The Occupy San Francisco encampment was forcibly evicted 2 days ago because according to Mayor Ed Lee, the encampment “is not a sustainable or safe environment for protesters or the general public.”

Let’s take a look at that statement.  As far as safety goes, the only safety issue I see is the health hazard of having a centralized location for where people feel invited to hang out 24/7 without bathroom facilities.  Where do all these folks go to the toilet?  Or take a shower? Or brush their teeth?  I can also see it as an unsafe environment because of the rising tension between police and the protesters.  It is illegal to camp out in a public park and eventually, there had to be a standoff which is potentially unsafe.  Luckily there were no riots.

As far as sustainability goes, the question is how long could these folks actually live in this encampment without the help of city resources such as waste management and bathrooms.  How long would these folks last without the food and water they are buying from businesses surrounding the encampment which might not be that thrilled that they are there?  How long till people have had enough?  To the untrained eye, the encampment consisted of a bunch of  people who have ideals about financial equality who should be spending their time finding a job instead playing the role of the victim.  More public support for their movement would have helped sustain their encampment, but they failed to do so and got evicted.  Maybe if they had a better marketing team…

I am not saying the encampment was a bad thing.  In fact, I agree with a lot of the complaints they have, but I agree that the encampment was not sustainable. As a positive note, It did however spark a huge conversation about the distribution of wealth in this country and people around the world are talking about this movement.  But I wonder if the folks in the encampments have the tools to create a new economic model.  If it turns they propose a more sustainable system than the free, open market then I am all ears.  I wish them luck.  But it sounds like they want more government involvement in regulating large financial institutions as opposed to a new system.   But isn’t it the open market that gives them the chance to be at the top?  Sounds like they are playing the role of a victim of this market.

If history has told us anything it is that power and wealth have the tendency to shift from the haves to the have-nots, and then back again.  In a never ending cycle.  Is that what these protesters are tyring to spark?  A power shift towards the have-nots?  So I am not sure what type of systems these folks want in the end and I am not sure they know how to achieve their goals.  What the heck are their short term and long term goals anyway?   And will someone please tell me how they plan to get it!  Then maybe they can be taken more seriously and have a sustainable movement that elicits long term change.

Thanks to nydailynews.com for the photo.