How Occupy fell short

This post isn't about the Constitution.  I want to make that perfectly clear.  There are people in New Paltz who believe so dearly in the piece of the truth that they have in their hearts and minds, that no other pieces of truth could possibly exist.

This post is about another piece of truth regarding Occupy New Paltz.  It's the truth about perception and outreach.

Occupy is a different kind of protest.  Back when protesters were fighting against the Vietnam conflict (it wasn't a war; Congress illegally gave up the requirement of declaring war with the War Powers Act), it was easy to understand.  Agree or disagree, everyone knew that the hippies were protesting the fighting.

Our problems are more complex now.  Occupy realized that, and wouldn't simply fire off a few bullet points for the media.  It's an inclusive process that's consensus-based, and completely puzzling to anyone who hasn't made decisions that way.

But there have always been parts of the Occupation were clear.  It started on Wall Street, and spread to other places of power; centers of government and finance were targeted.  "Occupation" is a word that aptly describes how this protest has targeted specific physical locations because of their symbolic meaning.  You might not be clear what Occupy is protesting exactly, but the locations send an unmistakable message.

Again, whether you agree with that message or not, it's there.

So then the routing of the Occupations began.  Nationwide, they were ousted from the parks and the public spaces.  When Occupy Poughkeepsie was shut down, some Occupiers came to New Paltz, where village officials initially opened their arms.

I heard that there was some kind of action at a local bank, and I caught glimpses of a couple of signs in Hasbrouck Park, but I was puzzled by the choice.  What in New Paltz can represent the problems with American society that has left so many unemployed, with so few consequences for the money lenders and corporate bigwigs who drove the economy into the ground?

However, I understood that New Paltz may be the place to be because no one else would have them.  I remarked to my wife back in December that this could become the epicenter of the movement, because they would be allowed to stay.

But as a guy who doesn't venture out much in the winter, I can't say I've seen much that looks like activism.  Or protest.  The park is a poor location for visibility, and the number of people was always terribly small, so the challenges were large.  But primarily this is a question of PR, and I guess no one involved at this location had any skills in that area.

We needed to know why they were here.  Not guessing and rumors, but clear action of some kind, in-your-face action that would distinguish this protest from a bunch of people camping out in the park.

I'm here to tell you that it's still not happened.  There's a bit more talk about the legality of the protest, but no one has explained to me why New Paltz had an Occupation.

When I say "me," I am referring to every New Paltz citizen who doesn't spend his or her life focused on politics and activism.  There's more than a couple of us, I think it's fair to say.

It could be that the Occupation accomplished a lot, but I don't know about it.  And why should I know?  Because the ordinary citizens of this town need to be behind something like this if it's to succeed.  Politicians are weak, and bow to political pressure.  If the average Paltzian had been swayed to at least passively support the Occupation, it would still be there.  And no one would be spending time and money in court.  Including my tax money, when the village gets sued, which I think it will be.

Occupiers, please understand:  I want to support you.  As of now, though, I haven't the foggiest idea how or why.

Occupying New Paltz

Like most New Paltz residents, I haven't visited Occupy New Paltz in Hasbrouck Park, nor do I think there's anything wrong with that.  They're the ones hanging out in tents in the cold; I tend to agree with Jason West that it's their job to reach out and explain to me why.

West is reportedly disappointed with that lack of outreach (but given that the same reporter claimed there was only one protester left, which has been denied by Amanda Sisenstein, the group's informal liaison, at a recent village board meeting, I wonder if that reporter even shows up for the things he writes about).

At that same meeting, former trustee Robert Feldman complained about the protest.  That's great.  Feldman couldn't be bothered showing up to finish out his term as a trustee - twice - but he finds the time to show up and whine.  Does anyone listen to this guy anymore?

I wasn't able to attend that meeting, so I spoke to a trustee who does show up to do her job - Sally Rhoads.  Sally is also one of a minority of trustees who still take my calls; apparently in the politics of the village the idea is to be responsive until you're elected, and then to become much too busy to talk to voters and taxpayers.

Sally and I discussed various rumors and conjecturing going on about the local Occupy protest.  Are they stealing resources?  Making a mess?  Causing problems?  She told me that these were the kinds of questions the board had, as well.

• Electricity is being used by the protesters, taken from an outlet in the gazebo.  Apparently that outlet was once locked, but not in my memory.  Sally wasn't aware that park users regularly plug in cell phones and other devices to that outlet until I told her.  The board feels that paying for the electricity is appropriate.
• Fire safety is a concern, given that electric and/or kerosene heaters are being used around nylon tents.  Firemen are nervous and the board wants the heaters to go.
• Noise complaints were talked about, as well; apparently loud music has been heard in the early morning hours.  It's not clear if the police were ever called about that.
• Sexual assault of one or more Occupiers hit the news early on; according to Rhoads, the perp never identified himself as part of the movement, and was effectively stalking them.  As noted in a letter to the New Paltz Times, the Occupiers turned him in.
• The gazebo has been taken over, which was not part of the original plan, and it concerns the board.  In the above-referenced article West mentions that people feel like it's an intrusion to visit, so it's safe to assume that those few people who might want to enjoy the gazebo at this time of year don't feel welcome in their own park.
• Trash isn't being picked up timely, and my sense is that if sanitation doesn't improve the board will have to act.
• Being in the park after dark is now, pardon the pun, a grey area.  The board is allowing Occupy to stay there, but according to Rhoads if someone else were to hang out in the park or pitch a tent for the night, it wouldn't be okay.  I haven't spoken to the police about their approach to this yet.
• Drunk and disorderly people in the park have apparently been our usual locals, who aren't used to their gazebo being Occupied.

So the movement continues, but it's not clear exactly what it is that's being moved.  Many progressive people I have spoken to, including explicit supporters of the Occupy movement, are puzzled by Occupy New Paltz.  Given the questions asked by the village board, even the members who claim to have visited, our governing body has nary a clue what they're doing in the park and are simply reacting to complaints and rumors by asking village resident Amanda Sisenstein to get answers.

So like most things in New Paltz, we have gone off half-cocked on this protest.  Maybe it's a good thing, but even our elected officials can't provide any specific reasons why.  There are many complaints, but those complaining are equally ignorant.  Maybe the idea of having a nationally-known protest visit our park gives us a warm and fuzzy feeling of radicalism, but thus far the only thing it's accomplished is the creation of rumors and the Occupation of the village board's agenda.