RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF OCCUPY SANTA CRUZ
(Linda's Hearth: presumed DRAFT until this parenthetical disappears)
WHEREAS, the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors in its representative capacity serves to support and foster those values and beliefs held by the people of Santa Cruz County and,
WHEREAS, Santa Cruz County has a long and cherished tradition of preserving and defending the individual rights and civil liberties of all those who work and strive for social justice; and
WHEREAS, it has been and remains the policy of the Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Department to support and protect the principles of free speech and freedom of assembly so cherished by our community, and
WHEREAS, Occupy Santa Cruz and the Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Department have been and continue to be engaged in a cooperative and respectful dialogue to address the rights and concerns of the all members of our community and,
WHEREAS, it is the sense of the Board of Supervisors that our community is alarmed and concerned about the recent events in the City of Oakland and,
WHEREAS, Occupy Santa Cruz is committed to a philosophy and mission of nonviolence in pursuit of its goals, and
WHEREAS, Occupy Santa Cruz has galvanized our community in an unprecedented action that reflects the finest principles of free speech and freedom of assembly,
BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors supports the efforts of Occupy Santa Cruz to peacefully work for social justice and create true economic change.
Linda's Hearth note: I published this long b4 I edited, as you can see. footnote here should likely be headline, etc. This is the draft sent by Steve Pleisch in support of Occupy Santa Cruz,to the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors. I like it. I have two ideas for it, hope to present to Pleisch or the Bd of Supes?
ReplyDeleteFree speech and freedom of assembly? Absolutely. People should feel free to march, demonstrate and speak out to their heart's content. Camping out in a public park? That's another matter. Many of the people there admit they're just looking for a place to camp. Do we give up our park indefinitely because some of them carry signs?
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous, sorry it's taken so long to reply, "they" changed how this blog-kit works and I'm a very dull learner on techie stuff.
ReplyDeleteTo your question, I agree with you, we should not have to give up the public parks so people can protest a perceived injustice.
But there needs to be real places, visible to people at large, where people CAN demonstrate, where then CAN congregate, and where they can "get a load off."
We have allowed, many of us pushing them, for our City leaders and city planners, to take back more and more of "the public" space. We have made MANY decisions based on the premise that everyone "worthy" will have a car. This is not viable, for planning purposes, it is no longer true.
This is a major urban problem these days, and luckily we live in a bit quieter space. But we need -- all of us -- to learn to resolve such problems, rather than just police it into greater problems, greater expense we all pay, and much greater chances of NEVER having real dialogue and problem-solving conversations.
Do you have some ideas that are viable? It truly doesn't seem to me that making almost everyone under thirty into a criminal is a fwise growth strategy? I've met occupiers, and I KNOW those younger adults would have learned a hella lot more by having to re-sod the lawn at the Water St courthouse plaza, under County supervision, than they will learn by being "punished." but THAT's not how the insurance industry works, so too bad, nobody learns what matters, nobody gets to save some government monies, and nobody knows what did NOT get dealt with because we use our police for everything from diplomat to janitor.