BREAKING: SFPD threatening to break up Occupy S.F. encampment


San Francisco city government is cracking down on the Occupy S.F. movement, with public officials waiting until around 11 p.m. on Oct. 5 to move in and try to clear out the camp.

Police appeared on the scene in front of the Federal Reserve at the foot of Market Street in downtown San Francisco where roughly 200 protesters were camped out as part of the Occupy SF movement, and threatened to make arrests if protesters did not clear out completely within 30 minutes. The protest was a peaceful affair and the encampment had been in place since Sept. 29. The protest was called to mirror the growing Occupy Wall Street movement to oppose corporate greed and highlight the role of financial institutions in an economic decline resulting in a rising wave of foreclosures, unemployment, and cuts to public services.

Yael Chanoff, who was at the encampment on behalf of the San Francisco Bay Guardian, phoned in to report that police officers had issued notices telling people that they had to clear out because they were in violation of local city ordinances such as public nuisance laws, rules requiring permits for temporary structures, and the newly adopted sit/lie ordinance. Officers were taking photographs of the camp, presumably for evidence. Trucks from the city's Department of Public Works had lined up on the street, she said.

Roughly 50 police officers in standard uniform were there, carrying "stacks of zip ties," she added. Alexandra List, a protester, said that a commanding officer on the scene had told her no one would be arrested if the structures were removed completely within 30 minutes. Chanoff estimated that there were about 20 structures.

Chanoff said protesters were meeting to try and find out how to proceed, but some had decided to begin taking down the tents.

UPDATE: The Guardian spoke with SFPD public information officer Albie Esparza, who told us, "the sidewalks are being cleared of debris," and mentioned that protesters had been in violation of certain codes, such as a fire code prohibiting open flames that applied to outdoor cooking setups. "They have the right to protest as individuals, obviously," he said. Asked why it was so urgent that these codes be enforced at 11 p.m. when the streets are virtually empty, Esparza said, "I don't know what the reason was for the timing."


Yael Chanoff contributed to this report.



Take down the tents tonight, avoid arrest, return tomorrow with twice as many people to put up twice as many tents.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 05, 2011 @ 10:23 pm

we will all come saturday show whos in charge of this country im bringing hundreds of peolple saturday take our country back

Posted by Guest on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 9:21 am

They wait till the night and then move in when they think no one is watching!

In New York, they did a mass arrest of 700 people. They had to commandeer city busses to do it. The next day, the transit workers announced that they wouldn't do it any more. It's time the labor movement in SF took a stand and joined the protests like in New York.

And note too, this is another reason it's important to have a DA with a moral compass. When the SFPD mass-arrested the anti-war protesters in 2003, Hallinan refused to charge them. I have no doubt that Gascon would throw the book at them. Which is another reason why we shouldn't have a cop as DA (besides the incompetence). But what about the other candidates? Would Bock refuse to charge the way Hallinan did? Would Onek? I'm not so sure. This needs to become a campaign issue.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 05, 2011 @ 10:43 pm

first person?

Posted by meatlock on Oct. 05, 2011 @ 11:15 pm

What happened in NY is a lie. 700 people were NOT ARRESTED. You are a fucking asshole spreading lies.

Posted by get your story straight on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 2:59 pm

Looks like you don't know what the fuck you are talking about loser. Here's the NY Times report:

Pertinent paragraph from that report:

"Updated, 1:23 p.m. Sunday | In a tense showdown above the East River, the police arrested more than 700 demonstrators from the Occupy Wall Street protests who took to the roadway as they tried to cross the Brooklyn Bridge on Saturday afternoon."

Posted by 'anonymous' on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 3:24 pm

We must support the protestors, and join in as we are able. This is just the beginning. People are waking up and realizing that predatory capitalism has bankrupted the country and transferred our national wealth into the irresponsible hands of the richest 1% while wreaking havoc on the planetary ecosystem (not to mention the horrors it has inflicted on all the countries our military-industrial machine is occupying and/or terrorizing).

