, one meeting with the Demands & Objectives Committee, consultation with Media and PR, and widely circulated and amended by the online community of occupiers, and adapted into its current form by the General Assembly on 11/23/2011.

As a collective, Occupy Los Angeles would like to express their rejection of the City of Los Angeles’ alleged proposal that we leave City Hall by November 28th, 2011, in exchange for an apparently now rescinded offer of a 10,000 square foot building, farmland and 100 SRO beds for the homeless.

Occupy Los Angeles believes that as part of a global movement advocating direct, participatory democracy, and challenging economic and social injustices, our position is such that we cannot, in all good faith, accept further material benefit from City Hall at the taxpayer’s expense without seriously compromising our beliefs, our desire for global change, and our commitment to our inherent human rights to free speech and assembly protected in this country by First Amendment Rights. The 1 percent should be paying for any services used by the Occupy Movement, not taxpayers.

In the spirit of inclusivity and transparency which is so dear to our movement, Occupy Los Angeles extends an invitation to Mayor Villaraigosa and the City Council to attend our General Assemblies at the City Hall Occupation if he wishes to discuss these and other matters in a direct, democratic and horizontal way. Mayor Villaraigosa must speak out against the violent actions towards our brothers and sisters, declare the actions of other cities to be unjust, and stand before us equally at a General Assembly. Occupy Los Angeles believes that until this happens, we should have no more closed-door discussions regarding our continuing occupation of City Hall.

The City Council – in line with government in general – is an authority which is more accountable to developers and corporations than the public. The very act of the Los Angeles City Council requesting the physical removal of Los Angeles Occupiers without redressing the grievances which were specifically referenced in the inclusion of our adopted ‘Declaration of the Occupation of New York City’, and in the City Council’s ’1st Amendment Rights / Occupy Los Angeles / Responsible Banking Resolution’ — is in effect supporting the removal of all Occupations from public space by any means. We cannot negotiate with such an institution without undermining our sister occupations across the globe who are suffering from oppressive force and attacks upon their inherent human rights to free speech and assembly, protected in this country under the First Amendment. We refer here to episodes in Oakland, Boston, New York, Portland, UC Davis and San Francisco, to name but a few. We refer to those further afield, in Tahrir Square in Egypt, in Madrid, Greece, London and more. Teargas, pepper spray, beatings, jail, suppression and intimidation have been used as a coercive method of silencing our movement and our desire for global change.

We reject outright the City’s attempts to lure us out of City Hall and into negotiations by offering us nebulous, non-transparent and unconfirmed offers which fail to even begin to address our local grievances. We will continue to occupy this space, in solidarity with our global movement, until the forces of the few are forced to capitulate to the power of the people.

When the following grievances have been addressed – grievances which we have agreed upon as a movement through our General Assembly as advancing our cause and providing for the people of Los Angeles – we as a movement will be happy to initiate dialogue with the Mayor and Los Angeles City Council. An office space of 10,000 square feet would not have addressed these grievances. While the grievances listed below are localized, we believe that they promote the underlying foundations and principles of our movement, which include, but are not limited to: providing for basic, fundamental and inalienable human rights such as shelter, food, healthcare, freedom of choice, sexual orientation, gender equality and education — and the right most paramount to a free and democratic society — the right to self-govern. Detailed demands which encompass our greater world view will be released at a later date by our Demands and Objectives Committee through the General Assembly.

 

GRIEVANCES NOT ADDRESSED

  1. A moratorium on all foreclosures in the City of Los Angeles. The City of Los Angeles to divest from all major banks, and money to be removed from politics.

  1. A citywide effort undertaken to solve the homelessness problem which has led to 18,000 homeless people sleeping on Skid Row every night. Rehabilitation and housing must be provided for all homeless people.

  1. South Central Farm to be returned to the same LA community from which it was taken, and all other vacant and distressed land be open for the community use, and money to the tune of 1 million dollars – taken from Skid Row and given to the multi million dollar NFL firm – to be returned to Skid Row.

  2. Los Angeles to be declared a sanctuary city for the undocumented, deportations to be discontinued and cooperation with immigration authorities be ended – including the turning in of arrestees’ names to immigration authorities.

