Libby,

The million dollars was almost entirely spent on police overtime for a response which was INSANELY disproportional to the problem of some peaceful protesters camping on a lawn.

Furthermore, the horrific abuse of protesters at the hands of Oakland police and other agencies Chief Jordan has brought in will cost Oakland hundreds of thousands more in lawsuits.

I call on you to work to get the city of Oakland in order, while you're making demands that Occupy Oakland cleans things up.

Yesterday the ACLU announced that the Oakland Police has refused to publically release documents regarding their attacks against and arrest of protesters.  Please DEMAND that the Oakland police immediately release all requested documents and evidence to the ACLU.

Libby, I support your statement.  It balances your support of that part of OO that supports the 99% and the peaceful part of the demonstrations, but not against the unpermitted camp (whose members have refused to communicate with City officials from the beginning - unlike OWS) and the vandals that are destroying our City.  And that always come to Oakland to riot.

There IS a middle ground here, and we must find it if a sustainable movement is to be created.

Anarchists - go riot at the Pacific Coast Stock Exchange.  It's located in San Francisco (where the medium income is 2x Oakland's) NOT in Oakland.

Libby, I'm very happy to say that I'm one of your constituents, because you hit the nail on the head. Your message here is moderate and reasonable and you are absolutely right: Occupy Oakland is doing nothing but harm to the 99 percent. It's time for the Ogawa encampment to go, and for Occupy Oakland to turn their energies toward lawful and peaceful activism.

Thank you for writing and posting this Libby.  I, too, am in your district and, while I do not agree with you that OO should be encouraged to branch out into the community or be provided with "services and shelter" at city expense, I agree wholeheartedly with the remainder of your thoughful statement.  Hopefully, OO will take note of the fact that its conduct has resulted in the loss of much of the community support the movement once enjoyed and will reassess its tactics.  To address the issue of whether or not the city will offer services and shelter to OO members, how will we pay for that?  We have been told over and over and over again that there is no money to provide basic safety and quality of life services for Oakland residents.  Where will the money come from to provide this support to Occupy Oakland members, a large number of whom are not Oakland residents?

Thank you, Libby. While all the focus is on the movement, city gov't and OPD, I feel like everyone forgets that there are residents within feet of the encampments. People that have worked hard to build a safe place to call home with friends and neighbors.

We have a right to live peacefully in our neighborhoods. Dare I ask if the out of towners in #OO would like the movement brought to their front door? Something tells me the story would change quickly.

Thank you, Libby. While all the focus is on the movement, city gov't and OPD, I feel like everyone forgets that there are residents within feet of the encampments. People that have worked hard to build a safe place to call home with friends and neighbors.

We have a right to live peacefully in our neighborhoods. Dare I ask if the out of towners in #OO would like the movement brought to their front door? Something tells me the story would change quickly.

I for one would like to see the OPD stop harming the community. You've all seen the video of the polite, respectful videographer being shot by the police. You've seen the news stories about the bystander walking down the street who had his spleen ruptured by OPD. On Oct 25, police teargassed a peaceful assembly of protesters. The police actions that night were in violation of California state law and OPD's explicit policy on crowd control.

On 11/2 I witnessed many police officers covering up their nametags in violation of section 830.10 of the California Penal Code.

Is there a council member willing to speak out against violations of the law and excessive violence perpetrated by the Oakland Police Department?

Steve, do you live in Oakland or are you one of our "guests?"

I'm a lifelong lefty. I have lived in the Bay Area for fifteen years and have spent the last three as a resident of Downtown Oakland. I do not support Occupy Oakland for three good reasons. Occupy Oakland did not engage anyone at city hall before massing on Frank Ogawa Plaza. Occupy Oakland did not engage anyone in the community before asserting ownership of our community's public space. Occupy Oakland continued to intentionally avoid contact with the OPD when public safety within the camp and in the surrounding area deteriorated. That's all a little too much for me to stomach and so I don't support their occupation of Frank Ogawa Plaza.

(deleted my duplicate comment)

I'll co-sign every word of that.

Looks like the Oaklandlocal bot wants to duplicate these posts for emphasis. ;-)

Just sharing some information:  there will be an organizational meeting of actual Oakland residents, merchants, and property owners (I know!  How novel!) to discuss how to defend ourselves from the Occupy Oakland group and the harm they are causing to our city on Thursday evening at The Den.  Details can be found here:

https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=175390965885700

I think it is pretty well established by now that free speech includes the right to camp on public property, voice your message, and exclude any competing voices from the territory you’ve claimed.  Occupy Oakland has made clear claim to the plaza in front of City Hall.  But what hospitable public space can they be provided for the coming winter? 

My suggestion is that the city step forward and offer Occupy Oakland a local public building for permanent residence.  I’m thinking of the Main Branch of the Oakland Public Library.  Some will argue that it is already in use, but remember that its hours are so limited that the space will hardly be missed.  I think that if we lead in this way, other cities will surely follow suit. 

As Libby Schaaf is obviously enamored of the use of police violence as a response to the Occupy people's movement by her sponsorship of a since tabled resolution to allow the police to use force to stop any future port closings, I think it is time for the Occupy movement to begin looking at people like Schaaf and Ignacio de la Fuente and organizing to oust them from elected office.

That the threat of police violence against our very own people nonviolently protesting is the main response of people like Schaaf and de la Fuente brands them as puppets and tools of the wealthy, the morbidly punitive and the ruthless believers in state violence, when more creative, deeper, more civilized responses are what are necessary to address the underlying causes of the protests.

But some people just like the idea of heads being cracked.  Perhaps what is sauce for the goose may become sauce for the gander.

JohnS -- Your histrionic claim aside, Libby Schaaf has never advocated violence (on the part of police or anyone else) against anyone.   While you may not agree with the proposal to use all legal means necessary to protect the Port of Oakland, please be aware that a great many Oakland residents fully support such a measure.   Just because residents are no longer willing to run the gauntlet of OO hectoring at our 'Occupied' City Council Meetings does not mean that they are not communicating their support to their elected representatives.

As for removing either Libby Schaff or Ignacio de la Fuente from elected office, unless you live in one of their districts, your threat to "oust" them from office is unlikely to succeed.  Both Libby Schaaf and Ignacio de la Fuente enjoy very strong strong support in their respective districts.

And speaking of threats:  The last sentence of your comment sounds very much like a physical threat against those who do not support Occupy Oakland or who do support OPD's efforts to uphold the community's laws.  I certainly hope that wasn't what you intended to convey.