Protestors say police raid on Occupy S.F. encampment 'imminent'

Occupy SF protesters said on their website Thursday that they

believe a police raid on their encampment in San Francisco's Justin Herman Plaza is imminent.

Demonstrators have been camping at the plaza at the foot of Market Street for several weeks, and the encampment had grown to about 200 tents as of the city's last count on Wednesday.

The size of the encampment, as well as deteriorating sanitary

conditions there, led Mayor Ed Lee and other city officials to meet with members of Occupy SF on Wednesday to discuss their concerns.

Upon leaving the meeting, Lee said he would give the protesters

"the immediate opportunity to demonstrate" that they could meet the city's demands to clean up the encampment "and then we'll see what happens."

In a post on the group's website,, campers said those comments "implied that a raid was likely."

On its Twitter feed, the group posted a voicemail that it said was

from the secretary for Mohammed Nuru, director of the Department of Public Works.

The speaker on the voicemail said the city was "going to declare

the whole area a health disaster, and everybody's going to have to go."

DPW spokeswoman Gloria Chan said the Department of Public Health declared the encampment a public health nuisance Thursday, and that DPW officials had again told them they were in violation of city regulations.

She said she had no other information about any potential police


Police spokesman Sgt. Mike Andraychak said he is not aware of any imminent action, saying "there's nothing new on our end."

On its website, Occupy SF also cited the police action early

Wednesday morning to dismantle 15 tents that had been set up as an ancillary camp along the first block of Market Street as a sign that there will be a raid at the main camp soon.

Police said Wednesday those tents had to be removed to maintain an adequate amount of walking space on the sidewalk.


Two people were arrested when police from the University of

California at Berkeley and other agencies disbanded the Occupy Cal encampment on the steps of Sproul Hall early Thursday, a university spokesman said.

The two men were arrested for failure to disperse and unlawful

lodging, UC Berkeley spokesman Dan Mogulof said.

Occupy Cal protesters set up an encampment of about 15 tents

Tuesday night after a general assembly attended by more than 1,000 people voted by a margin of 89 percent to 11 percent to do so, protesters said.

A previous attempt to set up an encampment last week was thwarted by UC Berkeley police and officers from other agencies, whose aggressive tactics have been criticized by Occupy Cal protesters.

UC Berkeley has a policy against allowing camping on campus, but police didn't act immediately to remove the tents that were set up Tuesday night.

Mogulof said university officials and police monitored the

situation and waited for a time when they thought it would be safe and effective to remove the tents.

He said they decided that 3:30 a.m. Thursday would be a good time to take action, and he said the removal of the tents was "very peaceful" and there weren't any confrontations.

Occupy Cal protesters were given hourly warnings by police that

the encampment was illegal and they were subject to arrest, Mogulof said.

The protesters were given time to take down their tents, Mogulof

said. They also were given time to take away two pianos that they had set up on the steps of Sproul Hall for music sessions, he said.


Five Occupy Oakland protesters have lost a bid to a federal judge

in San Francisco for a temporary restraining order blocking what they claim is excessive use of force by police.

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg declined on Wednesday to grant a temporary restraining order against the city and Police Chief Howard Jordan.

Seeborg said the plaintiffs had produced evidence indicating they

might be able to prove that the city violated its crowd control policy "on sporadic occasions," but said they hadn't shown the "widespread and systematic" constitutional violations that would warrant such an order.

"The Occupy Oakland protests have continued, at times, for days on end without any alleged unconstitutional interference from local authorities," Seeborg wrote.

Seeborg scheduled a hearing for Nov. 30 on the protesters' request for a preliminary injunction, the next step in the case.

The five protesters filed their lawsuit on Monday. The American

Civil Liberties Union of Northern California is also a plaintiff.

The plaintiffs claim police use of projectiles and tear gas on

Oct. 25 and Nov. 2 violated the city's policy, their First Amendment right of free speech and other constitutional rights. They say they fear violations

will continue unless blocked by a court order.

Lawyers for the city said in court papers filed Tuesday that

police are complying with the Constitution and city policy and that alleged isolated incidents of misconduct will be investigated.

"The record is clear that the Oakland Police Department has done a very difficult job facilitating First Amendment activities by thousands of persons on a daily basis under stressful conditions over the past 30 days in a manner consistent with the Constitution and the department's own crowd control policy," the attorneys said.


People without permits to camp at the Occupy Santa Rosa site at

City Hall were ordered Thursday to leave immediately or be arrested.

Two Santa Rosa police officers were at the site at Santa Rosa

Avenue and First Street, but they would not say when arrests could occur.

"The order is effective immediately," one of the officers said.