  3. All forms of weaponry used by multiple law enforcement officials – including, but not limited, to rubber bullets, pepper spray, verbal abuse, arrest, foam batons, long-range acoustic devices and more – are not to be used on those exercising their First Amendment Rights to petition our government for redress of grievances. We do not accept interference with freedom of the press and the public to document police actions in public spaces. We will not tolerate brutality.

  4. We assert our right to an open plaza on the South Side of City Hall for people to peacefully assemble, voice grievances, speak freely, hold our General Assembly and come to the people’s consensus 24 hours a day if needed.

  5. The City of Los Angeles to pressure the State to start a convention, as provided for in the Constitution, to remove corporate personhood and money from politics at a national level.

  6. The City of Los Angeles to begin a dialogue at the State and Federal level on the issues of student debt and tuition hikes.

  7. No cutbacks in city services or attacks on the wages, work conditions and pensions of city employees.

  8. A world class transit system which addresses our debilitating traffic problem and restores the quality of life in Los Angeles.

We conclude, as a General Assembly, by hereby renaming City Hall Park -

 SOLIDARITY PARK

30 Comments

Moratorium on all foreclosures is not reasonable

Submitted by tom99 on

 

This looks better than the first draft but I think there are still issues with this proposal

 

#1. "Moratorium on all foreclosures in the City of Los Angeles" sounds great but how long is the moratorium for? I know some people are being unjustly foreclosed because they missed a few payments or have underpaid by few hundred dollars. But how about the people who committed fraud and are being foreclosed? How about the people who haven't paid for over a year and is being foreclosed on.  A moratorium on all foreclosures will encourage home owners not to pay their mortgage.

 

I think its better if the city provides a process for which grievances on foreclosures be addressed without bailing out the people who have committed fraud or can't afford to stay in their homes anymore.  Maybe  we should have request a 3 months delay (not a moritorium) in the foreclosure process if inidividuals have grievances that needs to be addressed by the city.

 

#3 I don't know enough about this issue but giving back property already planned for NFL to skid row seems like difficult task.

 

We have to keep the demands reasonable and simple to garner support from rest of the residents of the city.  I personally think that demand #7 is the most important and should be moved to the top.

 

OccupyNews.net's picture

Without justifiable debt restructure, there is little hope.

Submitted by OccupyNews.net on

If people can't negotiate their debts without first being placed into credit default as they presently are, your suggestion about the city having a grievance committer for foreclosures is a moot point.

Justifiable debt restructure means if you have had had a serious change in your life situation beyond your control, you should be able to renegotiate the interest rate and length of payback terms on most types of debt as long as you can make those new lower payments.

Justifiable Debt Restructure is not debt forgiveness. In many ways J.D.R. is better for all because it still lowers monthly debt without having the naysayers complain that somebody got a free ride on their backs. Here is an article I wrote about Justifiable Debt Reduction.http://occupynews.blogspot.com/2011/11/justifiable-debt-restructure-woul...

 

www.occupynews.net, www.swarmthebanks.com, www.wallstreetchange.com, www.bankprotests.com, www.dailyprotest.com, www.parallelforeclosure.com, www.credit-protector.blogspot.com, www.myalexlogic.com, www.bloggersagainstchasebank.com,

reasonable?

Submitted by nobody on

I've seen many lists of demands that are presented for rhetorical effect, and this isn't that radical at all.  My impression:

1. portions might be do-able, especially under rent control laws, to protect tenants.

2. countywide issue.  l.a. will point out that the city does way more than other cities in the county.

3. probably can't do this

4. possible.  already pretty close to this.

5. possible.

6. hmmm

7. they'll agree, but won't do anything.

8. ditto

9. already done. workers are furloughed, etc.  they want to get back to full time.

10. they'll say they are doing this.

 

Kudos

Submitted by Jonathan Roskos on

Glad to see the process and the GA functioning.  List of grievances seems rhetorical rather than specific.  Does outline the issues, so thanks.  No more closed-door bulishit.  Power to the people.

 

JonathanRoskos

The time to put in demands IS

Submitted by lizsavage on

The time to put in demands IS OVER. I really don't appriciate people who claim that "camp issues" are not their problem, as most do not occupy, or stay on the property. YET these same people made the biggest decision about the "camp" that they could, which was not to move. How this was their decision, though they don't want to deal with camp issues?

