The Willits tree-sit fallout

|
(76)
Sen. Noreen Evans isn't happy with Caltrans

I just spoke with state Sen. Noreen Evans, who represents the Willits area, about the forcible eviction of five tree-sitters -- and by forcible, I mean firing projectiles (first reported as rubber bullets, later as bean bags) at a protester holding onto tree limbs 70 feet in the air. She's not happy.

The Willits Weekly has been reporting in depth on this whole mess, and quotes an Evan statement:

I am shocked and dismayed at what seems to be an excessive use of force on unarmed protestors. Thus far, I feel Caltrans and CHP have been slow to respond to my questions and quick to act regarding the Bypass Project.

By the time we talked, she'd calmed down a bit and wasn't ready to second-guess the CHP tactics. "I'm not in law-enforcement," she said. "It could have been much worse."

But she did say she was still furious about the timing of the raid. "The mayor of Willits has been trying to get information out of Caltrans, and has been having trouble, so I asked for a meeting. I wanted to know, is there some way they could handle this protest peacefully?

"I learned about the events half an hour before the Caltrans director was supposed to be in my office. I was not happy."

Evans told me that Caltrans blamed the CHP -- but the CHP wasn't having it. "I called the commissioner of the CHP, who told me the order was given by Caltrans," she said.

So the bulldozing continues -- but this isn't going away.

 

Comments

I recall that Quan and another Oakland councilor almost got themselves arrested for trying to second guess the cops dealing with the Occupy camp. They just about talked their way out of a night in jail, but it was still ugly.

What you're overlooking here, Tim, is that the removal of these tress was perfectly legal and that the protestor(s) were breaking the law. What is really sad is that the protestors put themselves and LE at risk.

The police have my support and confidence, and it appears they used the minimum amount of safe force to neutralize the situation. Evans needs to butt out.

Posted by anon on Apr. 05, 2013 @ 5:14 pm
Posted by lillipublicans on Apr. 05, 2013 @ 6:39 pm

chief who is more to your liking.

But there isn't a police chief in the land which will turn a blind eye to you if you commit a crime, like trespass or reckless endangerment.

Try going up to a cop and telling him he is under your "control". Go on, I dare you.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 05, 2013 @ 6:51 pm

You like your corruption both hot and cold. With extraordinary power should come extraordinary accountability. We know what happens when it does not, that is why there is separation of powers where the legislative branch sets policy that the executive branch implements.

Why do you hate America so, why do you hate our constitution and the founding fathers? Wouldn't you be happier in Putin's Russia?

Posted by marcos on Apr. 05, 2013 @ 7:34 pm

don't like the way the cops work, vote for a different (and presumably more anti-cop, pro-criminal) mayor.

Evidently the voters of SF do not want a weakened police force the way you envisage it.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 7:04 am

We pay their salaries through our hard-earned tax dollars, so they owe a duty of care to the people they serve. That's us. And if they abuse their power, they must answer for that. You see, we have this little thing called "the law" and the highest law of the land is the Constitution which guarantees our right to fair and just treatment. Cops are *not* above the law.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 11:32 am

Tim has A LOT of questions for a state senator who doesn't even represent the area the SFBG claims to report on!!

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Apr. 05, 2013 @ 9:01 pm

Senator Evans is late to the party, the protest of this Cal Trans project has been going on for years. The tree sitters are just the latest development. That Senator Evans is "neutral" on the project, but "shocked and dismayed" about Cal Trans handling of the protesters sounds like phony political BS. Really, is this the best political representation the north coast can elect?

Posted by Guest on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 6:17 am

She didn't give a crap about this protest, nor a few trees, until this arrest caught some press, and now she's trying to get her name in the headlines.

Her job is to uphold the law, and those who enforce it for the safety and prosperity of all of us.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 8:49 am

about progressive legislation in SF the general response is something about facism or right wingistism, and then some ravings about hatred of the poor and the greatness of the elected invasive state.

