Oakland backs off increasing Occupy enforcement OAKLAND

Shopkeeper Mindy Stone was upset over graffiti in Oakland saying to "Kill the Occupiers". The Oakland City Council is considering a crackdown on the Occupy Oakland protests citywide at their meeting Tuesday February 7, 2012. less Shopkeeper Mindy Stone was upset over graffiti in Oakland saying to "Kill the Occupiers". The Oakland City Council is considering a crackdown on the Occupy Oakland protests citywide at their meeting Tuesday ... more Photo: Brant Ward, The Chronicle Photo: Brant Ward, The Chronicle Image 1 of / 7 Caption Close Oakland backs off increasing Occupy enforcement 1 / 7 Back to Gallery

Oakland's City Council, amid a rowdy crowd of protesters, narrowly backed off a resolution Tuesday that would have beefed up law enforcement at Occupy protests.

The resolution, which lacked the five votes necessary to pass, would have increased police enforcement of laws against blocking streets and assembling without a permit. The proposal came in the wake of a Jan. 28 protest downtown in which 400 people were arrested.

Even as they defeated the resolution, council members expressed anger at the tactics of Occupy Oakland during the meeting, particularly group members' persistent shouting.

"I am disgusted with the complete lack of respect you have shown," said City Councilwoman Pat Kernighan. "You are hypocrites when it comes to free speech. I have lost all respect for you."

City Councilwoman Desley Brooks, who early in the movement supported Occupy Oakland, was even more harsh.

"The only thing I can see with this movement is an ever-moving target," she said. "You talk about a movement, but it doesn't go beyond you."

Council members Ignacio De La Fuente, Libby Schaaf, Jane Brunner and Brooks voted in favor of the resolution. Rebecca Kaplan and Nancy Nadel voted no, saying they were concerned about devoting more police resources to Occupy as gun violence escalates throughout the rest of the city. Kernighan and Larry Reid abstained.

The laws are already on the books, but in the case of Occupy protests, police have generally refrained from intervening unless the protest turns violent. The rationale is to protect free speech rights and to avoid antagonizing protesters, some of whom say they are eager to confront police.

The resolution was introduced by De La Fuente and Schaaf, who have argued that the city should use every tool at its disposal to stop the ongoing Occupy protests from escalating into violence and property damage.

The resolution focused on Port of Oakland shutdowns, which protesters have attempted twice, but would have applied to all protests.

Opponents get personal

About 50 people spoke on the issue, packing the chambers and frequently erupting in applause, boos and shouts. At one point the audience sang "We Shall Overcome." The shouting became so loud toward the end of the debate the council recessed for 15 minutes.

Most speakers were opposed to the resolution, in some cases threatening the council personally, although some said the resolution would protect port workers and tamp down the protests they believe have gotten out of hand.

Gregory McConnell, president of the Jobs and Housing Coalition in Oakland, said truckers, longshoremen and others who work at the Port of Oakland deserve to work without interference from Occupiers.

"We respect the right to protest, but the protesters should also respect our right to earn a living," he said.

Port protests cost truckers $600 to $700 per day in lost wages, according to the resolution. The Dec. 12 shutdown cost between $4 million and $8 million in total lost pay and tax revenue.

But some said the public's right to free speech should trump municipal ordinances, particularly in dire economic times.

"Why would we want to silence free speech at a time when the economy is in the tank?" said Mindy Stone, an unemployed Oakland resident. "I don't know where people are supposed to go to redress their grievances. The government, the council, doesn't listen to us otherwise."

Barucha Peller, an Occupy activist, said the resolution only galvanizes support for the movement.

"I know you guys used to be progressive," she told the council. "But right now you're on the wrong side of history. The whole world is behind us."

Port officials said the city needs to take every legal action to protect port operations, which are tied to 73,000 jobs in the region and $462 million annually in tax revenue. Continued protests at the port could dissuade investment in the Oakland Army Base, where the port and city plan to build a major rail-transfer and storage area, said port spokesman Isaac Kos-Read.

"If we're going to make the Oakland Army Base happen, we're going to need everyone - government, labor and the community - to work together," he said. "If we don't, failure is almost certain."

Several longshore union representatives opposed the resolution because they feared it would limit protests they might stage against port employers. The resolution included an exemption for labor strikes.

Going on since November

Occupy Oakland protests have been regular occurrences since demonstrators first pitched tents at Frank Ogawa Plaza in early October to protest economic inequality. The city cleared out the encampment in November, but Occupiers still hold regular meetings at the plaza and every Saturday night march to police headquarters to protest what they describe as heavy-handed law enforcement tactics.

Oakland requires a special-event permit for gatherings of 50 or more people. The permits cost between $35 and $300 and must be obtained at least 30 days in advance. The event organizers are responsible for cleaning up after the gathering, and must pay for police officers to monitor traffic, if necessary.

The city also has a law against blocking streets. The law, which dates to 1915, states that anyone who blocks a road faces misdemeanor charges, a $100 fine or 50 days in jail.

The next major Occupy protest is scheduled for Feb. 11 downtown. The event includes a barbecue followed by the weekly antipolice march.