So all of us who have been working so hard to push this movement forward are now losing their base of operations. City hall is literally many of our homes, as we gave up the aprtments and rooms we were renting to occupy full time. People who do not occupy cannot understand why we cannot go home. I am one of the people who gave up their place for the occupation.

So my question now, is for all the working people who are no longer going to get ANY help through potential dealings with the city, who in the community is going to step it up, give the people working a place to stay or even a front yard to put up their tent to occupy?

This decision by the General Assembly, was really poorly thought out. You can't make demands after telling the city you will not work them. In this process you have evicted some of the occupations hardest workers from their homes. I thought we were saving HOMES not getting people kicked out of them,

IMO the GA is not functional, granted it is getting better, but it is not the voice of the people, as the people are not allowed to speak. I am the loudest about it, as it seems many are afraid to stand up for themselves.

So since this movement is about accountability, its time to hold the GA accountable to help those of us who are now in danger of losing everything based on their rash decision.

I speak for MYSELF when I write this.

Beth (aka Liz Savage)

My words represent myself and not Occupy Los Angeles. @lizsavage on Twitter

OccupyNews.net's picture

"You can't make demands after

Submitted by OccupyNews.net on

"You can't make demands after telling the city you will not work them." Liz Savage, end quote.

This is a powerful point you make. I'm not sure I completely agree that this is what the occupy movement did, or can I?  Tough call.

www.occupynews.net, www.swarmthebanks.com, www.wallstreetchange.com, www.bankprotests.com, www.dailyprotest.com, www.parallelforeclosure.com, www.credit-protector.blogspot.com, www.myalexlogic.com, www.bloggersagainstchasebank.com,

Too many grievances

Submitted by ScottP on

I apologize for submitting my comments remotely while the real workers of the movement are at the camp. But I think there are too many grievances. We could always add more, like end the wars and legalize marijuana. But the immediate concern is keeping the encampment from being shut down, so I would say put that number one, and reduce or remove the others. 

To those living at OccupyLA: thank you! 

OccupyNews.net's picture

I agree about too many grievances.

Submitted by OccupyNews.net on

And I truly believe that consumer debt that cannot be renegotiated is the number one cause of most of what is going wrong in the U.S. The less consumer debt, the less power wall street and the government has over the 99%.  The less consumer debt, the MORE time that people have to possibly either get involved, or lend a helping hand, to the issues that would still need fixing.

www.occupynews.net, www.swarmthebanks.com, www.wallstreetchange.com, www.bankprotests.com, www.dailyprotest.com, www.parallelforeclosure.com, www.credit-protector.blogspot.com, www.myalexlogic.com, www.bloggersagainstchasebank.com,

Someone's picture

It's a start.

Submitted by Someone on

I am not a regular attenndee at GA but thanks to our amazing media volunteers have seen the meetings and chimed in via chat. I humbly offer this: I've seen the level of organization and focus of GA dramatically improve recently. In the past there were a lot of crazies and shout-downs but this life-and-death decision brought out a very organized group spirit.

This is about Democracy, and our lives, and the life of everything on the planet. The demands are bound to be symbolic for now, how can one document possibly cover ALL the real issues? The most important message that can be conveyed is that the GROUP made these decisions. And it decided to let the City Of LA know some of the public's main concerns, realistic, 'doable', right, left, or whatever.

ALL the politicians (worldwide) that have allowed themselves to be bought by corporations have created an open door to the abuses that now seem so hard to correct. And now there is this list of 'unlikely' demands. Well, tough shit on them. They earned these problems! That's the price of greed. Now they have to hear about all of it, 'realistic' or not, from the public. The results are theirs to own, along with all the loans and favors they pandered to.

Further, the politicians facing this very public problem must learn that THEY are part of the 99% too. They are inside an unworkable system just like we all are. We are all being bought out and made into slaves, whores and mercenaries because that's how the 1% think. Deep down inside, some public officials must know that. So it doesn't matter what happens with these demands--now they have in their hands proof of what has been wrought by 40 years of fraudulent economic theory. They are invited to see the truth with their own eyes and join us.

It's more than a list of demands--It's a report and a summary.

 

Sincerely,

~Someone~

"Dear Mainstream Media: We don't have varied agendas, we are against Neoliberal (trickle-down) Economics which supports corporations over people."

"Dear Dr. Frankenstein: STOP BUILDING MONSTERS!"