When the process is followed as it seems to be here, and it is the state itself doing something or another, the people protesting are noble and righteous in fighting the state.

The Senator probably realized that this was a go nowhere issue only worried about by some bonged out hippies, now she needs to make a statement that is inoffensive to all.

Posted by Matlock on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 11:40 am
Posted by Matlock on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 11:07 am

This little fact was buried deep in the news articles about the tree shitters. They should have fired up the chainsaws and started cutting. The crusties would have come down pretty quick. Noreen Evans is the poster girl for inept hangwringing progtards.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 11:16 am

If they tree sit, throw up a chain link fence and let no one or any food in. They will be down in a day or two.

If some protester chains him or herself to something, leave them, after being ignored for a few hours the need to take a crap or pee will have them begging to be cut free.

etc...

Stop caving in and giving them attention.

Posted by Matlock on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 11:33 am

Always?

D'ya know? It'd be *so* much more compelling if you claimed that you once were a tree-hugger until got your poor little heart broken by some hippie girl.

Posted by lillipublicans on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 11:57 am

I was stating an opinion.

You should probably look into not confusing your opinions as fact with actual opinion.

Posted by Matlock on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 12:14 pm

A cop once told me that his greatest weapon was not his gun or his club, but his pen. And if you don't think cops don't lie when they're writing people up, I have an old section of the bay bridge I'd love to sell you.

Posted by Guest99 on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 11:38 am

lines that the protesters were using to support themselves and their gear prior to that, so their account is, to say the least, suspect.

Posted by lillipublicans on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 11:51 am

and so would any right-minded citizen.

Posted by anon on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 12:46 pm

themselves -- won't be serving on any juries while admitting to that sort of unsupportable bias.

Posted by lillipublicans on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 1:31 pm
Posted by anon on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 2:08 pm

But testilying gets a pass.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 2:17 pm

No reasonably juror would determine otherwise.

Warbler broke the law.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 3:01 pm

Lilli fabricates:

>"The CHP also admits cutting lines that the protesters were using to support themselves"

FWIW, that is the reality in Lilliworld only; he probably heard it from one of the voices in his head. Back on planet earth the cops said that they cut lines that the protesters were using to move between trees to avoid arrest. They weren't lines used for support but rather for escape. Lilli will probably say 'how did they know that a line stretched between two trees wasn't essential for support?'

If you look at the video of the protester wrestling with police 70 feet up you see that the cops are actually trying to attach lines to him. The concept that they would wantonly cut lines that were essential to his support makes a nice little story for Lilli, who, in fairness to him, probably does therefore consider it to be true.

Posted by Troll on Apr. 07, 2013 @ 10:05 am

There is no way to remove someone from a tree that is both 100% effective AND safe. The protestors "occupy" these trees precisely because it is hard to remove them. So the cops must take some risk to remove them, and I feel confident they are adept at minimizing them, and that sue of a rubber bullet here was the "least worst" type of risk.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 07, 2013 @ 10:23 am

Lilli, here is what the Willits newspaper source actually wrote, they said that the protesters:

"...had established a rope-and-pulley network in the tops of most of the trees in the grove. They used this high-level network to move acrobatically from tree to tree as CHP officers approached....Officers first began cutting and removing the ropes in an attempt to reduce the tree-sitter's mobility.

And then you wrote: ""The CHP also admits cutting lines that the protesters were using to support themselves"

Look, if this helps...it is easy to understand why you WANT your interpretation to be true, why you really want to believe the voices in your head. But where you create a problem is when you start taking things that you just WISH were true and start putting them out there as if they really are true.

This is a good example. Does it help at all?

Posted by Troll on Apr. 07, 2013 @ 11:10 am

was just for guiding the protesters as they levitated?

Posted by lillipublicans on Apr. 07, 2013 @ 11:45 am

No, I believe that the Willit's newspaper was accurate when it said that the pulleys and rope were for moving between trees. to evade the police.

Not sure how a pulley would be used by one of the protesters to support themselves. Pulleys seem to be something that you would use to move somewhere.

