I thought it was already spotless?


Mayor Plans To Clean Up “Occupy Wall Street” Site On Friday

Mayor Michael Bloomberg visited the site of the ongoing “Occupy Wall Street” demonstration in Lower Manhattan today and informed protesters that the private park where they are staying will be cleaned on Friday.

For more than four weeks, protesters have stayed in Zuccotti Park and denounced what they call big business’ control over lawmakers and great economic inequality in the country.

In a statement, Deputy Mayor for Operations Cas Holloway said the cleaning will be done in stages and that demonstrators can return to the cleaned areas, so long as they follow rules set by Brookfield Properties, the owner of Zuccotti Park.

“The mayor is a strong believer in the First Amendment and believes that the protesters have a right to continue to protest. At the same time, the last three weeks have created unsanitary conditions and considerable wear and tear on the park,” Holloway said in the statement. “This situation is not in the best interests of the protesters, residents or the City.”

The mayor has previously said that the demonstration can continue, as long as protesters follow city rules.

Brookfield Properties said in a statement last week that the company was working with city officials on a way to restore the park from damage created by demonstrators.


I predict that the OWS protesters will cooperate peacefully with the city.

Right after the Cubs win the World Series.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to I thought it was already spotless?

  1. crawdad says:

    Right after the Cubs win the World Series.

    And pigs fly.

  2. myiq2xu says:

    They won’t leave peacefully for two reasons:

    1. Part of their goal has been to instigate confrontations with the police.

    2. They’ll be afraid it is a trick and they won’t be allowed to re-enter the park (and they may well be right)

    • crawdad says:

      By the time they find out it is a trick it will be Friday afternoon and the WS offices will be closing for the weekend.

    • bemused_leftist says:

      “In a statement, Deputy Mayor for Operations Cas Holloway said the cleaning will be done in stages and that demonstrators can return to the cleaned areas”

      How’d that work out in Madison?

      (Why am I in modertion?)

    • angienc says:

      Well, isn’t that nice. These people already have their moms cleaning up after them at home, so now they get park employees to clean up after them too.

      THIS is EXACTLY what is wrong with the younger generation.

  3. myiq2xu says:

    demonstrators can return to the cleaned areas, so long as they follow rules set by Brookfield Properties, the owner of Zuccotti Park.

    So what if Brookfield announces the following rules:

    1. No overnight camping

    2. No tarps, tents, or sleeping bags.

    3. No drums

    4. No serving food.

    5. No nudity

    6. Max occupancy 200 people.

  4. Lola-at-Large says:

    I like this: http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/ The messages seem focused on the personal pain and consequences people are facing, sometimes due to their own choices, but often due to the risks the banks and Wall Street took. And one thing I do agree with is that it’s worth asking why every kind of debt except student debt can be bankrupted and how banks and lenders are protected from risk by this aspect of law. But we aren’t protected.

    • 1539days says:

      Student debt is federal, so it’s like a tax obligation. The problem is the cost of college and how fast it goes up

      • Lola-at-Large says:

        If it’s a tax obligation, it should be paid for out of revenues, not outsourced to some private bank so they can make a profit. I do agree that the cost of college has skyrocketed, but it’s really a combination of that and the captured student loan market, with its clumsy rules that favor lenders and offer little relief to debtors.

        Even outside of questions of morality, something should be done. Student debt is the next bubble and it’s as big as housing, if not bigger. Are we really going to stand around and watch as hedge funds and brokerage firms get bailed out again, leaving the debt in place? I’m glad this is part of the dialogue.

        • 1539days says:

          Actually, the Obamacare bill had a rider that only the feds can give out student loans. Sallie Mae and others can only service old loans.

          The inability to discharge a loan was a result of people who used to get student loans and then default because there was virtually no penalty. I know people now who are deferring their loans indefinitely. The rule is that if you defer it for about 30 years, you loan is discharged and you then get a capital gains tax bill on the total amount of the loan. Then the IRS goes after you.

      • Lola-at-Large says:

        Well, that’s interesting, but it looks like it only applies going forward. We’ve got three generations of debt under the old system.

    • WMCB says:

      Re: the discharge of student loans, I agree that it’s really tough that they can’t be discharged like other debt. But I also have this question: If you make the loans dischargeable in bankruptcy, are fewer kids going to be able to get loans? IOW, was part of the reason for making them non-dischargeable an effort to make sure that loans got made, and students weren’t held to the same credit-worthiness standards as any other loan? Was it a well-intentioned thing with crappy consequences?

      I mean, I understand that it sucks that they can’t (or rarely can) be discharged. But I also understand that a 20 year old is not always the best credit risk, either. Making the loans bankruptcy exempt may have been an attempt to balance out the much larger risk of default the lender was taking on. I dunno. I’m not offering any solutions on this one, just trying to examine the problem. And I really wish there was more focus on tuition costs themselves – because there was a time when getting a big loan wasn’t that common or necessary, unless you went to a very expensive school.

