From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
HOMELESS PEOPLE CONFISCATE CITY HALL
Homeless people and their supporters angrily confiscated City Hall in response to the City's refusal to pass legislation that would have prevented the mass confiscation of homeless people's property by the City.
A MEDIA ADVISORY
From: The Coalition on Homelessness
For more information, contact John Viola, Emilio Aviles
(415) 346-3740
HOMELESS PEOPLE CONFISCATE CITY HALL
SAN FRANCISCO (Wednesday, November 28, 2001 San Francisco City Hall) -- Homeless people and their supporters angrily confiscated City Hall. This was in response to the City's refusal to pass legislation that would have prevented the mass confiscation of homeless people's property by the City.
On October 22, 2001, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors refused to pass an ordinance that would require notification before confiscating homeless people's property. Since then, arbitrary confiscation of homeless people's property has continued unabated and homeless people are facing another winter under the constant threat that the city will take their necessities without any warning.
Over one hundred protesters, primarily homeless people, gathered at the steps of city hall to have a mock theater illustrating the confiscation of homeless people's property by city sponsored dump trucks. About a half an hour after the action started, three individuals took over the mayor’s office, and hung a banner off from the second floor balcony facing the crowd below. The banner read "You took our home, we’ll take the dome", and they proceeded to give a quick speech. They were arrested by the SF Sheriff’s Department and led out quickly in handcuffs. They were detained and later transported to County Jail Nine, to be booked.
The crowd then entered City Hall and walked up the steps chanting and yelled. They group visited each office of the Supervisors and gave flowers and cheers to the four Supervisors who supported the legislation (Sup. Ammianno, Gonzalez, Sandoval and Daly). They hung signs stamped "confiscated" on the doors of each Supervisor who opposed the legislation. They also booed each dissenter who opposed homeless people's property rights.
"A policy that allows the city to seize and destroy the property of homeless people not only violates their constitutional rights but punishes people simply for being poor", said John Viola, Staff attorney of the Coalition on Homelessness. "We oppose the City's policy of sweeping homeless people and their property out of sight".
Homeless people carry with them their last carefully selected items that are most important to them. When they lose their property, they often lose articles that are of sentimental value whether from lost relatives, photos or the family bible. But it goes beyond sentiment to actual life sustaining material. People often have their blankets taken before sundown, and life sustaining medications are also taken.
"City Hall's attitude toward homeless people and their property continues to be one of contempt," says Emilio Aviles, "in refusing to pass legislation which would respect homeless people's property rights."
##30##
From: The Coalition on Homelessness
For more information, contact John Viola, Emilio Aviles
(415) 346-3740
HOMELESS PEOPLE CONFISCATE CITY HALL
SAN FRANCISCO (Wednesday, November 28, 2001 San Francisco City Hall) -- Homeless people and their supporters angrily confiscated City Hall. This was in response to the City's refusal to pass legislation that would have prevented the mass confiscation of homeless people's property by the City.
On October 22, 2001, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors refused to pass an ordinance that would require notification before confiscating homeless people's property. Since then, arbitrary confiscation of homeless people's property has continued unabated and homeless people are facing another winter under the constant threat that the city will take their necessities without any warning.
Over one hundred protesters, primarily homeless people, gathered at the steps of city hall to have a mock theater illustrating the confiscation of homeless people's property by city sponsored dump trucks. About a half an hour after the action started, three individuals took over the mayor’s office, and hung a banner off from the second floor balcony facing the crowd below. The banner read "You took our home, we’ll take the dome", and they proceeded to give a quick speech. They were arrested by the SF Sheriff’s Department and led out quickly in handcuffs. They were detained and later transported to County Jail Nine, to be booked.
The crowd then entered City Hall and walked up the steps chanting and yelled. They group visited each office of the Supervisors and gave flowers and cheers to the four Supervisors who supported the legislation (Sup. Ammianno, Gonzalez, Sandoval and Daly). They hung signs stamped "confiscated" on the doors of each Supervisor who opposed the legislation. They also booed each dissenter who opposed homeless people's property rights.
"A policy that allows the city to seize and destroy the property of homeless people not only violates their constitutional rights but punishes people simply for being poor", said John Viola, Staff attorney of the Coalition on Homelessness. "We oppose the City's policy of sweeping homeless people and their property out of sight".
Homeless people carry with them their last carefully selected items that are most important to them. When they lose their property, they often lose articles that are of sentimental value whether from lost relatives, photos or the family bible. But it goes beyond sentiment to actual life sustaining material. People often have their blankets taken before sundown, and life sustaining medications are also taken.
"City Hall's attitude toward homeless people and their property continues to be one of contempt," says Emilio Aviles, "in refusing to pass legislation which would respect homeless people's property rights."
##30##
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
Yep: it's good to see a sight like this actually defending the right of personal property and against it's confiscation by the State!
