With the 72-hour notice to vacate ticking toward a Friday deadline, Occupy Seattle may not be moving far, Publicola reports that is discussing making space for the group:
Last week, Bishop Gregory Rickel sent out an email to church members, asking them for their input on allowing Occupy to set up tents in the church’s parking lot. On Sunday, church members also met with Occupy Seattle protesters to discuss the potential move.
In an email to St. Mark’s members, Bishop Rickel said ”one compelling point” Occupy Seattle has made for the move “is that the movement needs to find ‘uncontested ground’ in which to move beyond simple survival and begin the work of solidifying their mission and vision.”
On Tuesday, CHS reported on decision to act on the emergency rule banning the camp from the school’s grounds.
A move to 10th Ave E St. Mark’s would put the Occupiers in a space that regularly hosts the Tent City 3 homeless camps on the edge of the greenbelt overlooking I-5 in northern Capitol Hill.
A representative for the church tells Publicola that there is no timeline for reaching a decision and that a full “tent city” would not be allowed if Occupy does move a mile north.
UPDATE: Here’s the full text of the email sent by Rickel:
Wednesday, November 30
Dear Ones,
This past week your leadership at Saint Mark’s was approached by the Occupy Seattle movement. The leadership of Occupy which we are speaking with, and we believe to be quite influential in the movement, is searching for a way to avoid what we saw happen in Oakland and other cities. In that respect, this is quite different, and perhaps a new model for the country. What is remarkable in this case is that they approached us, they came to our door asking for a hearing. Along with representatives of your leadership at Saint Mark’s, I also met with them yesterday to hear some of the dreams and hopes, and I believe the intention is to find a peaceful, and constructive way forward.
One compelling point made is that the movement needs to find “uncontested ground” in which to move beyond simple survival and begin the work of solidifying their mission and vision. It was made quite clear to me that they are not requesting space for the tent city itself, the actual living portion of the camp, this will be housed at an entirely different location, but instead their offices, and other missional activities. I must tell you that I have not concluded any position on this myself. I still have questions too. What I do believe is that you, the people of Saint Mark’s deserve an open conversation about this, and your leadership needs the same in order to hear your thoughts on this proposal. We are in the learning mode right now and I urge everyone to be patient, to be gentle with one another, to listen, to learn, and then to be clear about your thoughts. Regardless of what you might have heard, a decision has not been made. Also, you may know that there is a reported deadline for Occupy to leave their current location. I have been very clear with their leadership that their deadline is not our deadline. We will not be rushed into any decision on this based on any deadline they have at the current site. You should also know I am not advocating any decision, but I am insisting that we not ignore their request, and that we engage it in a manner which pays honor to who we say we are.
I recently read an article in the Christian Century regarding the Occupy London movement coming to the doorway of St. Paul’s Cathedral. In that article the following description of a cathedral was one I captured to keep and now share.
A cathedral is designed to be a place where humans glimpse an alternate way of seeing the world. The point of the soaring architecture and the glorious art is to reorient human beings and help them see the world according to God’s purposes-and then to carry that vision back into everyday life.
In that respect, the work of a cathedral is profoundly linked to what the Occupy protesters are doing. They too are questioning the way things are and trying to envision a society oriented toward different priorities. a cathedral, and every other church, should be grateful when strangers bring that project to the doorstep.
In this season of Advent, we remember the coming of Christ, to a world unaware, and in many ways unsuspecting. We hear the story of the Holy Family being turned away, and of the very Savior we follow, being relegated to a lowly manger as his place to come into the world. It too was a case of strangers bringing a quite worthy reality to their door. In this season, at the very least, we can, and should, with compassion, listen. I invite you to come Sunday and listen to the story of the Occupy Seattle folks present and to enter a direct conversation about shared hopes, dreams and concerns. This will happen at the forums to be held between services and after the 11 a.m. service this Sunday. I invite you into the conversation.
Blessings,
+Greg
You don’t seem to be “occupying” anything and accepting the St. Marks invite kinda puts you in the same category as Nickelsville. Is that what you are? Homeless? How are the folks camping under the Cherry Street exit onto I-5 different than you. Or why aren’t you occupying that? Or anything place else that doesn’t seem so pathetic?
I was one your side. Once.
Yes, of course you were, Cody. We remember it well. tsk tsk
Occupation is a useful tactic because its ongoing, highly visible staying power makes it much harder for the media or the public to ignore the demonstration. For example, the mere suggestion that Occupy could continue to inhabit Capitol Hill already netted coverage in the blog and a (snarky) comment from you.