About 80 tents remain on two lawns at City Hall. Several still

have a "notice of violation and demand to cease violations" attached to them. The notice, distributed by the city, is dated Thursday.

Those who have the permits to camp that were issued by the city

manager's office on Tuesday have the paper permit, along with their photos, names and addresses, attached to their tents as required by the city.

Ben Browner, an Occupy Santa Rosa member, said 28 permits were issued to 40 people on Tuesday. Each permit was for a specific tent.

Browner said many Occupy Santa Rosa members did not apply for the camping permits because of the conditions the city imposed.

Those included the requirement that campers submit a photo and their names and addresses. He said campers also had expected the city to issue about 100 permits, but that the city only planned to give out 51.

Santa Rosa city officials intended to distribute more permits

Thursday but canceled those plans when Occupy Santa Rosa members announced Wednesday that they would not abide by the camping permit conditions.

Thursday afternoon, some of the protesters are taking down their tents, while others are removing pots and pans, plastic containers and wooden pallets from the area where food had been distributed.

Erika Heidecker, Bay City News

— Bay City News Service


Posted by Mike, a resident of Del Prado
on Nov 18, 2011 at 8:22 pm

Drop the hammer fast and hard on those nudnicks just like they did in Oakland.

Posted by Adam, a resident of Avignon
on Nov 19, 2011 at 1:42 am

Don't be confused by those apparent elderly pensioners, teachers, poets, unemployed, and underemployed. They're all rabblerousing socialist nudnicks who want my taxes to go up. Get real!!!

Posted by P-town dad, a resident of Amador Estates
on Nov 21, 2011 at 5:34 am

My son went to
Occupy SF. He's in his early 20's and wanted to see what it was about and to possibly join the movement. He's been unsuccessfully looking for a job for two months and felt frustrated. He wanted to be a part of an historical movement. What he found there surprised him.

They have morning and afternoon assemblies to strategize. Only about 10% of the people there attended the assemblies. They were the serious Occupiers who were genuine, but they were struggling to articulate any proposed solutions.

The rest,mhe said, were homeless people and stoners. The homeless came for the camraderie and free meals. OSF cooks food in large vats, feeding long lines of people. The stoners got high or drunk. I don't know the specific percentage in that category.

After 48 hours there he felt OSF was unproductive so he came back to cozy Ptown. And then an interesting thing happened. He applied for a bunch of jobs. One of his friends knew of something that just opened and my son got the job, and now works 50 hours per week.

Before the press or public form any opinions about OSF they ought to go camp there for a couple days and see for themselves.

Posted by Vincent, a resident of Danbury Park
on Nov 21, 2011 at 9:44 am

Yeah, my brother went to Occupy San Francisco. There wasn't a single serious thing going on, and everybody smelled like they hadn't bathed since the previous Comanche moon. After looking over things for 5 minutes, he came back to P-town and was notified that he had won the lottery. Two million smackaroos! Just goes to show you what hard work will do. He has no intention of rejoining the dirty protesters. Let's hope the hammer gets dropped on these spoiled brats once and for all.

Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Nov 21, 2011 at 9:46 am

Vincent/Slippers/Jane--Don't you get tired of being so obvious? Not everyone is cut out for the OWS crowd . . . even you.

Posted by Adam, a resident of Avignon
on Nov 21, 2011 at 6:53 pm

James Fallows on the pepper spraying and arrests of UC Davis students:

"While the first 60 seconds of the 8-minute YouTube video are dominated by the shockingly calm brutality of the policeman, the rest of it is remarkable mainly for the stoicism and resolve of the protestors. You don't have to idealize everything about them or the Occupy movement to recognize this as a moral drama that the protestors clearly won. The self-control they show, while being assaulted, reminds me of grainy TV footage I saw as a kid, of black civil rights protestors being fire-hosed by Bull Connor's policemen in Alabama. Or of course the Tank Man in Tiananmen Square. Such images can have tremendous, lasting power. [...]
What is going on is a war of ideas, based in turn on moral standing. This engagement, which started in Minute 1 with police over-reaction and ended in Minute 8 with nervous police retreat, was a rout."

I expect that part about "moral standing" probably will pass by many of the readers.

Posted by Mike, a resident of Del Prado
on Nov 21, 2011 at 10:40 pm

What I saw on the UC Davis video was a lack of leadership. It was apparent there wasn't an operation plan with goals and what everyone's individual job was. We, and probably the officers, don't know if they were there for just crowd control or to move the protesters out. What you saw was a total lack of leadership from the top to the field supervisors. It's always easier to sit on the sideline mad make comments after the fact, but until you know what it's like to be at that type of event I'd advise everyone to let the facts come out.

I was involved at the Oakland occupy events and both times there was an operational plan with clear goals, especially the second time I went when the protesters were evicted and everything went smoothly. 