Fight On!
whether stocks, bonds, land or even a a simple shopping cart filled with bric-a-brac, a person's property is sacrosanct!
And just as no one -not even the state- has the right to confiscate anothers property, I think we should also organize to get those squatters out of other people's property!
Dignity Village News Coverage at PlanetPCC.com
<a href=\"http://www.PlanetPCC.com\">
<img src=\"http://members.home.net/planetabc/menu/planetpcclogo.jpg\" alt=\"PlanetPCC\" width=\"170\" height=\"40\" border=\"0\">
-So what you're saying is that people shouldn't be treated as equals, and that there should be 2 seperate sets of rights? one for the rich, and one for the poor?
Hmm... interesting...
I didn't know fascists visited this sight...
2. Jon, the solution to the "dirtiness" of San Francisco is: a) quit having organized crime run the city, b) quit allow dot-coms and other technology companies to illegally rent desperately needed housing, c) allow housing alternatives which disrupt capitalist profit but allow for people to live inside rather than outside, d) improve the quality of social services.
Interesting points:
b) quit allow dot-coms and other technology companies to illegally rent desperately needed housing, c) allow housing alternatives which disrupt capitalist profit but allow for people to live inside rather than outside
-Sounds to me that you're advocating the State's power to force people to do with their private property whatever the state feels is expedient...
Hmm... definitley interesting...
I'm just extending your wonderful logic. According to you, if property is taken by force, it isn't right. So... I'm just suggested if you take your logic to its conclusion, you must determine that the entire City of San Francisco is immoral. Right?
many of them struggle to grasp our tangible realities...
WHILE SOME SIT, SHIT, SUFFER, SING SAMDHI...
SING
There R GREAT lessons to be learned in our relations...we talk global family...
Can we walk/speak/ sit global family?
...R we truly KIN?
The Dreaded Black Sheep of the fam may help US pull the wool from over our eyes...or maybe not...
enJOY
Blessing to U & your Loves
As for Me?
Immoral or not, I've kinda gotten used to the place..
As for HannaH above: I don't quite understand where you're at, but it sounds beautiful
-Thanx, and Blessing 2 U 2
For instance:
Person M makes bold, absolutist statements,
yet has obviously never bothered to sit down
and consider the logical implications
of the crap M is spewing.
M is not stupid, but has been taught to
think that M is better, smarter,
and of course, more entitled
than persons who might challenge
M's egocentric paradigm.
But M has a chance... M is not a lost cause,
'cuz when someone finally confronts M
on his bullshit
(and it usually doesn't take too long),
that's the precise moment M can
step back,
step off,
take a deep breath. . . . . .
and realize that M's got these
major contradictions
in what he says and thinks.
(More correctly: what some other
damaged & manipulative assholes
have programmed M to say and think.)
So drop the intimidating tactics.
Stop talktalktalking for a minute
and try
to really
L I S T E N . . . . .
to what others are saying.
You might be surprised at
how much you might learn.
<<<An amalgam of what matt said>>>
M> = matt quote
M>whether stocks, bonds, land or
M>even a a simple shopping cart
M>filled with bric-a-brac,
M>a person's property is sacrosanct!
Sacrosanct, huh?
What does "sacrosanct" mean to you?
I pulled out Webster's Collegiate Dictionary
to see if I could improve the local
Signal-to-Noise Ratio:
sac.ro.sanct \ adj [L sacrosanctus, prob. fr. sacro sanctus, hallowed by a sacred rite] (1601)
1: most sacred or holy: INVIOLABLE
2: treated as if holy : immune from criticism or
violation <politically ~ programs>
What do you think it'd be like
to live in a society,
to build and maintain social institutions,
where, instead of the
sacrosanctity of property,
we instead placed that
value and respect
upon people?
Or...
instead of property,
we placed that
sacredness,
that worship,
upon the land itself?
M>...no one -not even the state- has the
M>right to confiscate anothers property...
But who do you think
CREATES property?
How is property MAINTAINED?
(Not any given property; the
institution as a whole.)
M>-So what you're saying is that people
M>shouldn't be treated as equals, and
M>that there should be 2 seperate sets
M>of rights? one for the rich, and one
M>for the poor?
Just the opposite.
There currently ARE two separate sets of rights.
(an oversimplification, I know, but...)
Imagine a society where
basic standards of human rights
were maintained for everyone.
It doesn't have to be anything
all that radical...
try starting with something mild, like the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
No, Really! Go Read it! Please.
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
Now, when we began, M said that
property is sacrosanct (holy, inviolable)...
someone else said>
>>"ALL businesses in San Francisco
>>need to get out and give the land
>>back to the Native Americans"
matt>
M>-You do realize this would entail moving
M>all the PEOPLE out of San Francisco...
M>-Hope you've got your luggage!