Contrast the tremendous media attention devoted to the relatively small Occupy encampment at SCCC with the fleeting coverage of the very well attended, 5000 strong Occupy march through downtown Seattle in October. Occupation gets attention. It keeps Occupy and its message in the public eye.
Occupy is different from “folks camping under the Cherry Street exit [sic] onto I-5” because it’s an intentional community, for one thing. In addition to Occupy’s main objective of providing a focus for Americans’ anger about vast income inequalities and corporate domination of our society, the Occupy encampment gives people a chance to try out other ways of living together that might prove to be more democratic and egalitarian than the mainstream culture. It’s an interesting and potentially enlightening experiment.
While going into Dick Blicks, I looked across the street and was startled to see the occupiers still there. The weather was cold, cloudy, wet, bleak and near freezing. Only a few weeks ago someone was showing photos on the worldwide internet news, one of the occupiers deficating on the street, oblivious of passing pedestrians and cars, how disgusting! Well, maybe that deficater can now do his stuff behind St. Marks, or a tree. I suppose the congregation of St. Marks will feel sanctified. They would be better served to help the truely homeless, not a bunch of whinny spoiled little brats.
Somebody get Vinylly a dictionary, stat, before he comments again!
We won’t even mention the comma splices.
The occupy movement sounds more like tent city for homeless people than an organised protest.
But I suspect that most of their parishioners are right there in the 99%
Is there still a preschool at St. Marks (just N. of the cathedral store)? I guess they were happy with its proximity to Tent City when it was there (couple of times). However, as I recall from its visit to St. Joe’s, Tent City very closely monitors/regulates its residents behavior, and patrols (and picks up trash in) the surrounding areas. I guess that might require something in the way of a command structure.
If the St. Mark’s do-gooders decide to allow this, I predict that they will soon be sorry about their decision. Tent City is a pretty responsible organization and they actually adhere to their “good neighbor” policies, but another OS camp will be a very different thing.
Parishioners: Do you really want all the problems that have existed at the SCCC camp? Do you think things will be somehow be different on your property?
Yes, there is still a preschool there…it’s just south of the cathedral’s store. And there is a private elementary school (BrightWater) just north of the cathedral. I have the feeling neither of these schools is very happy about the proposal to allow an OS camp there.
Dear Madam shrdlu,
I admit, up front, that I don’t know if you’re delusional or just a provocateur. The myth that all publicity is good publicity is… a myth. Some of us ordinary mortals, upon receiving said publicity, can’t tell the difference between I-5 and SCCC squatters. You know why? Cause there aint be none. Let’s look at some statistics:
0 – percentage of people, before OS, who loved large banks.
0 – percentage of people, before OS, who loved large corporations.
0 – percentage of people, before OS, who believed all was wine and roses.
I suppose it possible from day to day that some forget that the economy smells a little sour – but not as sour as OS as we are reminded on a daily basis.
Please, now, diagram my sentences and correct me grammar.
i’m confused:
“…the movement needs to find ‘uncontested ground’ in which to move beyond simple survival and begin the work of solidifying their mission and vision.””
wasn’t the movement given ‘uncontested ground’ by mayor mcginn before they even moved to sccc? they were (and possibly still are) welcome at city hall. why didn’t they move there?
Argh, matey, ye have the grammar of a pirate! There ain’t be none finer!
I find it fascinating that Occupy has the capacity to so powerfully get under the skin of some people, like you, umvue. Their presence at SCCC is quite unobtrusive, yet reading the constant carping of you and a few others, you’d think that they had set up camp in your dining room and “deficated” on your table.
My theory is that Occupy provides a regular reminder of some very unpleasant facts about our economy and our government, facts that we would prefer not to think about. As long as nobody said anything, we could pretend that we live in a democracy and that a brighter future might await us.
But Occupy reminds us that we are totally screwed by a greedy elite who (enabled by the US government, which they bought) have gamed the system to ensure that we will remain totally screwed. This realization is painful, and for people like you, umvue, and some others, your response is to lash out at the messengers.
So you try to demonize a group of idealistic young people working for a better world. I know you’ve never actually visited Occupy or spoken with anyone there, umvue, because if you had, your vicious words would stick in your throat.
