Occupy Iowa City Decides not to Appeal Permit Denial

Ten cold but good-spirited Occupy members gathered for a general assembly in the College Green Park pavillion Thursday night to decide if the group should file an appeal to the city's decision to not renew Occupy Iowa City's permit to stay in the park.

The consenus: There should be no appeal.

The appeal in question would have brought the city manager's directive for Occupy to leave the park by March 1 to the consideration of the city council at its next formal meeting.

While the group made no formal action against an appeal being made, by not voting to file an appeal due by the end of the day on Friday, the members of the assembly were taking the stance that no appeal would be made.

Beyond this consensus, feelings toward the park and the end of the occupation were decidedly mixed. This was particularly true when it came to deciding what to do with the homeless people who have used the camp's tents for shelter from the cold.

Five months ago, when Occupy Iowa City first occupied College Green Park, the camp served not just as a local symbol of the movement, but also as a logistical center where the group could meet, plan events, and engage in dialogue with the community and each other.

During the assembly, Occupy member Sean Adams-Hitt, 30, said that now the park occupation has transitioned from being a staging area for the movement to a logistical challenge that has taken too much focus away from spreading the ideas that started the movement in the first place -- wealth inequality, the eroding of the middle class and corporate control of government.

He said the constant debates about the fate of the park had become an "energy drain" on the movement, and despite its symbolic value, it might have outlived its usefulness.

"It's like nobody wants to acknowledge that it's just not happening anymore," Adams-Hitt said. "I'm conflicted about it, but I just think it's better to let it go."

Occupy member Mauro Heck agreed.

"Even if there are no physical tents here, we can still use the park as a symbolic headquarters for our meetings," he said. "Let's move on with issues, and organize and demonstrate and do what we really want to do."

Although all ten members in attendance seemed to be in agreement that the camp should come to an end, there was mixed feelings on two major accounts. One, they agreed that there should be some more planning for the best way for Occupy to leave the camp while still taking positive steps going forward, and two, what should be done to help the homeless who have taken shelter at the camp, many of whom would be left after Feb. 29 without a place to go with at least a month of cold left to go.

Some Occupy members suggested filing the permit appeal to go before the council so the issue of the homeless could be addressed with them. The majority disagreed with this course of action, however, arguing that it would be better for the Occupy members to help the homeless at the camp directly, when help was appropriate.

"I think it would work better for us to determine how we are going to help people, rather than trying to tell the city how they should help people," said Diego Davidenko, 32, of Iowa City.

The consensus of the assembly was how this would be accomplished would have to be fleshed out in later discussions. Also to be determined is the exact plan for how to group up and take down the tents together ahead of the Feb. 29 deadline.

Although no formal decision was made to appeal the decision in order to speak to the city council, a few of the members indicated they planned to go before the council to share their experiences and concerns.

With rows of tents sitting nearby, dark and mostly empty, the air around them cold and still, the group concluded the meeting by discussing their schedule for future general assemblies. There was talk of preparing for events as far ahead as May.