City Gives Occupy St. Louis 25-Hour Notice to Vacate Kiener Plaza

Categories: Occupy STL
Representatives from the St. Louis parks department and mayor's office this afternoon gave participants of Occupy St. Louis 25 hours to break down their encampment in Kiener Plaza. 

Park department employees arrived with police around 2 p.m. today to deliver a notice informing the occupants that the city will begin enforcing city ordinances effective at 3 p.m. Friday, November 11, or shortly thereafter. 

That means that protesters in Kiener Plaza could face arrest if they stay in the park past the 10 p.m. curfew. City laws also prohibit camping inside the park, meaning that the dozens of tents inside Kiener Plaza must come down. 

The notice stated that city officials would collect anyone's belongings still inside the park and store them for pick up on Saturday or Sunday at a building at 1212 N. 13th Street. 

Eddie Roth, chief performance officer for the city, tells Daily RFT that city ordinances apply for everyone and the city cannot continue to allow Occupy St. Louis to ignore the law. Last night Roth presented a proposal to the occupiers to move from Kiener Plaza to a spot across from the post office on Market Street where they could have a 24-hour presence but no tents. Members of Occupy St. Louis rejected that plan. 

Angelo Dower, a 38-year-old business owner from Webster Groves who calls himself "almost a 1 percenter," says he plans on camping out this weekend at Kiener Plaza even if it means getting arrested. However, he says he'd leave should things turn violent.

"In the event that it remains peaceful, I'm willing to stand my ground and get arrested," he says.

For his part, Roth says he hopes the situation will resolve itself peacefully. 

"In the eight hours I've spent meeting with member of Occupy St. Louis over the past three days, they've told me to the person that they are non-violent and do not intend to provoke violence," he says. "I expect some to engage in civil disobedience and others to respect the law." 

Roth adds that representatives from the ACLU are expected to visit with occupiers tomorrow to coach them on civil disobedience and how to minimize the risk for police and themselves. 


My Voice Nation Help
15 comments
Sort: Newest | Oldest
aaronbbrown
aaronbbrown

For the record, I attended the protests followed by the arrests and removal of occupy St. Louis, arriving around 3 PM in the afternoon November 11, 2011, departing at around 3 AM November 12, 2011.  I was at Kiener Plaza throughout, that also accompanying the march to the federal courthouse.  At no time did I witness any violence on the part of any OccupySTL member.  The only significant argument I observed was in regard to an oil drum where some members built a fire. Other members objected to the creation of an open flame which is against the rules of the park, so the fire was extinguished.

 The only resistance offered to the police was the refusal of OccupySTL members to leave the park,  all of whom had earlier agreed to be arrested, and all of which  cooperated during their arrests, aside from one person who chained himself to a chair in a largely symbolic manner.

 I observed no violence on the part of anyone, including the police, some of whom were quite friendly and cooperative with the Occupy STL protesters. The only incident of note was an individual who collapsed during the arrest and removal process and  appeared to have a seizure, it is unclear whether he was a member of the Occupy STL movement or not. EMS was called but I'm not sure if he was transported to the hospital or left the park on his own.

I think it's important to keep in mind that each occupation, around the country and around the world, is composed of individuals, and those individuals decide how to comport themselves in these situations.  I would say that it is inaccurate, even irresponsible to make any kind of blanket statements or sweeping generalizations about the people who have joined the Occupy movement. There are commonalities that bind them together, but also vast differences of opinion as well as methods and approaches to what are now countless occupations.

aaronbbrown
aaronbbrown

It's interesting that some people, some who call themselves journalists,  always seem to  include the word “violence” when they write about the occupy movement.

 We must ask ourselves, who has an interest, a vested interest in portraying the Occupy movement as violent?  Who stands to gain and who stands to lose if and when violence occurs in these situations?  Whose political agenda is served by portraying occupy St. Louis as violent?  What ramifications arise in the eyes and mind of the public, political leaders, police departments, when the possibilities for violence are continually placed in their minds?

Some who call themselves journalists have no problem avoiding these questions, while at the same time  have had no problem making unfounded unsubstantiated unsourced assertions in some of their stories.   We must all ask ourselves, what do those journalists and the publications they work for, and the parent companies who own them, what do they stand to gain or lose with these methods?

Nope
Nope

Maybe...because Occupy really is violent?

Anonymous
Anonymous

Going to have to explain how they're violent instead of crapping in here and flying off.

OccupyYourHomes
OccupyYourHomes

GO HOME OCCUPIERS! You have no platform, you have no message, you have no agenda, you have no goals. You do not in any way represent 99% of the people of America, You're biased, bigoted, Anti-Christian and Anti-White liberal agenda is what the silent White majority wants gotten rid of!

The City already has the homeless to urinate and defecate in the plaza, it wasn't look for new volunteers to publicly release their wastes.

Your Momma
Your Momma

What? Anti-White? Anti-Christian?

Abbey
Abbey

Yup, all those white people out there clearly hate themselves.

Bill Hannegan
Bill Hannegan

Angelo, the article is about the mayor's action and so Roth's statements are the focus. Still, Chad gave you a lot of space and your quote came off well. 

Chad Garrison
Chad Garrison

Angelo removed his comments. I did not. Suffice to say, we had a misunderstanding. Angelo felt I took his comments out of context. I disagreed. I'm sorry he felt that way and apologize for any perceived slight. It certainly wasn't intended. Should I ever interview Angelo in the future, I hope it's a more pleasant experience for us both. I'm leaving my comments up here because -- as Bill notes -- it looks odd when a thread evaporates. Angelo is welcome to re-post his thoughts or add new ones.

Angelo Dower
Angelo Dower

removed

Chad Garrison
Chad Garrison

Sorry you feel that way, Angelo. But perhaps you need a primer on journalism if you're going to represent yourself as a spokesperson. I do not have to quote you in your entirety. I do not have to use the quotes you want me to use. I read back to you what I had that I could use, and I chose the quotes that best fit the article.

Now Trending

St. Louis Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...