Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
WDYT of this: Occupy SF marchers take over vacant building
Occupy SF activists put the mostly moribund movement back in the spotlight Sunday, taking over an unoccupied building owned by the Archdiocese of San Francisco with plans to establish a "permanent occupation" that would serve as shelter and a center for services for homeless people.
The activists entered the building at 888 Turk St. about 5:45 p.m. Sunday, after a peaceful rally and march from Union Square earlier in the day.
About 100 activists and supporters took up residence in the two-story commercial structure, believed to be a former music building of nearby Sacred Heart Cathedral High School and located within sight of archdiocesan headquarters at St. Mary's Cathedral.
Police, who had monitored the protesters' actions all day, stood by as protesters entered the building, which had already been opened by other activists. Police spokesman Sgt. Michael Andraychak said the department was "still talking" to the building's owner to determine the next step.
Reached late Sunday, archdiocesan spokesman George Wesolek said church officials had decided to ask police not to take any immediate action.
"We will revisit the situation in the morning," he said.
The well-organized takeover of the structure is the first major undertaking by the Occupy movement in San Francisco since protesters' encampment on the Embarcadero was cleared out by police in December.
Challenge to archdiocese
It presents a new challenge not just to the building's owners, but also to San Francisco city officials, who now may have to deal with a different kind of encampment and tactic than they did previously. Several U.S. cities and other agencies, notably Oakland and UC Berkeley in the Bay Area, have struggled with their responses to the Occupy protests.
Emma Gerould, who identified herself as an Occupy SF spokeswoman, said the protesters were aware the building belonged to the archdiocese and intended to put Catholic officials on the spot.
"There is no reason why any building should be vacant when people have no housing," Gerould said. "We ask that the archdiocese do the right thing and allow these services in these buildings."
A banner hung from the building quoted the Lord's Prayer: "Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses."
In flyers they handed out, activists announced the "grand opening" of the building as the "San Francisco Commune." They immediately began organizing the space inside, designating public and sleeping areas, even setting up a smoking room.
Marcher Julia Cheng, 25, of Chicago settled into a spot inside the building, setting up a sleeping bag and hanging a sign reading "Home Sweet Home."
"We want to show that housing is unfair because people were lured into predatory loans," she said. "This is like the Second French Revolution all over again."
Organizers of the April Fool's Day action had pledged before the event that a vacant building in San Francisco would become the home of a "permanent occupation" and a refuge for homeless people in the city.
Before the occupation, more than 300 people marched through the Tenderloin to the Western Addition, playing music, chanting slogans and carrying signs saying "House Keys Not Handcuffs" as police officers looked on and blocked traffic.
When marchers reached the building, a two-story commercial structure advertised for lease by HC&M Commercial Properties, they were met by activists dressed in black who had already entered the building and allowed them inside.
April Fool's Day action
The event, described in a press release as "poor people play April Fool's prank on Union Square," was promoted as part of a supposed 12-city April Fool's Day action designed to "demonstrate poor people's right to exist in public space."
Speakers protested laws that keep homeless people from sitting, lying down, hanging out "and - perhaps worst of all - sleeping," organizers said. They said that citations for offenses like these comprised "roughly one-third of all prosecuted offenses in San Francisco at the end of 2011."
Paul Boden, one of the organizers, told the crowd at Union Square that area businesses "are targeting poor people as being bad for business. If you ain't shopping, they don't want you around here."
Before leaving Union Square, those assembled were joined by a contingent from Occupy Oakland, who arrived on an old AC Transit bus. The bus, decorated with graffiti and fitted with a screen door at its entrance, followed the marchers along the route.
The protesters parked the bus in front of the Turk Street building, which is located across the street from a retirement community. As night fell, loud music blared from the back of the bus until police asked the activists to lower the volume, and they complied.
Benny Evangelista is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. bevangelista@sfchronicle.com
Re: WDYT of this: Occupy SF marchers take over vacant building
They picked a good building to do it in; if the Church kicks them out they are hypocritical (nice choice for the banner).
If it's my building I'm lobbing tear gas in and telling the police to drag them out.
I got to this quote
""We want to show that housing is unfair because people were lured into predatory loans," she said. "This is like the Second French Revolution all over again.""
and smashed my head repeatedly against the keyboard.
food blog | garden blog | curly dogs blog
I agree with adverse possession under the right circumstances. I dunno how I feel about the owners living right there to see/know you are doing it. I thought it was more to prevent absentee landlord issues. But I can see how it could be done in this way to take advantage of the religious group's (hopefully) *generous* hearts.
lol. I would hate to be the church in this situation.
Since when do we have the right to FREE housing that belongs to someone else? Will the church be held liable if protesters have an accident/get hurt on the property? More religious persecution going on?
The protesters could be hauled off to the local homeless shelters - for free housing --- or off to jail for tresspassing.
Our community has established a rotating homeless shelter - hosted by a different church each week. "Guests" arrive between 6-8p,m - no entries after 9pm unless brought by police. Guests must be sober - take breathalizer upon entry. No smoking in the building. Free dinner served at 7 pm. Lights out at 11. Breakfast served between 6-6:30 and everyone off the premises by 7 am. Money was raised to hire a social worker to assist the guests - obtaining ID, obtaining services as needed/wanted. Several physicians and PAs are volunteers to help with medical needs.
I am sure this church is doing something to help the needy -
I had heard of plans to occupy buildings as the next phase of protests. This is over the top and will not get much support IMO. The government had a hand in a good many bad loans. Much of the Occupy anger is misdirected.
Ditto sisu. (That ditto feels especially red dawnish today. WOLVERINES!!!)
<a href="http://www.thenest.com/?utm_source=ticker&utm_medium=HTML&utm_campaign=tickers" title="Home D
Wait, what? I totally agree that there are a host of problems here, and yes, the lawyer in me sees the potential liability issues.
But I'm really failing to see how this is religious persecution rather than mere opportunism. Care to explain?
I took it to mean that it's a little convenient that they chose a church building. So now if the church kicks them out, it's very easy to play the "hypocrite" card.
<a href="http://www.thenest.com/?utm_source=ticker&utm_medium=HTML&utm_campaign=tickers" title="Home D
Finally the movement has a flash of brilliance. I don't think they have any right to be there. I think this "people shouldn't go homeless while there are empty buildings" stuff is total BS.
But yeah, I'm looking at my church and saying hey, here's your need. You're not serving God with the building now. The community has brought a need to your doorstep and it is hardly a hardship to provide for them. I would be disappointed if they turned down this opportunity.
Fair enough. But remove that, and sisu's post is pretty dead on.
<a href="http://www.thenest.com/?utm_source=ticker&utm_medium=HTML&utm_campaign=tickers" title="Home D
But note that I only quoted the "religious persecution" part and acknowledged the validity of liability concerns.
I may call Sisugal out often, but I stick to the legit stuff.
Oh, I know. I didn't mean that as a dig at you. It was just my quieter "wolverines!!"
Plus bridey, you are:
<a href="http://www.thenest.com/?utm_source=ticker&utm_medium=HTML&utm_campaign=tickers" title="Home D