.
.
.
Reports from the scene are that, this morning over a period of 45 minutes starting at about 9 a.m., the City of Irvine turned on the sprinklers in the segment of the lawn outside of its City Hall where protesters have spent the past week. Protesters have been on the lawn during “park” opening hours between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. continuously since early last Saturday, Oct. 15., and have spent each night from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. continuously on the sidewalks adjacent to the lawn at the corner of Harvard Avenue and Alton Parkway.
Protesters were lawfully assembled there this morning as part of the Occupy Orange County protests. The 45-minute soaking, interrupted two or three times for 2-3 minutes apiece, presumably destroyed thousands of dollars’ worth of electronic equipment (including amplifiers, a television, and laptop computers) as well as a 5000-watt generator. This equipment was described as “drenched,” as were the blankets, sleeping bags, and other daytime camping equipment that had been moved onto the lawn.
Demonstrators had been given no warning of the impending watering of the lawn during the time that the park was open. They were particularly surprised to be drenched because so far they have been entirely law-abiding and had not even begun to engage in civil disobedience. Faced with an extremely unusual willingness of protesters to follow the law, Irvine has taken a step that other cities have only taken when they have faced civil disobedience.
This correspondent, as part of the Civic Liaison Committee for Occupy Irvine, had met with Irvine government and police officials on Thursday and participated in an hour-long follow-up teleconference on Friday. At that time the City of Irvine was informed that Occupy Irvine was happy to work with the city to ensure that they could move around the expanse of lawn, of which they occupy only a small portion, as necessary to provide lawn care, and that pledges had also been made to fund re-sodding the lawn as need be. Sprinklers at the “park” have, over the past week (and reportedly before) been used only during the hours that the park has been closed.
Photographs of the scene outside the City Center will be forthcoming soon.
“Sprinklers”…….. Hmmmm
This is a common practice against the homeless persons and I am sure to remember that there is a case law on that.
But you have stated that you do not need any legal information so….. enjoy.
I’m happy to receive legal information — without the usual trimmings.
We’re in touch with homeless advocates too — more, frankly, that I had expected to have to be.
“We’re in touch with homeless advocates too”….. Hmmmm
My usual trimming caveat: That is your major problem!
I have advised you to turn this around against the city from camping issue to an occupation issue — in writing.[emphases added]
I should add:
oc·cu·py (¼k“y…-pº”) tr.v. oc·cu·pied, oc·cu·py·ing, oc·cu·pies. 4. To seize possession of and maintain control over by or as if by conquest.
Therefore you must declare that you are in possession of the park in witting and file it with the County Recorder. See Real Estate law on the adverse possession!
Sounds like that ever progressive majority in Irvine isnt so progressive at all. Hmm dems thwarting their own citizens right to free speech and assembly at a publicly owned facility? Awsome.
Why doesn’t somebody head down to the park and “arrest”, or call IPD on the parents “camping” at the soccer games. by defination, they have umbrella’s and tents (EZ-UP’S).
This would put the referee in an uncomfortable position however!
Apart from this soaking-by-sprinklers, which the city is now claiming was a mistake that won’t happen again, their only expressed problem is with us camping between 10pm and 6AM. If I hear of Dan C soccer-camping at those hours though, I’ll be all over it! (Settle down Dan, I’m just f-ng kidding, don’t be sending one of your “your latest nasty comment” e-mails. And again, thanks for reading.)
Here, where I live, there are some prestigious SA elementary schools and parents are routinely camping during the signing up period some year 2-4 days.
Dear, Esq. Encino,
Please be informed about the following legal case law and do your research.
UBC legal expert says Occupy protesters have right to stay
Case law makes shut down unlikely: prof
VANCOUVER (NEWS1130) – Lots of people are annoyed by the muddy camp set up by Occupy Vancouver, but a UBC expert on constitutional law says protesters have a right to stay as long as they like.
http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article/291346–ubc-legal-expert-says-occupy-protesters-have-right-to-stay
I should add that Esq. Encino should call Constitutional Law Expert Erwin Chemerinsky to see what is his opinion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeJvsnQ9dd4
I would like to see Erwin speaking at our weekend events … actually I bet I can make that happen!
Go for it!
I doubt that Erwin C. would feel free to support Occupy Irvine, given his position as Law School Dean. He is as diplomatic as he is brilliant, and asking him to take on his adoptive city like this would not be optimally diplomatic. I would give him a pass for the same reason that Amnesty International does not have people play the lead role in organizing human rights protests in their home countries.