Hey, M! What happened to Sacrosanct?
M>As for the Native Indians themselves.
M>you said they:"decided not to settle
M>the peninsula and let it remain in nature
M>(mostly because of how windy and hilly it is)"
M>-Isn't this just a round-about way of
M>saying the Indians didn't want it in
M>the first place?
Does that mean I can just drive down
the 280 and snatch up all of that windy,
hilly acreage sitting out there?
M>You DO do realize that if the
M>businesses left, there'd be no one
M>to maintain the "alternate housing"
M>or "social services" you mentioned earlier...
If all the businesses left we wouldn't
NEED alternate housing. Duh.
And as for social services...
well... OK, I know this is a little out there...
maybe WE could do it?
You know... like...
for each other?
M>But then again, we'd only have to
M>worry about homeless Indians, and
M>that wouldn't be a problem, because
M>you already stated that the Indians didn't
M>like San Francisco's location anyway....
What's this "we" business?
When did you start worrying about
anyone other than yourself?
M>So, according to your proposition,
M>everyone should just abandon San Francisco...
M>The question is: where do we go?
M>I know: we'll find a nice patch of
M>woodland and tear it down and
M>build a NEW city...
Typical, No vision...
We don't physically leave.
We change this place
and our relation to it.
Besides, you're one who said we
ALL had to leave. The initial proposal
only called for all the businesses to leave.
[I'll be bold and assume that they meant
all the corporations had to leave.
All the toxic polluters, the slum lords,
the predatory lenders, etc.]
M>(Of Course, we'll check if there's
M>any Indians living there first...)
No, many of the "Indians" are homeless
on the streets of toxic urban America.
Yeah, them and the Nam vets who are
still surviving out there.
Unless, of course, you're planning to
start invading the few remaining bits of
"Official" Native Lands...!
M>You tell me: your'e the one who
M>wants to pack everyone out of here
M>and give the place back to the Indians...
M>As for Me?
M>Immoral or not, I've kinda gotten
M>used to the place..
Uh-huh. Used to it.
As in: used to the privilege.
As in: comfortable to live off those below you.
So what if it's all stolen?
So what if we killed MILLIONS to get it.
And kill MILLIONS MORE to maintain it.
More everyday.
Today's lesson has been brought to you by
the letter M,
the circle A,
and the square root of infinity...
so, Mr. normal:
You sound so informed...
Too bad you can't recognize blatant Irony when you see it...
I mean REALLY now: you actually took a reducto ad absurdum SERIOUSLY
So much for enlightened insight...
-Could have saved you a lot of time and typing...
Damn, You got WAY too much free time!
I sure feel pretty dumb, now.
I offer my apologies to you, sir.
I honestly thought that you believed that shit you were spoogin... all that "sanctity of private property" LibertarianParty(c) nonsense.
You're quite adept at staying in character...
Peace
My comments in ????
were in response to "Anarchist's" one about getting rid of all business and the standard "attack the rich"
strategy....
I was pointing out the inherent contradictions...
Equal Property rights: rich vs. poor
kicking all business out of SF (which would include those corporate run supermarkets, Power companies, contractors, engineering firms, etc..) which WOULD cause the city to be uninhabitable...
giving the land back to the Native Americans...
-That's what a reducto ad absurdum does!
Yeah! Now there's a place we might be able to compromise on... even find a little common ground.
If anyone is going to have property rights, then we should all have Equal Property rights.
Nah... even that sounds pretty bad.
The whole idea of anyone owning the land is just a bad idea. Pretty much, was a bad move right from its earliest days, as far as I can tell.
Peace
This is an example of right-wing knee-jerk idiocy. This is why that was said:
1) Some objectivist/capitalist idiot said that property rights were sacrosanct, and so anyone who takes property by force should have to give it up because taking property by force is immoral.
2) Someone said that by that logic, the US should give up land which it took by force from Native Americans.
3) All the right-wingers respond who idiotic the suggestion in #2 is.
4) Everyone else laughs at the right-wingers for attacking their own stupid ideology.
5) Jon shows up and adds to the right-winger idiocy.
6) I point it out in this message and Jon feels dumb again.
See what happens when you pay attention?
FUCK OFF
By the way, you misspelled "ignerant".
Rush
Not all the homeless are on the streets because that is their choice. Hence, we can have compassion and bring about some resolution - in some way. To grab their possesssion without DUE process is WRONG. Many die on the streets on San Francisco - they are mostly homeless. This is not right. There are many women and children living on the Streets of San Francisco - and this is not right. In the mean time our Nation spends ONE BILLION PLUS fighting a WAR which is none of our business.
If you are NOT homeless - consider yourself fortunate.
If some one is homeless - if you cannot do something - please do not make FUN of them. In the mean time our City should seriously address the issue of those who are homeless. I know the Mayor does not care - he now wants to be State Senator.