Occupy protesters tidy up, leave site : News-Record.com : Greensboro & the Triad's most trusted source for local news and analysis

GREENSBORO — Gone are the tents, blankets and lawn chairs. The donated food, dishes and propane burners. The white boards, extension cords and protest signs.

One of the most visible expressions of Occupy Greensboro ended Sunday as members packed up about 30 tents and left the downtown YWCA parking lot and playground.

But demonstrators say the movement will continue.

“People were in good spirits,” said Todd Warren, a member who operates a home remodeling business. “Leaving here is in no way a defeat.”

Local residents and activists, inspired by an international protest movement that began on Wall Street, camped out on the former YWCA property next to Festival Park for three weeks.

Permission to use the land ended Sunday.

Members will resume meeting at least twice a week at Glenwood Coffee and Books, an independent bookstore, to discuss long-term strategies. Demonstrators also plan to stage a mock foreclosure of Bank of America on Friday at the company’s Green Valley Road branch.

“A lot of people are worried about the Occupy movement being co-opted by the Democratic Party or mainstream progressive groups,” Warren said. “I just don’t see it happening. Occupy very much has a do-it-yourself mentality.”

John Kernodle, a stage manager for a nonprofit theater company, said he felt both relief and gratitude for the encampment’s end. Organizers spent about $1,600 in donated cash supporting the camp and served an estimated 2,000 meals.

“Keeping this camp going was a colossal effort that boiled down to a handful of people,” he said. “Moving back to Glenwood Coffee and Books gives us a chance to focus on the broader community.”

However, some people want to camp out at the Governmental Plaza, UNCG or Guilford College through the winter, said Maxwell Silver, an activist who stayed overnight at the YWCA for two weeks.

“I feel like if we’re not actually occupying and doing this in solidarity with people all over the world then we will just look like a joke,” said Silver, who is unemployed. “I’m down for this. I’ve thought about this movement for years and years.”

Occupy Greensboro kicked off its protests Oct. 15 with a peaceful downtown march that drew several hundred people. The diverse crowd spoke out against political corruption, mortgage fraud, student loan debt and widespread unemployment.

Since then, protesters have picketed President Obama’s visit to the city, advocated for local banking, attended City Council candidate forums and spoken out against a proposed Duke Energy rate increase.

Jane Parker, an activist who traded mortgage-backed securities on Wall Street 30 years ago, said she would like to see a moratorium on foreclosures.

“They speak my language,” Parker said of the movement. “We have the same big thoughts about making a more just society.”

Contact Morgan Josey Glover at 373-7078 or morgan.josey@news-record.com

1234

November 7, 2011 - 7:35 am EST

"moratorium on foreclosures"...how about a moratorium on making loans to anyone that does not have a 10% down payment, 2-3 months of extra cash for emergencies and a consumer counselling explaining how home loans work. No more community acorn groups pressuring Banks and Mortgage companies to make loans!

terrier2003

November 7, 2011 - 8:53 am EST

very well said.

Panacea

November 7, 2011 - 9:20 am EST

That's hardly productive to blame people who are hurting.

Bear in mind, the folks who made bad loans aren't the only ones facing foreclosure. There are a LOT of honest, hard working folks who did the right things and are having trouble staying in their homes because they lost their jobs because of the recession, and haven't found new ones or ones that pay enough to let them stay in their homes.

A blame the victim mentality is just plain wrong, especially when you paint good people with a bad brush.

Sawdust

November 7, 2011 - 10:27 am EST

We shouldn't blame the victims, we should be blaming the economic idiot in the White House, and his administration full of economic idiots. It should be clear by now, to all but the dullest among us, that this gang doesn't have a clue. All they have accomplished in three years is to make a bad situation worse, with no improvement in sight.

Hope and Change. Aren't working very well, are they?

record2009

November 7, 2011 - 7:59 am EST

If the city of Greensboro spent additional money for police/security for this group, they should bill the Occupy group for those expenses. We all want police protection in our communities, but this grassroots effort may have caused our city to divert resources to address the camping out in downtown for the last couple of weeks. Since there was a diverse group of people camping out, I do not believe that they should be permitted to use UNCG campus as a campground. If a private institution wants to allow such activity, then it is their private decision to allow it and they take on the added expense of police/security and all the other issues that may arise. Personally, I believe/support some of the objectives ot the Occupy group; however, I do not believe that it should be at any taxpayer expense. If this core group wants to camp out, carry out prolonged demonstrations, and disrupt the daily lives of Greensboro residents and businesses, then they should be willing to pay for additional security which may be required to ensure peaceful "freedom of speech." They should not expect the citizens of NC to pay for their activities. .