Posted by Guest on Oct. 05, 2011 @ 11:18 pm

There was a post on the OCCUPYSF site a few minutes ago saying that John Avalos was on his way down there. Hope this is true. Does raise the question as to whether Jane Kim is gonna do anything. Hope so, it's her turf, unless she's out clubbing with the interim mayor.
There is occasionally some spotty live feed at
Probably about time to get together, leave our egos agendas and isms at the door, strategize and really christen the BUCK as Birthplace of the Baghdad By the Bay Renaissance, ain't that what it's supposed to be all about @@

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Oct. 05, 2011 @ 11:43 pm

Moral support from afar.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 7:24 am

There are two really obvious reasons to do it at 11pm: 1) Fewer people to see/watch/document what happens. Fewer people participating in general, in fact. 2) Less impact on city traffic. Doing so during business hours would really mess with traffic in the area.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 12:04 am
Posted by Guest1 on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 1:02 am

Confirmed John Avalos and reps from National Lawyers Guild on site, however latest word is that SFPD have moved in, SFDPW trucks are being loaded with peoples gear and belongings, two possible arrests of folks trying to prevent their 'stuff' being trashed. Sad as it, it was not unexpected. However in their usual myopic reactionary way the 'authorities' have probably opened a Pandora's bow. BOS meeting next week should be fun, and maybe any number of Committee meetings in he meantime. That's all folks.

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 1:38 am

I will march again tomorrow and every day this week from noon till 1pm. There are likely many others like me if we can just get the word out.


Perhaps there can be direct support lent to those on the street? We have loads of folks in that condition in our nation. How about we get THEM some money.? -- That is after all why we are doing this. Please help each other, as in, right now.


Posted by Robert Kolbe on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 2:10 am

And then go back to your job at a Bank?

Posted by Wanda on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 6:33 am

Lots of informative first person tweets @JournalismSandy

Posted by Guest on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 7:04 am

Lots of informative first person tweets- @JournalismSandy

Posted by Guest on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 7:05 am

They threw the book at them. It must have taken all 50 of those officers to come up with the laundry list of violations

Call the public servants responsible and let them know what you think:
Mayor Ed Lee: (415) 554-6141
SF Board of Supervisors: (415) 554-5184
SF District Attorney: (415) 554-5184

Posted by Gardner Bickford on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 7:18 am

The number for the SF district attorney is (415) 551-1751

Posted by Greg on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 8:38 am

The number for the DA's office

Posted by Greg on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 8:46 am

When the smoke clears,

It will be Jeff Adachi standing in court defending the demonstrators.

Now, if we can get him elected Mayor, we'll have someone in Room 200 who represents the people and not Warren Hellman and the uber-rich.

go Niners!


Posted by h. brown on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 7:39 am

and ask him not to charge them, and then see him laugh in your face.

As for Adachi, he's been a good public defender. That's all he'll ever be. And that's all he should be. He should stick to the job he does well.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 8:23 am

I'm, for the most part, politically aligned with the 'Occupy' movement, but if you break the law, you can't be outraged if you get caught/arrested/etc.

It's the "OH MY GOSH, THE COPS ARE AFTER US BECAUSE THEY HATE OUR MESSAGE" indignation that starts activating the cynic centers of my brain.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 7:41 am

Come on, these people are staying out in the cold and rain and speaking up for everyone who has lost their home, their savings, their jobs so Wall Street can rake in the dough on illegal and unethical transactions as if they weren't already making enough previously when regulated properly by our asleep at the wheel Congress. The Dems and Republicans have sat on their hands and watched this happen. It is a farce to charge these folks. Charge the banks who had people autosigning deeds to foreclose on families that were tricked into subprime loans that were then sold to retirees for their mutual funds. Give me a break. The only law they were breaking of any substance was to shut up and pay the man.

Posted by Maria on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 8:14 am

Don't think the wording was accidental. That is what they think of us.

Well, this has motivated me to come out. Let's show them just how much "debris" there is.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 8:31 am

its time to take the protest in full force we will come in many numbers of people show the the truth of coruption in the market place , the greed must stop

Posted by Guest on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 9:19 am

Go protest the Banks when they are all closed for business on a Saturday. Then catch some shopping afterwards.

Then Monday morning, you'll be back working for the same system. Hypocrisy or pragmatics? Dunno, but it doesn't sound like a revolution to me.

Posted by Wanda on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 9:33 am

Stop insulting people who are motivated and mobilizing to help, at whatever time of day or week. Are you a provocateur?