I do think that UCI Law could do a real service in offering a primer — and maybe a more-than-primer — on free speech law, time/place/manner restrictions, anti-camping laws, and why the basic ability to at least sleep on the sidewalk (and the less-basic ability to occupy) has been granted in so many other cities across the country — but not here. I’d definitely show up for that! (With questions in hand.)
Always follow your inciting comrade Vern! [emphases added]
Never pay attention to losers and talking heads.
Worse come to worse he will say no!
Stanislavski,
Are you suggesting that Canadian constitutional law applies in Irvine? Or are you suggesting that this University of British Columbia law professor, who was evidently talking about protesters in Vancouver, Canada, nevertheless decided to talk about the application of American rather than Canadian law to their legal status?
For the record, Vancouver is in the Canadian province of British Colombia and Canada has its own Constitution and … and … gah, could anyone reading this who even takes Stan’s legal advice the least bit seriously pipe up and say so? If no one does, then I don’t have to waste effort refuting him, but can just say “oh, isn’t that interesting!” like he was my 4-year old nephew with his imagination stuck in overdrive and, like Stanislav, no apparent ability to self-edit.
Esq. Encino,
Please be advised that you are gravely incompetent attorney.
I am not suggesting any of the above drivel which you have presented in your poorly constructed comment.
However, unlike Mexico, the USA and Canadian laws are both derived from the British common law.
It is not uncommon to cite case law of the sister state or country in absence of any legal precedence.
Many times there are similarities in decision so if you wouldn’t be a dullard you wold research what is the University of British Columbia law professor talking about and based thereon would found similar USA Supreme Court Decision.
WEREFORE: You are moron mongoloid.
If someone else (with a name I recognize) would like to indicate that they find this the slightest bit credible, I’ll respond to it. Until then, I’ll assume that others are doing pretty much the same slow and sad head shaking that I am.
“the same slow and sad head shaking”………. Hmmmmm
It maybe early sign of Parkinson’s disease or inability to form independent opinion, the essential element of the Intelligence Quotient ["IQ"]
Just heard a KNX radio report that the estimated clean up and damage repair costs for the Occupy LA event is $ 500,000 and growing. If there is damage and clean up costs anywhere in OC, incluidnig Irvine, is it the taxpayers that will foot that bill or is it the occupiers? Who should it be?
All I know about is Irvine, and I don’t see how there will be a dollar’s worth of cleanup needed here.
Irvine will overcharge for their “services.” Trust me. That’s one thing the city is consistently good at.
To the extent that it facilitates impeding free speech, it can be challenged.
This is a long process, folks. Get comfortable.
We know from Wisconsin that governments overestimate such costs. I’d like to see them show their work. I’ll take the “under” — and, with odds, even the “way under” or the “way, way under.”
Irvine is spending lots of money on trying to keep demonstrators off of its lawn. As for damage, the money to replace items destroyed by the surprise sprinkler barrage on Saturday morning should indeed be paid for by taxpayers. The city did something wrong; it should pay for it.
I’d like you to show your work as well Mr. Diamond. According to the Register, there were only 5 demonstrators who got the unexpected soaking, it lasted 30 minutes (not the 45 you report), and a wooden podium was damaged, but all of the electronic equipment appeared to be working. Oh, and before you give me the Register bias excuse, the report came from one of the Occupiers.
I am also curious if you apply your logic on paying for damaged items to the Occupiers. Reports say that many of the Occupiers have vandalized public property. Should they pay for that? What about damage from Occupiers’ unsanitary practices? Or damage to public lawns that have died because of Occupiers’ tent cities?
Oh, and before you give me the Register bias excuse, the report came from one of the Occupiers.
The Register has been pretty good in their coverage of us. 30 minutes is the total amount of time the sprinklers were on over the course of 45 minutes; it’s clear from our original report that they went on and off a couple of times. One of the protesters was sleeping right next to a plugged-in extension cord and could have been electrocuted. I’m not sure how much of our electronic equipment was damaged, it obviously couldn’t all be tested right away, especially with our generator out of commission. All in all, Greg’s original report was as accurate as breaking news can be.
I am also curious if you apply your logic on paying for damaged items to the Occupiers. Reports say that many of the Occupiers have vandalized public property. Should they pay for that? What about damage from Occupiers’ unsanitary practices? Or damage to public lawns that have died because of Occupiers’ tent cities?
