Occupy OC Costs Irvine Blogger Credibility


 Powered by Max Banner Ads 

.

.

.

 

Occupy Irvine protesters (modern art version)
The dark green represents the money Occupy OC has cost Irvine, the black is for the bad will generated, the light green is for the money saved, the cyan is for the good will accrued, the gray is for information left out, and the red — very hard to see! — represents the analysis put into the Liberal OC’s story.

I can’t say that I wasn’t told that this Liberal OC, “Occupy OC Costs Irvine Taxpayers $8,600,” story was coming, but now that it’s here — well, I’m not sure what to make of it.

It doesn’t surprise me that the presence of Occupy OC has cost Irvine at least $8,600, if that’s the figure, nor that the costs include legal counsel and electronic signs to discourage honking.  Of course, one question one might ask is: what have other Occupations that have not involved peaceful and respectful cooperation between municipal government and protesters costs other cities.  As usual, Wikipedia gives us a first approximation of an answer.  We find a List of Occupations in the United States.  With citations, we find some estimated price tags (all of which are footnoted, most of which are outdated and by now higher):

Denver, $365,000.  Atlanta, $652,000.  Boston, $575,000.  Raleigh, NC, $1500 per day.  Cincinnati, $128,000.  Portland, $785,000.  Seattle, $625,000.

But what about ones in California?

Oakland, $2.4 million.  Los Angeles, $200,000 — as of Nov. 23, before the mass arrests.

So while I suppose that while one could criticize the Irvine City Council for handling our protest — which could have become much bigger and more contentious in the absence of constructive cooperation — for a relatively small expenditure, in the grand scheme it seems to be awfully wise choice.

Beyond that, there’s this question: how much of what the City spent would have had to be spent even without the City’s cooperation?  The City’s cooperation involved our ability to stay there overnight.  Those signs discouraging honking mostly apply to our being in a public park during the day — which is our right.  It is also our right to be on the sidewalk at night.  The fact that our presence leads passers-by — without our instigation — to honk and disturb the neighbors is not our intent.  (We don’t honk.)  Shutting the protest down because others do honk is unconstitutional — it’s called a “heckler’s veto.”  So those signs don’t belong on the tab.

Meanwhile, some City Attorney time drafting contracts is nothing compared to the amount that would be required for what would have been a serious civil liberties case — as some other cities may yet discover.  One question is: how much has Irvine saved?  The answer: plenty! For one thing, the City obtained concessions from us, some involving noise abatement, that it would not have otherwise obtained.

Meanwhile, Irvine has been getting great nationwide publicity for its handling of our protest — as we protesters have gotten for our handling of Irvine, which leaves us one of the longest continuing occupations in the country — so much so that when the Cleveland City Council voted to recognize its own Occupation, one of the examples cited of how to make things work was — placid little Irvine!  Was that worth $10,000 of good PR?

But perhaps the complaint is that we protesters would better not protest at all, even in the light of the way more than $8,600 than the corrupt objects of our protest have cost the county, including Irvine residents.  (It’s probably more than that per household, I’d guess, once you factor in the boom, bust, foreclosure cycle.)  That seems to be the thrust of this paragraph.

The latest agreement to allow the Occupy movement to camp expires on Dec. 21.  The OccupyOC group is not engaged in voter registration, has not endorsed any candidates for local, state or federal office and has not raised any significant money to back candidates or ballot measures that support the 99 percent.

That (except maybe for the voter registration) is true.  The Occupy protest is not a partisan effort, despite the presence of many partisans like myself within it.  So I will concede the point.  I just don’t understand the point.  If it’s that only partisan politics leads to change, my question is: well, haven’t we tried that, and didn’t we end up … here?  Maybe we need more than one tool in our shed, eh?


About Greg Diamond

Somewhat verbose worker's rights and government accountability attorney, residing in northwest Brea. General Counsel of CATER, the Coalition of Anaheim Taxpayers for Economic Responsibility, a non-partisan group of people sick of local corruption. Deposed as Northern Vice Chair of DPOC in April 2014 when his anti-corruption and pro-consumer work in Anaheim infuriated the Building Trades and Teamsters in spring 2014, who then worked with the lawless and power-mad DPOC Chair to eliminate his internal oversight. Occasionally runs for office to challenge some nasty incumbent who would otherwise run unopposed. (Someday he might pick a fight with the intent to win rather than just dent someone. You'll know it when you see it.) He got 45% of the vote against Bob Huff for State Senate in 2012 and in 2014 became the first attorney to challenge OCDA Tony Rackauckas since 2002. None of his pre-putsch writings ever spoke for the Democratic Party at the local, county, state, national, or galactic level, nor do they now. A family member co-owns a business offering campaign treasurer services to Democratic candidates and the odd independent. He is very proud of her. He doesn't directly profit from her work and it doesn't affect his coverage. (He does not always favor her clients, though she might hesitate to take one that he truly hated.) He does advise some local campaigns informally and (so far) without compensation. (If that last bit changes, he will declare the interest.)