November 7, 2011 - 8:54 am EST

Heck I'll even settle for them paying the full price for the rental of facilities. . .

goodtoknow

November 7, 2011 - 10:21 am EST

In Richmond, Va. the mayor made the Tea Party pay for insurance and police, but the Occupy people did not. The mayor said the Occupy people were like the civil rights movement. Double standard Democrat.

November 7, 2011 - 10:31 am EST

Occupy Wall Street....Scan down to Mayor Bloomberg
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread763346/pg1

November 7, 2011 - 9:23 am EST

Actually . . . they should expect it. Because they themselves have already paid for the cost of those activities through their taxes.

How would you like it if the Tea Party wanted to demonstrate, but couldn't because they couldn't come up with a "police protection fee?"

Such a fee would be an unconstitutional limitation of free speech rights. The right to demonstrate is enshrined in our culture and goes back to the Revolution. It is a vital part of our democracy. Forcing demonstrators to pay a fee like this would chill free speech, and make it difficult for unhappy people to express their views: including YOU if you don't have the dough.

itsjustron

November 7, 2011 - 9:56 am EST

Then why are the officers being paid OT every where (not necessarily greensboro). At a time when public officers in every department are facing layoffs, in NY alone they have charged up almost 2 million in OT alone? Who pays that? Its not just a one time event, like a concert or speech..

Bosco

"paid for the activity through their taxes", I about choked on my coffee

katei

November 7, 2011 - 10:18 am EST

Although the police presence was quiet and somewhat friendly, it was also not requested. Don't hold occupiers at fault for city and police business. We didn't ask for it, most of us didn't want it, we couldn't refuse it: the bill is on them.

November 7, 2011 - 10:28 am EST

Of course you didnt ask for it, Im sure everyone would be more happy without them there.. After all the protests in other citties have been so peaceful and compliant and led by such good examples, what in earth would police think to be present in greensboro?

November 7, 2011 - 10:49 am EST

I know of a few cities that were peaceful and compliant until the police invaded. The role of police are to serve and protect. Sometimes that's easily defined and allocated via budgets--sometimes it's unexpected. It's part of the territory. But as for Greensboro (and I'd imagine dozens of other towns), we've clearly been a peaceful, cooperative bunch.

Did we really require constant 24/7 surveillance? If so, what of our actions dictated its necessity? Simply being downtown more often than usual? Because we're being publicly outspoken about our qualms with current administrations and financial institutions?

The YWCA is less than 2 miles from the station, there are officers trolling elm st. (a block away) regularly. Was a dedicated police-presence really necessary with a plethora of regularly-scheduled officers always within arms reach?

If times are tough and budgets are tight, then go ask the GPD why they felt it necessary to play the stalker-game if they don't have the cash.

Don't blame us for their service-charge when we didn't order their services in the first place.

CarolinaBorn

November 7, 2011 - 11:09 am EST

"I know of a few cities that were peaceful and compliant until the police invaded"

Sorry Kate, but the police don't "invade" their own city streets. It is their job to patrol, monitor, and respond as necessary. Police don't "invade" Elm St on weekends, they don't "invade" the coliseum during large events, and they sure didn't "invade" your protests. They go where the citizens of this city are, and if a large number of people are in one spot they are going to be there. Doing their job does not make them "stalkers".

Why would the mere appearance of the police turn people from peaceful to violent in these "few cities" you mention? Most people don't just get out of hand at the sight of the law, unless of course they have a reason too.

November 7, 2011 - 11:15 am EST

The invasion to which I was referring to Occupy Oakland wherein 90 campers were evicted by 500 riot squad officers.

The officers used tear gas grenades, beanbag guns, and rubber bullets. They opened fire on people who were simply standing.

http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/10/28/police-grenade-occupy-oaklan...

The GPD didn't invade our camp. Nor do they invade events and gatherings of large people. However, they did invade the occupy camp in Oakland. They did put a 24-year old marine in a coma. They did use excessive force.

But all of that is irrelevant when we look at Occupy Greensboro, which is what this article is about.

November 7, 2011 - 11:31 am EST

This Oakland?...http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/11/occupy-oakland-tear-gas-arrests.html.

Protesters broke into a building, set barricades on fire, and were throwing things at officers. That's not being "invaded" that's breaking the law.

And yes that was Oakland and this is Greensboro. I commend the G'boro protesters for behaving themselves, I really do. But that is life, you are lumped with the people you chose to associate yourselves with. Had Greensboro gone the way a lot of protests went and the GPD weren't present it would be a nightmare for the city.

November 7, 2011 - 11:49 am EST

That article is from and concerns the events that took place on 11/3. The invasion about which I spoke happened on 10/25. In the week between, tens of thousands gathered in anger and support. Anger is the worst in idiots. Their response, although not condoned, is a response to the violence initially inflicted upon citizens of Oakland merely upholding their 1st amendment rights.

So Occupy Oakland on 11/3 is a whole different animal than Occupy Oakland on 10/25. And the Oakland PD can blame themselves for that.