I think we need to focus on things they can actually do.

Submitted by RevBigDub on

We have a genuine opportunity to work in solidarity with a local government that has formally voiced support for the Occupy movement.  We must not squander this rare opportunity by making demands that are beyond the ability of the City of Los Angeles to meet.  While some of the demands CAN be met by the City, and should remain a part of the proposal, some simply cannot be met.  With this in mind let us ensure we remain the Voice of Reason speaking for the millions who are poor, homeless, without medical care or face losing their homes.  Ours MUST be the high road, our voice MUST be the voice of freedom and justice.

Rev. Big Dub

Housing vouchers

Submitted by Abby on

I would like to know where the housing vouchers are coming from. If the Mayor has 100 housing vouchers in his drawer that he can pull out when he wants to use them as currency, why has he not made them available through the Housing Authority or LAHSA or another more transparent and accountable process? All such vouchers come through the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. Has HUD made vouchers available to mayors throughout the U.S. to use to lure people out of Occupy encampments? If so, it is interesting that the federal government is building a response through a system that has previously been at arms length from homeland security. If not, then how does the L.A. Mayor's office get to hang on to 100 housing vouchers when there are thousands of homeless people who could use them today?

Reasonability of Foreclosure Moratorium

Submitted by dan schwartz on

Re: the argument that a moratorium of foreclosures is unreasonable is a bit of misdirection. Fraud is a genuine issue - but if its an issue in an individual mortgage contract then its an issue all up and down our system. A moratorium on foreclosures will put pressure on the society to look more vigorously at the frauds we have all been sucked up into.

Well, no.  It's not

Submitted by PC on

Well, no.  It's not "misdirection" to point out that the City of Los Angeles--the government entity that we are addressing directly with this document--is literally powerless to enact a moratorium on foreclosures within its borders or anywhere else.  It speaks directly to whether it is legitimate, or even coherent, to hold out such a moratorium as something the City should have done if it wished to negotiate an evacuation of City Hall with OLA.

Item #1 never should have

Submitted by PC on

Item #1 never should have made it to the final draft.  During discussion of the proposal at the GA, quite a few people pointed out that foreclosures of residential real estate mortgages are done through the courts, and that this demand/grievance was unreasonable because the City cannot possibly meet it.  Unfortunately, this was not addressed when the document was revised, and due either to a broken process or bad facilitation (you decide), concerns were not allowed to be brought to the floor after the heavily revised document was read to the assembly.  Two individuals had to resort to using hard blocks as a gimmick to get their concerns heard.  Both were up front and honest about why they were doing it; some in the crowd were unhappy with them, but personally I sympathized and had been thinking of doing the same thing myself.  Both of these brothers brought up the inappropriateness of the foreclosure moratorium, but in the end, a tired crowd (it was almost midnight) approved the whole thing.

I don't know whether it's too late to reopen the issue before Monday's City Council meeting, when the announcement is scheduled to be mic checked, but getting rid of that demand-couched-as-a-grievance before it causes us any (more) embarrassment would be great, if possible.

I hope this can be a lesson for future GAs and meetings: when a proposal needs to be *heavily* amended, either amend it one piece at a time, with temperature checks for each amendment, or amend it all at once but then open the floor again for clarification/concerns/comments before asking the assembly to approve or reject it.  If the process doesn't allow for this, change the process.  Might this be tedious?  You bet, but would you rather endure some tedium now or deal with the results of approving a seriously flawed proposal forever?  "Consense" in hast, repent at leisure.

Very important note: none of this is meant to disparage the Occupiers who put their work into drafting this document, or to suggest that any of the mistakes made last night were anything other than honest ones.  I showed up at last night's GA expecting a clusterfuck and a lot of personal hostility, and was actually overjoyed at how smoothly and civilly the whole thing went...all things considered.

(It sure was nice for those few minutes when the drummers actually shut the fuck up and we could hear one another without shouting, wasn't it?)