Posted by Saw flim clips, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 22, 2011 at 12:05 am

Yes, Mike, it is not clear, From the first, I saw the police car was blocked on the thruway. Officers were only spraying the ones blocking on the concrete....not the ones 'around'. They were also trying to lift the sitters who were like dead weight, it would have taken a fork lift to hoist each one. So we no longer live by the 'rule of law ??? I thought we couldn't block police cars, and were suppose to obey police. I think it is terrible if anything would happen to the lady chancellor. Giving an inch, is the beginning of the end.... I think the spray was diluted.
These are mostly idle, petulant children.

Posted by Adam, a resident of Avignon
on Nov 22, 2011 at 12:35 am

Yep, would have needed a forklift, as most of those cops didn't look up to the task of arresting anyone. I guess that's why the guy who sprayed the pepper gas at the students has been relieved of his duty.

Ever hear of civil disobedience anyone? You might begin by reading Thoreau, then go on to Ghandi and Martin Luther King. But I guess fascists like each and every one of you might think educating yourselves might be the 'beginning of the end'.

Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Nov 22, 2011 at 7:48 am

Adam/Slippers/Jane, Hmmmm, people are offending you, so you react with your usual pepper spray of insults.

The officer certainly deserves disciplinary action; the chancellor and police chief are culpable. There is the possibility the officers actually needed to get by for the safety of all or to perform their duties; their reaction to the students, stupid. Not letting the police car through, also stupid.

Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 22, 2011 at 9:36 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Jane, haven't cashed out your Wall Street gambler's pension yet?

Posted by Kent, a resident of The Knolls
on Nov 22, 2011 at 12:12 pm

"Ever hear of civil disobedience anyone?"

Here? On this post? Might as well wish for the moon.

Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Nov 22, 2011 at 4:33 pm

I admire the non-violent stance of the UC Davis students.

They want to dialogue with university leadership...not too much to ask for.

Many are highly educated young students, unable to find meaningful/gainful employment, it's frustrating and painful to watch.

Most want jobs that sustain them, they want lives, partners, families, homes; hard to realize if you're unemployed.

Whatever is maintaining the unemployment needs to be more critically assessed. They will not likely stop until the dialogue happens and they see a path to gainful employment that allows them to realize the American dream.

Posted by Kent, a resident of The Knolls
on Nov 22, 2011 at 4:53 pm

I agree with you, Cholo. But I think the students want more than gainful employment. I think they realize that the university leadership is not in any position to help them to fulfill their employment needs. Rather, I think they are motivated by a number of factors. Why must they pay higher tuition when the bottom 80% of the populace owns less than 10% of the wealth in this country? Why must they pay higher tuition when the top 1% of the populace owns 42% of the wealth? Why aren't wealthy Californians being asked to pay their fair share toward educational excellence? Why isn't the students' college president actively petitioning the legislature to raise taxes on the rich? Why are citizens motivated to do same? Jobs are important, don't get me wrong. But I think it is a sense of burning injustice that has motivated them to engage in their peaceful and courageous civil disobedience.

Posted by SteveP, a resident of Parkside
on Nov 23, 2011 at 8:49 am

SteveP is a registered user.

Kent, what the hell are you talking about? Calif has one of the highest tax rates in the country. Why does the top 1% pay more than half the taxes collected? Do you really care about how this money is spent, or are you just promoting the same class envy that Owebama has used in his 'community' activist' campaigns?
As you may have seen posted on other topics in the PW, students have advocated for free tuition for studies like English, political science, philosophy, art, etc. And they wonder why they are not employable and why we don't do more to support schools---the money is being diverted by the state legislature for other social engineering and welfare programs.
Where, exactly, do you think the billions in state taxes collected are being spent? Advocate for accountability from our state leaders and stop trying to tear down everyone else so they can be at your level.

Posted by Kent, a resident of The Knolls
on Nov 23, 2011 at 9:28 am

Afraid you'll never be able to reach my level, Steve. You missed the boat a long time ago. Top 10% of wealthy scoop up 80% of the wealth, and you're moaning about how they pay half of the taxes collected? Do the math, pal. Oh, sorry, they didn't teach math in the barnyard in which you were educated? Your loss. I guess that's why others refer to you as the Village Idiot.

Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Nov 23, 2011 at 9:48 am

Kent/Slippers/Gollum, Perhaps the top percent work the hardest, are the brightest when investing (Buffet comes to mind), have higher degrees of education and therefore better earning power--there are many diligent people in that top percent and most pay taxes willingly and the rest pay anyway. The question is, how much is enough; and we already discussed that you can take everything they earn and it wouldn't be enough to solve the deficit. The country can't keep adding programs, increasing benefits, picking up the public everything on the current trajectory--there's where you need better math skills.