Is this paragraph in reference to our group at Irvine? Are you eliding rumors from various parts of the country onto us? I haven’t seen, or heard any reports of, ANY vandalism from OUR group. If there were, we would pay for it. We have no unsanitary practices YOU can document. The lawn where we would LIKE to pitch our tent city was brown before we got there, and had apparently not been watered for a while – we don’t know why. We have also offered any kind of gardening or “re-sodding” the city would accept from us. So you are barking up the wrong tree with OUR particular group.
Vern, I haven’t made any allegations toward your Occupy event because I have no facts either way. I was simply asking Mr. Diamond if he believes that any Occupiers who inflict damage, purposely or not, should pay for that, as he feels Irvine should for any damage caused by its actions, purposeful or not.
I’d sure say yeah.
I say no!
I do not think that USA army soldiers are personally paying for whatever damage they cause.
Any social unrest is done on behalf of the society (whether you like it or not) so the society should pay for it.
Same like any damage done during the election or when Obama is visiting to panhandle as he is today.
Newbie,
I don’t favor property damage as a protest tactic (at least outside of extreme situations far beyond what we face now.) I don’t think it’s the way to make inroads with the community.
We’ve offered by the way, not only to move the tents around so that we don’t damage the portion of the lawn where we stay, but also to work with the City to facilitate sprinkling, etc. We’re good neighbors.
By the way, I still don’t know how much damage there was, but I have reviewed procedures for reporting it as part of an hour-long conference call that I and two other civic liaisons had with the City this afternoon.
Beyond that, as usual: what Vern said.
[Takes off gloves].
Now, Newbie, do you think that bankers and such who have inflicted damage on the national economy, purposely or not, should pay for it?
Mr. Diamond, I believe that the government that improperly bailed the bankers out with our (well, the 53% of us who actually pay) taxpayer money should pay for the damage it has inflicted on the economy. Hopefully, that will come in November 2012, although much sooner would be preferable. As for the bankers, I’m not sure what damage they inflicted on the economy, other than being forced to lend money to people who have no business buying homes courtesy of Barney Frank and his cohorts. However, I’m happy to close those gaping loopholes in the tax system that allow theirs and other corporations to skirt their taxes.
Newbie,
Who created Credit Default Swaps and OTC Derivatives…and the systemic risk that accompanied them?
Vern and Mr. Diamond, what about businesses like the downtown eateries and farmer’s market that the Occupiers are costing business. Should Occupy reimburse them out of their $500,000?
Local businesses love us, we’ve been their best customers. Except when they just drive by and donate food that is.
Vern, I get it, your Occupy group are very respectful, proper, and law abiding (and I currently have no reason to doubt that, particularly given your prudent decision to take the issue to the Council rather than break the law – congrats on that). However, you have linked yourself with the overall Occupy movement. You feel that if the Occupiers or the cities destroy stuff, purposely or not, they should pay for it. I am asking if you would extend that to vendors and shop owners who are losing money because of the Occupy movement. For example, the original Occupy Wall Street has displaced a farmer’s market in Zucotti Park and vendors (part of the so-called 99%) are on record as saying that it is costing them money. Local eateries and other shops (also likely part of the 99%) are also on record as losing money because of the Occupy disruption. Should they be compensated out of the $500,000? This is not a “gotcha” question, I really do want to know your thoughts on this.
Hadn’t thought about it much, I suppose they can figure that out in New York, I don’t know enough details. Maybe some-a their rich supporters can help out like that Russell Simmons guy.
Just a blocks away from the Tent City of MasterPlannedistan, there is a Ralph’s, Togo’s and a Corner Bakery. Go towards Jamboree and there are a good plethora of ethnic restaurants at the Diamond Jamboree center.
I don’t think any of these nearby businesses are hurting because of Occupy OC. Besides, it is the land of chain restaurants (with the exception of a few killer family run Indian restaurants). If they are hurting, they are most likely tenants of Emperor Bren’s monopolistic real estate gulag. This man’s ridiculous rental and lease agreements have done more damage to small businesses here in Irvine than a bunch of people pitching tents and holding signs on Harvard and Alton.
“If there is damage and clean up costs anywhere in OC, incluidnig Irvine, is it the taxpayers that will foot that bill or is it the occupiers? Who should it be?”……… Hmmmm
I believe that left liberals in orange jumpsuit doing community service would suffice.
No one cares, Stan; you’ve demonstrated the lack of courage of your convictions.
You care if you responded, but you are to unintelligent to know that.
I just responded because I like calling you a coward.
I know, you are too unintelligent to use satiric expression as I do.
By the way, kudos on the picture choice.
As if there was any real alternative!