A note to demand 1 & 3

Submitted by frerange on

The city has all the power in the world to address this.  It can use Kelo v. City of New London and the power of eminent domain to transfer the property from the existing fraudulent over-valued mortgage with current land value to a credit union under new terms.  While this will not address those that are unemployed,it does offer a number of wins;

1 – It pokes a finger into the eye of big banks as they will lose a truck load of paper value
2 – It resets loans to reasonable terms
3 – It increases the market share for local credit unions
4 – The city will earn a truckload of good will from the people and alienate the big banks
5 – It will add economic growth to the area as these people will now have cash in hand
6 – It will limit blight within the local area due to abandond structures

Furthermore, this same tactic can be used on large structures to create shelters for the homeless.  And all of this came be done with limit tax impact.

What it really boils down to is this, will the city use its power to work for the good of the people or for the good of the 1%.

(These are just my thoughts, nothing more.)

"The city has all the power

Submitted by PC on

"The city has all the power in the world to address this.  It can use Kelo v. City of New London and the power of eminent domain to transfer the property from the existing fraudulent over-valued mortgage with current land value to a credit union under new terms."

If I understand you, what you're saying is that the City can use Kelo to justify the use of eminent domain to condemn residential real properties that are in the foreclosure process, provide "just compensation" (presumably the current market price of comparable property) to the mortgagee (bank), and then resell those properties to the mortgagor at the same price with a credit union carrying the new loan.  If so, this is definitely not the worst idea I've ever heard when it comes to easing the human suffering caused by the historic housing bubble and subsequent financial meltdown of the last few years.  And unlike many of them, it would possibly have the side benefit of *not* preventing housing prices in Southern California from completing their regression to sustainable (i.e., in line with actual incomes) levels.

But as a grievance/demand presented by Occupy LA to the City of Los Angeles as a precondition to any negotiation, I can see some huge issues with this.  One of them is that this undertaking would be massive, complex, and messy on a truly historic scale.  It would certainly require the creation of an entire new city department, complete with staff, policy, buildings and equipment, before turning to the actual work of intercepting each of the thousands upon thousands of distressed, borrower-occupied properties within the city of Los Angeles, starting the condemnation process, setting or negotiating an amount to pay the current lender, and finding a credit union willing to lend that amount to the borrower (or actually carrying the loan directly, which I guess would be another option for the City).  To say that there would be hurdles and pushback is to understate things considerably, no?  And the City would be the first to address the mortgage crisis this way, thus having to make up a process on the fly with few examples to learn from.  However desirable it may be, we all know that realistically, there is no way that the City can do this unilaterally no matter how loudly a few hundred people in a park demand it.  And at what point are we to consider the grievance/demand met?  When they promise to do it?  When a resolution is passed?  When they install the chairs and desks in the new building housing the new Los Angeles Distressed Housing Authority?  When the Times runs the first picture of a borrower shaking hands with the credit union loan officer and gleefully waving the front door key for the camera?  THEN we can maybe talk about an office building and a farm for the Occupation? 

Goddamn, that was a long paragraph.

(*takes beer break*)

The other major concern is that Kelo is, let's face it, a dirty fucking Supreme Court decision.  It was made specifically to allow cities to take land from 99 percenters--average homeowners and small businesspersons--and turn it over to big developers.  It's the Citizens United of eminent domain.  The only reason it wasn't promptly and thoroughly overridden here in this state via the initiative process is that the people who wrote Prop 98 in 2006 were greedy assholes themselves and tried to sneakily kill rent control at the same time, causing a well-deserved backlash and defeat of the measure (the half-assed Prop 99 passed instead).  Now, I believe there are earlier Supreme Court decisions that set precedent for the forced transfer of land from one private party to another in pursuit of a legit public purpose, but I think you can see how this could be a big can of worms. 

It just seems to me that it's better overall, in this particular case, to drop the damned thing from the document and consider this at our relative leisure, in Demands & Objectives, as a potential OLA demand after giving it as much debate as necessary.

 

OccupyNews.net's picture

Give people the right to renegotiate their debts.

Submitted by OccupyNews.net on

I don't want government interfering all the time via immient domain. A justifiable debt restructure law would give the power back to the 99%.

As long as none of the principle of the debt is forgiven, carving up the interest rate to next to nothing if necessary and extending payment time would be one method where nobody but the 1% could say the cut in the monthly payment was on their backs.

Even in situations where the value of the home has dropped significantly, reducing the interest rate from 10% to 2%, extending the lengths of the payments thereby lowering the monthly payments even more, would provide a huge amount of instant relief to the homeowner. Amazingly enough, the federal goverment probably would not mind either since the interest rate deduction would decrease. Yet the monthly savings would still make it worth it to the homeower.