Posted by Patriot, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 23, 2011 at 10:42 am

"Perhaps the top percent work the hardest, are the brightest when investing"

I'd like to think so, but I wouldn't call the derivatives traders at AIG, Morgan Stanley, or Bear Stearns "the brightest when investing". They proved to be dismal failures at investing and we all bailed them out with our taxes. Fixing this problem is critical both to stabilizing our economy and to restoring a sense of fairness to the system.

Posted by steve, a resident of Parkside
on Nov 23, 2011 at 11:39 am

Kent, I wouldn't stoop to your level. Your persistent name calling and inability to address the content of other posts displays publicly your immaturity and lack of intelligence.

You and your ilk will never be able to drag down the successful minority of our population. Your jealousy of their success is a manifestation and a parroting of the 'leadership' of your messiah. God forbid you should actually have an original or intelligent thought on your own.
You folks clamoring for forced income redistribution are a sad, sorry lot. You'd never think to accomplish anything on your own through hard work. No, that thought never occurred to's just too much effort for the sloths in our society. Oh well...not changing any minds (or mndless) to the mountain chalet for some well deserved R & R.

Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Nov 23, 2011 at 12:32 pm

Patriot, I agree, although the individuals faired better than the entity I think.

Posted by Kent, a resident of The Knolls
on Nov 23, 2011 at 3:48 pm

What could be simpler. The top 10% owns 80% of the wealth in the United States. Have that top 10% pay at least 80% of the nation's tax burden. The math really is quite clear. I can understand why someone would claim the top 10% should pay MORE than 80% of the nation's tax burden; for so doing would not impinge upon basic life needs and comforts. [removed]

Posted by No more taxes or fee hikes, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 23, 2011 at 4:00 pm

Kent sounds like someone who depends on ever increasing tax dollars to fund his expected raise, lifetime medical benefits, and underfunded pension payouts.

Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Nov 23, 2011 at 4:10 pm

Gollum, The top 1% should give it to _you_ because they can? There's a solid argument for it. I can see everyone saying, "Ohhhhh, now I get it."

Posted by Kent, a resident of The Knolls
on Nov 23, 2011 at 5:05 pm

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

Posted by Kathleen Ruegseggerr, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Nov 23, 2011 at 5:18 pm

Gollum, Cute bit about the darkness; if that were true, I should be running into you any moment now.

I think individuals should be able to save for their retirement--privately. Don't think taxpayers need to make up for the shortfalls on public pensions. And I would rather teachers made more now. You seem so challenged by the notion that people are earning their income through a contract with their employers, just like yours. Nothing to be grateful for this Thanksgiving?

Posted by Kent, a resident of The Knolls
on Nov 23, 2011 at 11:10 pm

Fat Kath: What does an individual's ability to save for his/her retirement have to do with 10% of population owning 80% of the wealth and not paying their fair taxes.

You probably can't conceive of a low-income earner with kids not having enough to save, right? I guess you'd rather see low-income earners and their children die on average 10 years earlier than the wealthy because public pensions are too high, there's those darned working people's unions, and the Constitution doesn't say anything about life expectancy (only life). [removed]

Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 23, 2011 at 11:28 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Yea, wouldn't want any public pension funds making money from kicking low-income earners' children out onto the streets through conversion of rent-controlled units to market. How much did you make off that deal, Jane?

Posted by Kathleen Ruegseggerr, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Nov 24, 2011 at 6:32 am

Gollum, I don't have to imagine it--been there, done that. I think other posters have mentioned that you don't seem to be bothered by the fact your children and grandchildren will be trying to pay the debt caused by public excesses. Hope you are leaving a nest egg for them so they can have a decent life.

Posted by Kent, a resident of The Knolls
on Nov 24, 2011 at 7:04 am

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

Posted by Kathleen Ruegseggerr, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Nov 24, 2011 at 7:40 am

Social programs, wars . . . excessive?

I hope firefighters, librarians, nurses, teachers earn very good salaries that allow them to save and invest privately for their retirement.

You still haven't said _why_ the "filthy rich" must give back to society any more than they do, or _how much more_ is more, or how you would propose they should give back more, other than because you say so.

Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 24, 2011 at 9:22 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Another of Jane's "I got mine" posts.

If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

To post your comment, please click here to Log in

Remember me?
Forgot Password?
or register. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.

Understanding Early Decision in College Admissions
By Elizabeth LaScala | 1 comment | 1,724 views

New heights for NIMBYs
By Tim Hunt | 26 comments | 1,092 views

When those covering the news become the news
By Gina Channell-Allen | 0 comments | 880 views

Earthquake Insurance
By Roz Rogoff | 2 comments | 699 views