They won’t be there long. Camping out near St. Marks is WAY less fun than camping out at Broadway & Pine. That’s why they moved from downtown to begin with– it’s way more fun to party in the middle of Capitol Hill than Westlake Ctr.
If the current Occupy camp is made of homeless people, as many commenters seem to argue, then they do need a place to go regardless of their political status. In that way, St. Marks is doing them (and perhaps us) a favor. Bless them.
I think some clarification of St. Mark’s intentions is in order.
My understanding from the PubliCola story is that they are considering permitting some tents for “offices,” perhaps for informational kiosks or meeting spaces, but that “camping” was not an option.
etaoin shrdlu,
Occupy does provide a constant reminder that there are a lot of lazy people who don’t want to work hard camping at SCCC.
Don’t let that get under your skin.
Occupy gets under my skin all right, tmo — just like an injection of pure, unadulterated hope for the future of our country and the world.
What a rush.
I live near St. Joe’s. This summer they had a tent city occupying their parking lot/play field. None of us neighbors could even tell they were there. How unlike they were to the OWS ‘el sickos’!
A train wreck get a lot of publicity and attention too eatoin. Clearly the web hits here over the past two weeks have been in that category.
Stop with the silly camping already. Why occupy Seattle? You should be occupying K Street in DC. If all these splinter groups would converge on the nations capitol something might actually get done.
Could you imagine 10k people outside the whitehouse every day chanting about money and corruption in our govt?
If you are going to be homeless and camp out indefinately, you might as well do it somewhere relevant and go after those directly responsible.
This was not meant as a reply to disappointed neighbor
I can’t imagine 10k people shitting on the sidewalk. At least I don’t want to imagine it.
It do, eh? The worst train wreck around here is the grammar of the anti-Occupy grouches. I blame home schooling.
Obviously, Occupy is a PR disaster. That’s why everybody from your local retailer to the Democratic Party is glomming onto the “99%” meme.
@etaoin shrdlu
“That’s why everybody from your local retailer to the Democratic Party is glomming onto the “99%” meme.”
yeah, but that might not be a win for occupy. a retailer co-opting your cause to promote their door-buster sales, because you’re a “poor 99%er”, doesn’t seem like a successful long-term tactic. and the democratic party? the one that the occupiers keep saying is just as corrupt as the republicans and wall street? of course they’re going to glom onto the “99%” message; they want to stay in office next year and they’ll say/support anything to do it.
i agree that occupy had raised the level of discourse about social inequality but it quickly devolved into a petty squabble about where they wanted to camp out overnight. why did they not take the mayor up on his offer to camp at city hall if, ultimately, their camping was just about, “…find[ing] ‘uncontested ground’ in which to move beyond simple survival and begin the work of solidifying their mission and vision.“”?
you can tell by the level of discourse on pretty much every blog and online newspaper post that camping is now what most people associate with “occupy”. i don’t see how that can lead to success. and the very poll you cited two weeks ago on this blog (“The most recent public opinion survey showed one third of the respondents supported the Occupy movement (Public Policy Polling, 11/16).“) shows that the people’s support for occupy is dropping. maybe it’s time for occupy to drop off the radar and rethink their stance/tactics?
“[Occupy] quickly devolved into a petty squabble about where they wanted to camp out overnight.”
Let’s not confuse CHS comment threads with the outside world. There’s been plenty of squabbling in the blog, but at Occupy sites around the country we see a mix of ongoing successful Occupations and (sometimes brutal) police attacks on Occupy sites. (Btw, after those police attacks, and probably because of them, Occupy’s poll numbers went up again.)
Here in Seattle, the GA vote to move to SCCC passed with a four fifths majority, so no squabbling within Occupy about where they wanted to camp. Why not City Hall? Because the GA voted to go to SCCC.
Of course, there’s been wailing and gnashing of teeth from SCCC, the Capitol Hill Chamber of Commerce, and Broadway Business Improvement Association, but that really can’t be characterized as “squabbling” either. More like a sudden discovery of the grave public health consequences of people “deficating” on the sidewalk and passersby slipping in it. (The anti-Occupy fixation on poop is screaming for a psychological study.)
Although the Democrats naturally want to turn support for Occupy into votes for Obama next year, to its credit Occupy shows absolutely no interest in getting co-opted by them.
Regarding Occupy’s future tactics, they’re a very creative group and I’m sure we’ll see them develop effective new concepts. But they’re off to a stunningly strong start with the Occupations.