Then stop acting like one.

Posted by 'anonymous' on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 9:57 am

and week-end warriors are not going to overthrow capitalism.

You can't change the world if you're not even willing to take a day off work to make a difference.

Posted by Wanda on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 11:30 am

Give me a break. Those people (many of whom have to bust their asses at overtime jobs just to eat and have a roof over their heads) are both perfect allies, and also unable to spend 24/7 at the encampment if they want to feed their kids.

Are you seriously telling me that the movement is better off if they don't show up at all?

What a crock of shit. Get down off of your fucking high horse and start engaging with, sharing mutual aid with, and building a movement with those others, instead of criticizing them.

Posted by 'anonymous' on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 12:09 pm

No insider info,

I've met him, like once and we had a disagreement about whether the department had enough troops to man permanent foot beats and kiosks. But I know his history and it's all about helping the downtrodden. He's from a blue collar family in Cuba who were expelled for challenging a dictatorship. He put hundreds of armed cops in Mesa, Arizona against the facist, Sheriff Joe Arpaio's racist deputies.

Watch and see.

Be honest though.

This is fun.

We should thank God for living, 'in interesting times'.

Go Niners!


Posted by h. brown on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 9:31 am

The cops would not be busting up the encampment in front of the Federal Reserve of San Francisco unless Gascón was behind them.

Either Gascón is standing with the San Francisco Federal Reserve and its billionaire owners the way that Jeff Adachi is standing with Michael Moritz and Ron Conway who is also paying for Weiner's attack on the integrity of your initiative vote.

We'd expect Gascón to side with the elites. But it is truly astounding to see how Matt Gonzalez and Jeff Adachi can go from progressive darlings to candidates for tarring and feathering by a nascent populist uprising in a few short years.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 9:54 am

George Gascon says he came to this country in 1966 as a teenager with his "anti-communist family" on one of the so-called Freedom Flights.

So what was the context Freedom Flights anyway?

Well, in 1959 Fidel Castro overthrew the US-backed right-wing dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista. Castro's revolution didn't start out as Communist per se, but he had the idea of using Cuba's resources for the benefit of the Cuban people. Over the years, that has meant profound improvements in literacy, equality, and health. But it also meant that all those US corporations, which were robbing the Cuban people of their national wealth, were going to be nationalized. This angered the US, and within very short order, Castro realized that if any kind of people's revolution was going to survive, it would have to align itself with a superpower. Given the geopolitics of the time, that could only mean the Soviet Union. And given the proximity of the US trying repeatedly to overthrow the new government, as well as the demands of the Soviet Union, multiparty democracy wasn't exactly an option for the revolution in those days.

In the early years of the revolution, those who supported Batista and were opposed to any kind of revolution against that dictatorship fled the country. They were not, by and large, expelled. For the most part, this first wave of exiles consisted of a wealthy elite who were benefitting from the previous dictatorship. These were not blue-collar families.

The so-called Freedom Flights were a second wave of immigration that operated from 1965-1972. They were directly financed by the government of the United States, which was trying to undermine the Cuban revolution in any way possible. Fidel Castro said that "any anti-revolutionary Cuban who wanted to could leave." However, the flights were only open to direct relatives of the largely wealthy immigrants who immigrated in the first wave, and there was a waiting list of 1-2 years. No one was forced to board one of those "Freedom Flights."

I don't know Gascon's personal history. Unfortunately, the only bios of George Gascon that I can find on the web, are composed directly and indirectly from the story he himself tells. There is no way to verify or refute the story, and I have yet to dig up information on the activities of his family during the previous Batista dictatorship, or what it is that caused them to align politically the way they did. However, the story of the Freedom Flights as a whole can perhaps provide some additional context to the story that he publicly puts out.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 11:13 am

they haven't been moved out. The owner of that land has not asked the police to remove them. Yet.

The SF camp was on a busy street and sidewalk. Big difference.

Posted by Wanda on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 9:52 am

Right, the sidewalk is public space, the City is the "owner" of that land. We are the "owners" of the City.

This is purely a discretionary political call, and Ed Lee, George Gascón and Greg Suhr are doing what their 1% masters tell them to do.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 10:32 am

City property does not mean you can do what you want with it. Try occupying City Hall, the Courtrooms or the Library and watch what will happen - the same as here.

