LITTLE ROCK — An hour after announcing the Occupy Little Rock protest would have to relocate to a new venue by the end of Monday night, Little Rock Chief of Police Stuart Thomas gave the group until 6 p.m. tonight to tear down its tents and leave the Clinton Presidential Park.
After an hour-long dialogue with Thomas, members of the Occupy Little Rock’s general assembly asked the chief for a 48-hour stay from an order that would have them continue their occupation at a less visible city-owned parking lot just a few hundred yards away.
Thomas agreed to “split the difference” and gave them 24 hours to consider his offer.
The group has been set up at the city park just west of the Clinton Presidential Center since Friday night to draw attention to, among other issues, wealth disparity and corporate influence in politics.
But it wasn’t until Monday morning that the group of roughly 30 “occupiers” heard rumors that the police were coming to kick them out.
Later in the afternoon, Thomas said that the group was in violation of city ordinances, mainly, of camping in a public place and holding a “special event” on park property without a proper permit from the city.
“[Police] do not have the luxury of ignoring the [city] statutes or taking sides,” Thomas said. “We are obliged to enforce the law. ... Members of the department are prepared to enforce city ordinances as required, and we will take whatever measures as necessary to ensure compliance.”
In a desire to respect “the responsibilities and the prerogatives” of the movement, Thomas said the city is providing a permit, security and waste and toilet facilities to the group at a lot between the Capitol Avenue post office and Interstate 30.
He said that there was no limit to how long the group could stay and protest at the city-owned lot.
Assessments by Occupy Little Rock members to the city’s offer ranged from “cooperative” to “tyrannical,” but many members said they were discouraged by the way the potential compromise came about.
Saying she was speaking on her own behalf and not that of her fellow “occupiers,” Liesbeth Rapp, 27, called Thomas’ announcement to the media at the alternative site an “ambush.”
Like many camping near the Clinton center, she thought the police had forced the group’s hand.
“By no means were we spoken with or consulted with [beforehand],” Rapp said. “The way [Thomas’ proposal] was coordinated was to seem reasonable. ... They say ‘we’re accommodating,’ when all they’re doing is marginalizing us.”
Rapp wasn’t the only person to express displeasure with the proposed site. Unlike the group’s current spot, which is on a concrete pad, there is very little green space and it sits on a sloped lot near a loud interstate overpass.
And the biggest difference, according to fellow “occupier” Aaron Stewart, was the lack of visibility.
Stewart said the driving and walking traffic around the Clinton complexes, not to mention the “symbolic” value of the complexes themselves, were what drove him and others to set up camp where they did.
There’s not much symbolic value to a sloped city lot, Stewart said.
“We’re going to lose a lot to our message if we move,” Stewart said. “It’ll be uncomfortable over there. ... These are all things we have to think about.”
Stewart was the protester who asked Thomas to give his organization time to deliberate and discuss the implications of such a move.
He thought that Thomas’ proposal had jaded a lot of the membership, and said he and his fellow “occupiers” would be discussing the merits of moving their protest well into the evening. He didn’t think a final vote by the group’s general assembly would be reached until later this afternoon.
Regarding those who don’t leave the Clinton center park, Thomas said they would be cited by police for willfully violating city ordinances and face up to $1,000 in fines.
Adam Lansky, a fellow occupier, said civil disobedience defying the city’s ordinances “was something on the table” for discussion, but he, along with many others, wouldn’t say whether they would risk citation to further their cause.
“All I’ll say is we believe our First Amendment rights supersede any local legislation,” Lansky said. “This is a protest, not a camp.”
Little Rock City Manager Bruce Moore said that he thought the city was doing its best to accommodate what is part of a growing national movement.
“We thought being proactive and providing an alternative site was important,” Moore said. “We’re very respectful of First Amendment rights, but for us it’s a matter of being consistent with the ordinance.”
Such “Occupy Wall Street” splinters have popped up across the country since the movement started in New York late this past September. Different cities, as well as their versions of the movement, have enjoyed varying degrees of harmony.
Protesters in Boston, Chicago, Seattle and Portland, among other cities, have been arrested for violating publicspace hours, while in Iowa City, Iowa, protesters have signed a four-month-long permit to occupy a city park through the winter.
Little Rock group member Dustin Kurz said he’d contacted city officials three weeks ago and tried to obtain a permit for the Occupy Little Rock event.
And, according to him, his request got lost somewhere in the shuffle between city administrators.
“Nobody was able to give us an OK,” Kurz said. “They knew it was going to happen. ... It seemed to me they were more worried about what it was going to be.”
Calls to officials from the city’s Parks and Recreation Department weren’t returned Monday. Moore, however, said he knew of no such requests.
“We read reports in the paper. That’s where we got most of our information,” Moore said. “Hopefully, the group realizes ... they see the viability of [the new site].”
Many of the occupiers said they were worried that their freedom of speech was being overtaken by local ordinances.
Lansky told Thomas that the group’s media tent, its political agenda and even its library demonstrated his group was not just “camping,” and that ultimately their rights to assemble and petition government were being usurped by local government.
Both Moore and Thomas said they weren’t worried about any kind of civil-rights litigation.
During a discussion with Thomas at the group’s current location, Lansky asked the chief if there was any chance the group might be able to get permission from the city to stay where they were.
“We didn’t envision this land being used in this fashion. ... Personally, I don’t see the permit being issued,” Thomas told the crowd.
“Well, with all due respect sir, we didn’t see ourselves having to be out here,” Lansky said.
“Neither did I,” Thomas responded.
Front Section, Pages 1 on 10/25/2011