I would also apply justifiable debt restructure to student loans and credit card debt. As long as credit card debtor does not use the lower interest rate and lower monthly payments to run up even more debt, then they should have JDR.

student loans should also have the rate severely dropped, the percentage of the total payment dropped, and there should be no interest rate accrual or payments required if the student is not working. Once again, no one can say the student got a free ride, and the student only pays when they are working and they actually see the debt start to drop.

www.occupynews.net, www.swarmthebanks.com, www.wallstreetchange.com, www.bankprotests.com, www.dailyprotest.com, www.parallelforeclosure.com, www.credit-protector.blogspot.com, www.myalexlogic.com, www.bloggersagainstchasebank.com,

That's damned clever!

Submitted by nobody on

That's damned clever!

The problem of the RE crash is, basically, that the government acted as if there really weren't a bubble, and that all the stuff that happens during a collapse could have been avoided.  Head in the sand.

It could have been dodged, and some economists like Dean Baker had some good ideas, but these ideas were not pursued, largely because they would have upset the banks, and more importantly, would have revealed the whole system of mortgages, property rights, etc. to be something of a scheme arranged by banks and the government.  Some would call it "moral hazard". 

I tend to think that it was more like "revealing the truth about private property."  The real value of the house is in the mortgage, where the value of the worker's wages are used to construct a deal that would benefit investors.  When we departed from this truth, and formed the speculative bubble, we got in trouble.  The course-correction would be to return to creating mortgages based on the value of the worker's wages, and their willingness to trade that for the property's deed after 30 years of paying their loan.

I'm so THANKFUL for TRUE CONSENSUS

Submitted by kharnal on

100% consensus can and will work. We can show the other occupations how its done. It takes time, it's messy, and it will never be everything that any one of us wants individually... BUT... it is the ONLY way to truly represent the 99%.

  This is an amazing accomplishment and we should all be so thankful that Occupy LA has come together in this way.   Thank you, everyone. I LOVE YOU ALL! <3 <3 <3

Evan Kashinsky - Keepin' It Real #77

Tiffany Accessories Sale

Submitted by Cellynry on

While in the arena of earrings round the globally current market, tiffany uk has got achieved warmer desired and additionally outstanding attractiveness. A lot more actresses would prefer to decide to wear Tiffany jewelry they seem within a get together. To varying degrees, Tiffany sale have been proved to be a symbol of real identity, prosperity together with standing. Hence, Tiffany jewelry is definitely costly, which help versus eachother regarding grab countless prevalent folks. Having said that, it is now no issue, and that is attributed to unique retailers. Less expensive tiffany and also denver colorado precious jewelry store undoubtedly a home-based stow that provides almost all a line Tiffany sale. We're believed to be by far the most trustworthy stores. All Cheap Tiffany Charms let me suggest noted for her the best quality along with careful worth. Probably the most alluring is usually that the total price granted let me suggest more cautious and even more cheap, that will make just about everyone there for an individual's most loved diamond jewelry. Too, all of us be sure the quickest shipment; for example, your chosen Tiffany Charms Sale is generally transported to you right away in just a workweek in which house globally. On top of that, customer service network right here can provide the best gratifying researching working experience. Carrying groups is actually very nearly a good irreparable trend. Within plenty of models of engagement rings, Tiffany Wedding rings are already ingested being the most popular and recommended happens to be world-wide. Most people globally give consideration to sporting Tiffany Wedding bands presents such as these identity as well as plethora. Tiffany fans seem to be of the view the fact that carrying Tiffany Accessories can certainly make them all much more unique and additionally more confident.

Ruth Fowler's picture

THIS IS NOT A COUNTER OFFER

Submitted by Ruth Fowler on

Can someone from web please amend the title of this document? It is NOT a counter offer, it is a RESPONSE and amending the title has been misleading. I understand it was probably a mistake, but please do not edit GA approved documents, as the wording is very specific for a reason.

Communiques are for communication across occupations

Submitted by occcomm on

This is in the wrong part of the website.  Communiques are messages to other occupations, not letters to the mayor/demands/declarations etc.  The premise of communiqes is to update other occupations on what we have accomplished and what we need help with, not to address any city body etc.