The Wall St. crowd were a lot smarter. You need to find a squat somewhere.

Posted by Wanda on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 11:26 am


The DA doesn't command the cops. The Police Chief does. The DA considers charges brought by the cops. Again, the cops aren't there because Gascon allows them to be there. They are there because the Police Chief ordered them there. So far it looks as though they've been fairly reserved.

Go Giants!


Posted by h. brown on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 10:09 am

Cops don't bust unless the DA is willing to prosecute.

Why did Gascón authorize the disbursement of the encampment? Had the encampment not moved, Gascón would be on the hook for prosecution.

Otherwise, Gascón would put the City on the hook for a lawsuit.

Georgie cannot have it both ways. Which side is he on?

The answer to that is obvious, Gascón is on the same side as Jeff Adachi, Matt Gonzalez, Warren Hellman, Ron Conway and Michael Moritz.

Whatever happened to that douchebag who appointed Gascón anyway?

Posted by marcos on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 10:24 am

Oops, dispersing, not disbursement. If we was getting disbursements from the Fed like Gascón's patrons are then we'd not be protesting now would we?

Posted by marcos on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 10:38 am

It just means compelling people to "move on" when they are causing an obstruction, disobeying the sit-lie law or otjerwise causing a nuisance. So by not arresting the crowd, the police were being lenient and the DA would not need to be involved.

Posted by Wanda on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 11:28 am

Your last remark brings it all into focus.

Posted by 'anonymous' on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 12:13 pm

You're entitled to protest and the cops are entitled to arrest you for obstruction.

When was that ever not true?

Posted by Wanda on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 12:25 pm

We don't need you to explain the law to us, you security state loving, sycophantic, throwback to the 20th century.

Those who would trade freedom for security, deserve neither.

Posted by 'anonymous' on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 12:43 pm

of the protestors on Market St., and explaining why they were disbursed and neutralized much quicker than those in NYC who, so far, have remained in place due to the largesse of the property owner.

99.99% of the population of the Bay Area have decided NOT to join the protest.

Posted by Wanda on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 12:54 pm

Bullshit. The law has nothing to do with this. This is about the political will of those in charge of the cops.

And the only reason you are even bringing any of this up, is so that you can be a negativist attacker of the movement.

A movement you and the people who pay you will not be able to stop no matter how well you dissemble.

Posted by 'anonymous' on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 5:12 pm

be terminated if public access is obstructed.

Do these protestors have a license from the City to congregate and obstruct a public right of way? No. So the cops are doing their job by neutralizing the disturbance.

You can demonstrate. But you can't obstruct. Hope you can afford bail.

Posted by Don on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 5:33 pm

You changed your name from Wanda to Don.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 5:57 pm
Posted by 'anonymous' on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 6:17 pm

And before that this Troll had a number of other aliases, all espousing the same authoritarian bullshit in the same moronic repetitive manner.
This chump loves to suck some Ed Lee, central subway and PG&E dick, and loves attempting to upset people with a firehose of unsubstantiated, fact-free bullshit.
The pointless arguments here are just re-vomits from PaulT's ignorant postings regarding the BART protests.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 1:53 pm

and more commenting on the stories would be welcome. I don't read the comments to passively participate in you guy's obsession with who's posting what.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 6:50 pm

and wish we wouldn't make it so uncomfortable for Trolls like yourself.
Too bad.

What's your contribution to the discussion?
How do we get our money back from the banks and the corrupt politicians and the ridiculously wealthy who have conspired to steal it?
I'm thinking massive taxes (if they don't like it they can move to their favorite tax haven) and tariffs on goods sold here that are manufactured elsewhere.

I also favor a new massive bailout, where, instead of giving the money to the banks, we simply give a check to every single U.S. citizen.
3 trillion dollars equals about ten thousand each.
That should help kick start things.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 7:32 pm

Also from this author

  • Capitalizing on the Auld Mug

    Lawsuit alleges America's Cup organizers unfairly rejected African American sailing team and breached trustee duties by self-dealing

  • 12 arrested in raid of occupied Oakland home

  • iProtest

    The revolution will not be powered by smartphones (but these apps might help it along)