      • Lola-at-Large says:

        I wouldn’t mind trading some kind of requirement for demonstrable credit-worthiness for being able to bankrupt the debt if necessary. Personally, I wish I hadn’t taken out as many loans as I did, but I was young and stupid and susceptible to culture, and the culture said borrow.

        • WMCB says:

          There’s a loophole that says you can discharge it for genuine hardship, but it’s tough to do. I mean, you’ll qualify if you become completely disabled or some such tragedy, but if you have any earning capacity at all they pretty much won’t. “I can’t pay it” is not considered hardship.

          Sometimes I play “what if” games with myself about creative laws and the power of public pressure. For instance, what if you made them dischargeable, but the law stipulated that if more than 30% of the loans went into bankruptcy for 2 years running, the no-discharge rule would kick back in. Would students be more cautious? Would they put peer pressure on the fuckwad lazy ass who was going to frivolously borrow 100,000 for bongo studies, then blow it off in bankruptcy and help ruin it for everyone? These are the pointless theoretical turns my brain takes at 2 am. 😀

        • WMCB says:

          And again, with the unintended consequences: if you did that, in an attempt to have fewer defaults, would you actually get more defaults, as students jumped to be the first to declare bankruptcy “just in case” during the 2 year window, before it slammed shut?

          The difficulty so often with economic policies is that human beings are not robots or equations. Fixing one problem often drives other problem behavior that one did not anticipate.

          I’m just musing pointlessly and theoretically here. I do that.

        • Lola-at-Large says:

          It’s that kind of creative thinking that leads to policy solutions. How about this. How about we take into account things like expected earnings for someone in that major and base it on that. You can borrow more if you go into physics kinds of thing. Also, how about having some leniency about granting loans, but put mechanisms in place that trigger limits based on credit-worthiness. There are all sorts of ways to address it, to limit it to what students really need, instead of what lenders hoped they’d borrow.

        • bemused_leftist says:

          Hillary made student loan interest rates a campaign issue in early 2008. She might have had more to say about it, if anyone wants to look.

        • WMCB says:

          Lola, do you think our legislators get together over a beer and actually brainstorm about what might work, bouncing things around until an outside-the-box idea passes practical muster? That they propose things, and then poke holes in their own idea? That the other guy ever says, “Well, it won’t work the way you did it, but what if you did it this way…..?”

          I think they don’t. I almost know they don’t. Which is a big part of the problem.

        • Lola-at-Large says:

          That’s why you and I ought to run for office, WMCB. More Janes, less dicks!

        • 1539days says:

          There’s too much emphasis on going to a good college. At the same time, thrifty kids are finding state university tuition going up as well. I spent most of my college at state schools, but I used my student loans to pay for room and board when I was out of work. Should I get to discharge what was essentially a personal loan?

          Now, you can find ways to get rid of student debt. You could pay your student loans with a bunch of credit cards, then declare bankruptcy. Credit card debt is much easier to discharge.

        • Lola-at-Large says:

          There are ways to work around some of this days. It’s not all or nothing. We’ve already discussed limiting student loan availability based on credit-worthiness. Here’s a compromise I could live with regarding student loans and bankruptcy: allow people to bankrupt everything but the original principle. That would include interest and the exorbitant late fees and penalties that lenders like to stack up, including the rolling of those penalty and late fees into the principle after consolidation. That’s another thing, reform consolidation. It’s a freaking mess. More transparency, stricter regulations on banks.

  5. Lizzy says:

    The OWS protesters are going to stay forever. I wish them the joy of the bedbugs and lice that come with such crowding. May they enjoy the stench of their own body waste. I especially wish them the comfort of the cold, wind and rain in that one acre square. Real chumps. They exhibit no understanding of the issues involved in our economic mess.

  6. swanspirit says:

    O heck , the first chill wind and they will be gone !

  7. Lola-at-Large says:

    From the link:

    “On Wednesday/Thursday, all campers/supporters should reach out to friends/family/anyone to donate or purchase brooms, mops, squeegees, dust pans, garbage bags, power washers and any other cleaning supplies to be collected at sanitation. The sanitation committee should move full-speed ahead on purchase of bins allocated by consensus at GA.

    After General Assembly on Thursday, we’ll have a full-camp cleanup session. Sanitation can coordinate, and anyone who is available will help with the massive community effort!

    Then, Friday morning, we’ll awake and position ourselves with our brooms and mops in a human chain around the park, linked at the arms. If NYPD attempts to enter, we’ll peacefully/non-violently stand our ground and those who are willing will get arrested.”

  8. Pingback: Bloomberg to OWS: Clean up your room! « Not Your Sweetie

  9. foxyladi14 says:

    this could get interesting. 🙂

  10. Pingback: Sorry Tabloids, no OWS showdown, the unwashed won one! « Not Your Sweetie

Comments are closed.