The Occupy Oakland to which I'm referring can be exemplified here:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/before-after-occupy-oakland

November 7, 2011 - 12:09 pm EST

Sorry Kate, but a bunch of pictures from a website whose banner is "OMG- LOL-cute- WT*?", and whose lead article on the front page is about some actress tweeting her hair color, does not make for a very good source of information.

November 7, 2011 - 12:58 pm EST

I wasn't aware this was a scholarly pursuit. It's a shame the photographer chose a pop culture site designed for ad space and quick user traffic.

Here's a few other blogs with the same/similar images:
http://www.yousaytoo.com/shocking-occupy-oakland-before-and-after-photos...
http://boingboing.net/2011/10/31/occupy-oakland-photos-before-and-after-...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/26/1030343/-Occupy-Oakland,-before...

The pictures speak for themselves. Crimany.

November 7, 2011 - 1:19 pm EST

Scholarly pursuit? I am not the one out protesting to change the fundamental foundation of our nations economy. If that's not a scholarly pursuit you should have packed it in a long time ago becuase you do not take what you do very seriously.

Again, they are just pictures, where are the facts? I can go take a picture of a mansion and tell you I live there, they absolutely do not speak for themselves Pictures are nothing without supporting facts. Otherwise it suggest the absence of truth and devalues your point.

If you want to change the world, I would suggest you approach it with facts and truths. How are you going to vilify your fellow citizens for their success and shout "crimany" when they ask you to back it up your claims?

November 7, 2011 - 1:35 pm EST

The scholarly pursuit to which I was referring involved sharing images of Oakland before and after the police raid. You questioned their credibility based on the layout of the website rather than the content on the particular page. If the photos appeared instead on a less-flashy website, would that change the images they capture?

I don't expect to change the world in a newspaper comment board.

Who and how did I vilify? What success?

So, to break down facts and truths:

The fact is that before 10/25, Occupy Oakland was a small park protest. It was organized and maintained. This is clear from the photos.

The fact is that following the police raid, the park was left a chaotic mess--that were there was once community, there is now destruction. This is clear from the photos.

The fact is that the police threw tear gas grenades into a peaceful crowd. That one of those grenades hit a guy (Scott Olsen) in the face and that when other protesters ran to his aid, they were further bombarded. This is clear from the videos.

That fact is that the videos also make it clear that Scott Olsen was simply standing--in silent protest--until a tear gas grenade hit him in the face, fracturing his skull, and sending him to the ground

My claim is simple: that although the police can be helpful, they can also use excessive force and exploit their power to great detriment. The invasion/raid on Occupy Oakland on 10/25 highlights that. And the violence and chaos we've seen since (referenced in the 11/3 article) is a product of that. That is the truth, supported with evidence.

November 7, 2011 - 1:36 pm EST

oh, and shouting "crimany" looks like this: CRIMANY!

November 7, 2011 - 2:18 pm EST

Yes, lets see, " Officer: You need to leave" Person:... " O.k, Ill go now"....... No problems
or
"Officer: you need to leave" Person: No I dont, I have a right, to blah, blah" Then you get the results you see.

I think its hilarious!

November 7, 2011 - 2:30 pm EST

I'm glad hospitalized veterans are so funny. Or gunning down innocents. Or neglected basic rights. What a gas.

November 7, 2011 - 3:47 pm EST

No, thinking the law doesnt apply to you, is hilarious.
This is along the lines of the videos you always see where the police asks someone to put up their hands and walk to the car.. what do they do, they either brandish a weapon, or run, and almost are always utterly shocked that they end up tazed, or worse, shot.

The police say it, then do it.. and there wouldnt be an injury. The disrespect for the law is what caused injuries.

The Second Coming

November 7, 2011 - 5:18 pm EST

the police can demand that you surrender your rights only if they have the pretense to detain you. When a person is excorcizing their god-given rights and are asked by the police to stop excorcizing those rights they are not, thanks to the brave women and men who fight to preserve our freedom, required to blindly give up their rights. Scott Olsen was endowed by his creator, my heavenly mother, the savior of the multiverse with the right to speak freely and he was assaulted grievously by those chartered by the american people to protect those rights.

November 8, 2011 - 9:51 am EST

Do you think the police mad special laws for the OWS group, no they didnt. Cities have laws dictating where you can and cannot camp, protest, or make living quarters. There are alot of things to consider, such as crime and sanitation, the safety of the none protesting public, impact on business and traffic flow, etc..

I still think its funny!

November 7, 2011 - 5:21 pm EST

Right... and a battered-woman's disrespect to her husband is why she gets hit.

November 8, 2011 - 9:55 am EST

Whats this got to do with battered women? Are you a victim of domestic violence, does your husband abuse you?

I thought this was about protests?

news-record.com

NEWS