Occupy CR Saga

Note: I changed the headline after the city complained that they are requiring a removal of personal property, not an eviction.

So the city of Cedar Rapids has decided that Occupy Cedar Rapids' small encampment at the corner of M Avenue and 1st Street N.W must go. All "personal property" must be gone by 8 a.m. Tuesday, according to the city, or city workers will remove it.

The city says it's enforcing an ordinance. From a news release:

The City's notice stated that “the placement, accumulation, use, and storage on the premises of all personal property, including but not limited to wood pallets, firewood, fire pits, tents, furniture, clothing, food, temporary or permanent structures, signs, displays, and any and all other articles, constitutes a violation of the laws of the City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and all such items must be removed from the premises immediately.” The City's notice requested cooperation in voluntarily removing all items of personal property from the premises by 8:00 a.m. on Tuesday, November 22, 2011.

City staff members have met and contacted the Occupy Cedar Rapids group several times since November 5, 2011 to request that a special events application be submitted to the City regarding the activities taking place on the site. The group did not submit the application by the deadline of Friday, November 18.

Occupy Cedar Rapids' attorney Bob Wilson said he filed a lawsuit this afternoon in district court seeking to stop the city from taking that action, although it's doubtful any court action will come before the 8 a.m. deadline. Wilson argues that Occupy Cedar Rapids doesn't need a permit to meet on land purchased with FEMA funds for the "greenway" portion of the city's planned flood control system. And because Occupy CR isn't really a formal organization, no "special event" permit is required.

"The space is greenway," Wilson told me today. "Greenway property can be used for, among other things, for meetings like this. It's not subject to the zoning ordinances of Cedar Rapids as they contend. They're exercising their rights. There's no alcohol or drugs allowed.

"FEMA paid for all the property out there and if it's FEMA's money, then it's greenway and that's our contention. The city apparently doesn't like the fact that they're gathering out there and discussing government, including the city. And what they're doing is contending they're exercising their right of freedom of assembly and freedom of speech," Wilson said.

"There's no organization. Anybody can talk. I could go out there and talk. Anybody who wants to," Wilson said.

So what happens if the city moves in and removes campers' property? "If they do, we're asking for damages," Wilson said.

Sandi Fowler, assistant to City Manager Jeff Pomeranz, said she met twice with Occupy Cedar Rapids, once at their fireside general assembly meeting, and tried to work out an arrangement.

"What we did was ask the group to work with us regarding their use of that property," Fowler said. "Eventually, they hired a lawyer who informed me they were not interested in requesting that use. So at this point we are requesting that all the personal property on the site be removed because they have no authority or approval to place the items on the property."

Wilson said one obstacle to getting a permit is a requirement for liability insurance. Fowler said if Occupy had applied, the insurance requirement could have been discussed.

Wilson said there have been no complaints about the camp, while pointing out that post-flood buyouts have cleared nearly the entire area surrounding it. But Fowler said the city has received four complaints about the camp.

Northwest Neighbors Neighborhood Association President Linda Seger said the association also took some complaints, but didn't take any action against the protest. "We were going to let it play out until the first snowfall," said Seger, who figured an Iowa winter would provide less than ideal camping weather.

"This is exactly what they want," Seger said, referring to the city's high-profile eviction action.

I stopped out at the Occupy Cedar Rapids camp this afternoon. There are a few tents, a Porta-Potty, pallets and other assorted wood, presumably for fires.

The folks I talked with are angry, at city government, the media and corporations that they say influence both. They believe the city has misused flood recovery dollars and that they've been repeatedly misled and ignored. If Occupy Cedar Rapids was sparked by the national Occupy Wall Street movement against corporate greed, unpunished financial cheats and economic inequality, that big picture is taking a back seat here to rage against the city.

I don't see local issues the way they do. But then again I wasn't flooded out and didn't watch my neighborhood disappear and didn't endure the frustrations they've surely endured. And standing in that cold, empty flood zone, unreasonableness seems less unreasonable.

"What the hell is going on around here?" said Ajai Dittmar, an Occupy supporter who lives next to the camp.

I understand there's an ordinance, and laws are laws, but I don't see much harm in leaving these folks alone. Complaints or no complaints, this small camp isn't really doing any real or much aesthetic damage. (I was told that until recently, a collapsed garage was on the lot.) And like Seger says, if the city had left it alone, I have a feeling the weather would have eventually cleared the camp.

I think the city should at least wait to see what the court says before clearing the camp. That's where a dispute such as this between citizens and their government should be addressed. If the city wins, clear out. But if Occupy's argument prevails, let 'em stay. The camp has been there for three weeks. What's a few more days to have a fair hearing?