@etaoin shrdlu
“Let’s not confuse CHS comment threads with the outside world.”
i’m not talking about JUST chs comment threads. reread my comment, i state, “…on pretty much every blog and online newspaper post…“. and i also provide a link to a poll you yourself cite, that shows that support for occupy is fading and, in fact, support for the tea party is growing over that of occupy. the thing you and i have in common? i don’t think either of us like the tea party.
“Here in Seattle, the GA vote to move to SCCC passed with a four fifths majority, so no squabbling within Occupy about where they wanted to camp. Why not City Hall? Because the GA voted to go to SCCC.“
fine, but that doesn’t answer the question i asked. i’ll ask it again, “why did they not take the mayor up on his offer to camp at city hall if, ultimately, their camping was just about, “…find[ing] ‘uncontested ground’ in which to move beyond simple survival and begin the work of solidifying their mission and vision.””?“
the only answer i can come up with is that camping was their tent-pole tenet for the movement and they wanted to have some agitation about what they were doing. and, to my way of thinking, that’s the wrong move if you are trying to resolve the long laundry list of complaints occupy has.
lastly…
squabble – n. – A noisy petty quarrel.
that sounds like what’s been going on over at sccc for the past couple of weeks. i never said it was only internal (or at all) to occupy. and yes, what has happened between sccc, chcc, bbia and occupy has been a ‘squabble’. occupy needs to get over it, move on and…
read more
t the message out.
and i get you want to keep banging the…
read….
read more
br/>read more
re
um on police brutality but it’s not germane to this topic we’re discussing. there’s been no police brutality (yet) regarding occupy sccc. so let’s stick to the topic.
but since you brought it up. please cite where occupy’s numbers have gone up since the police brutality.
“[W]hat has happened between sccc, chcc, bbia and occupy has been a ‘squabble’. occupy needs to get over it, move on and get the message out.”
It’s not Occupy’s job to serve as squabble cop. If the poop-obsessed Broadway business types, SCCC administrators, and CHS commenters feel like a-squabblin’, that’s their prerogative. There’s nothing for Occupy to “get over” or “move on” from.
Polls indicate that Occupy is “getting the message out” quite effectively. The Field Poll of 1,000 registered California voters, published Tuesday, Nov. 29, 2011, nicely illustrates that fact:
“While voters are about evenly divided in their identification with the Occupy movement, there is greater consensus when Californians are asked whether they agree or disagree with the underlying reason for these protests, with 58% majority saying they agree with it, while 32% disagree.
“Majorities of voters in virtually every gender, age, race/ethnicity, household income and region of the state agree with the underlying reason for the protests, with African-Americans (73% agreement) and voters under age 30 (69%) most in agreement.”
A substantial majority of registered CA voters agree with the underlying reason for the Occupy protests. In an election, a 58% majority is a mega-landslide. If we’re trying to weigh the effectiveness of Occupy’s approach, that’s rather more significant than the fuming of a handful of fecalphobe (or are they fecalphile?) CHS blog commenters.
Don’t you think? Or don’t you.
@etaoin shrdlu
wow! insults from you. shocker!
i never said that occupy wasn’t getting a message out. i asked about their support numbers going up. i linked to a report you referenced a couple of weeks ago that shows their support going down. asked to cite a poll showing their support numbers going up, you cite this poll taken of california voters (hint: seattle is in washington state):
“When asked to what extent they themselves identify with the Occupy protest movement, slightly less than half (46%) of California voters say they identify a lot (19%) or some (27%) with it. About half of all voters (49%) declare not much identification with the movement and 5% have no opinion.“
i too agree that the underlying reasons for the current state of our economy are the fault of wall street and corrupt politicians. but i don’t agree with what seattle occupy is doing currently to address the issues. they are squabbling with sccc about their “right” to camp overnight as part of their protest. they need to change the direction of the discourse in seattle from “where the tent city will be” to “how/when will we see regulatory changes on wall street”.
and there’s still no answer to my question (way to evade):
“why did they not take the mayor up on his offer to camp at city hall if, ultimately, their camping was just about, “…find[ing] ‘uncontested ground’ in which to move beyond simple survival and begin the work of solidifying their mission and vision.””?“
also, do you live on capitol hill? do you even live in the seattle area?
you’re all fucking pathetic this is a fucking pathetic argument fuck you fuck all of this
Tell us what you really think.