Much love and respect for your hard work though!

www.occupysocalcommunication.com

www.interoccupy.org

New Demands

Submitted by moderatelib on

Please, Please I beg you to think through demands carefully and not just listen to the idealogues of advocacy groups with their own agenda. Two main points:

1) Many of us 99% dont want to be responsible for paying for the many many people that bought $600K houses they couldn't afford, thinking foolishly that they could have this house for $1400 a month, forever. It's NOT fair. The moratorium on foreclosures should be resevered for people who lost their jobs or were otherwise thrust into an unfortunate position due to the downturn in the economy.

2) Please please get stats from people who know the actual homeless count in skid row, and not buy into these trumped up numbers. First of all, there are two shelters in downtown--excellent shelters--and a multitude of housing for people on skid row. But you cannot be under the influence, which is why many people remain on the streets. At the height of the count, far less than 18,000 people were on the streets, back in 2004-2005.

We support you and want you to succeed, but when your demands sound outright ridiculous, you lose credibility. I say this in support, not to undermine you...

1) What about a different

Submitted by nobody on

1) What about a different scenario.  Someone buys a house fro $300k, with an ARM loan, and now the house is worth $200k.  30% drop - typical in the area.  They're underwater.  If the bank forecloses, they can turn around and sell the house for $180k cash that a rich investor has offered - so the bank wants to do it.  The fact is, the rental market is flat, but can pay enough to rent to cover that mortgage and then some.

So to the investor and bank, it looks like a great time to foreclose.  That's why they're going after the ghetto houses in South LA and East LA.

But suppose the current owner, who can't afford the house when the ARM resets, can afford to pay if the principal were reduced to $220k, and the loan refinanced as a 30 year fixed rate 4.5% mortgage.  Let's say it's around $1500 a month (or less perhaps).

What's the better scenario?  I'd say it's the latter, because it preserves community stability to have an owner in the house.  The bank will still make money, just not as a lump sum.

The bank, however, would rather have cash than a loan (which can go south if the owner loses their job in this lousy economy).  The cash shores up their reserves, while a loan does not - so cash helps keep the bank solvent.

In this situation - the owner-occupant needs help.

OccupyNews.net's picture

The more requests, the harder to get a true consensus.

Submitted by OccupyNews.net on

Debt is how people are first and foremost controlled.  Justifiable debt restructure without being labled a credit defaulter would be a huge victory for the occupy movement, this one change alone would be an astounding victory for the 99%.

The issue of immigration is more controversial than is being admitted to. Endless flow of visitors is not possible, your stance actually makes Los Angeles a prized destination for an endless flow of visitors who want to stay.

As for turning this around and making it about people who are already here not having compassion, there are many already here have who have done their part in regards to population, like having no kids, less kids, adopting kids, or WAITING to have kids so that the generational age difference between parent to child is greater than 20 to 25 years.

In my opinion, it is a bit of a slap in the face to tell all of those already in Los Angeles who live and struggle here, who have put off having kids, or maybe even aborted out of what they felt was necessity, for you to declare come one, come all, sneaking in is welcome.

www.occupynews.net, www.swarmthebanks.com, www.wallstreetchange.com, www.bankprotests.com, www.dailyprotest.com, www.parallelforeclosure.com, www.credit-protector.blogspot.com, www.myalexlogic.com, www.bloggersagainstchasebank.com,

I would change one thing

Submitted by wdkaye on

This is excellent, I very much like the spirit of this.  Catchy title, too.  But one sentence rubs me the wrong way:

Second paragraph, last line reads "The 1 percent should be paying for any services used by the Occupy Movement, not taxpayers."  I don't like this.  It sounds like we're trying to mooch off the 1%.

I strongly suggest a rewrite: "Taxpayers should not be paying for any services used by the Occupy Movement."

Thanks, -Warren

We need a people's park at City Hall

Submitted by MrMark on

It was only a few short years ago that plans were underway for a park opposite City Hall, one that would have functioned very well as a people's park (like Berkeley's legendary square). What derailed that plan? The Los Angeles Police Department's new HQ landed right where the park was planned.

So there's some sweet resonance to the occupation of the south lawn. I'm surprised that Villaraigosa didn't offer up that awful stretch of concrete, the civic center axis, to appease. Maybe he knew it to bee too much of a lowball offer.

Pages