But look, I'm not getting anywhere, I see. There was a thread going on here and you suddenly interjected something about "The CHP also admits cutting lines that the protesters were using to support themselves". Which was absolutely false.

I tried to help you a little bit to try and understand the difference between things that you just make up and things that are really true. But I give up and will leave it to the professionals whom hopefully are working closely with.

Posted by Troll on Apr. 07, 2013 @ 12:18 pm

*

Posted by lillipublicans on Apr. 07, 2013 @ 12:41 pm

One would assume lilli's professional treatment plan would certainly include, "no more wasting time on chatboards," among a long list of other helpful tips for a fuller and more productive life.

Posted by guest on Apr. 07, 2013 @ 1:05 pm

it is fairly obvious that he has no job. Nor is he conceivably capable of doing a job, at least not one that is professional.

No job, no family, no relationship, renter at age 55, virgin . .. it's a really sad picture.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 07, 2013 @ 1:19 pm
Posted by Guest on Apr. 07, 2013 @ 11:39 am

Caltrans and CHP chiefs both came out & said that they worked in coordination together. They didn't blame each other. That's Evans' interpretation because she was pissed that they didn't keep her in the loop. She should stop making public statements before she has all the facts. I can't believe people actually voted for this person! Totally unproffessional and aligning herself with law breakers. I'm all for peaceful protests but this is ridiculous!

Posted by Lookiloo on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 12:05 pm

If you read the story, both she -- a duly elected state senator representing the area -- and the mayor of Willits were given the run-around by the state agencies.

Funny how reactionary trolls will spew on and on about local rights, state's rights, etc., right up until these vaunted values get in the way of "progress."

Posted by lillipublicans on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 12:16 pm
Posted by anon on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 12:47 pm

Nowadays, progress means progress in abating humanity's historic predilection for destroying our habitat -- Planet Earth -- for short-sighted fad or fancy.

If you were a troll, then presumably you were pretending to be thick-skulled.

Posted by lillipublicans on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 1:28 pm

Seems to me you make up the emaning of the word as you go along to support whatever hairbrained scheme you come up with.

Luckily the American voters have no time for your ass-conceived notion of "progress" which, as far as I can see, is essentially trying tos top progress.

Posted by anon on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 2:07 pm

http://www.gallup.com/poll/153803/americans-endorse-various-energy-envir...

Even most *Republicans* see the importance of environmentalism; another problem for the Repug party going forward.

Posted by lillipublicans on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 2:37 pm

Ask Americans if they care about whales or redwoods, and they will say that they do. But ask them if they care more about jobs, and they say they will. Keystone means 30,000 new jobs.

Oh, and progressives can be anti-green when it suits them. They want to keep hetch-hetchy dam, for instance.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 3:05 pm

Dispense with "progressive," dispense with "the left," and let's talk about what's really going on without labels: the US is one big corrupt racket that is turning on its own citizens.

There is support for stopping that across the political spectrum. That would not involve dismantling capitalism. Most other comparable nations don't suffer this kind of pure corruption, they don't hold their citizens in contempt.

At the rate things are going, "honest services" capitalism would be a planet saver. There is support for ending corruption and corporate dominance of government across the political spectrum.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 2:54 pm

world's leading corporations are almost all American. That emans that profits are made here, jobs are created here, the dollar is the dominant currency, and everyone else see the US as the safest place to invest.

And, as a shareholder, I have every right to vote and change anything about a corporation that I may dislike.

The simple fact is that most Americans are stakeholders in American corporations, either as employees, customers, shareholders or bondholders.

The business of America is business, and when a mayoral candidate stands against business, even in liberal SF, he loses by a huge margin because the voters do not share that bias.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 3:10 pm

Avalos lost because he was barely able to appeal outside of the traditional, dwindling progressive precincts. He really did not contest corporate dominance at all. It is clear that progressive candidates who are tied too closely to labor and the nonprofits are constrained from doing anything that would threaten the continued cash flow.

Gonzalez was not tied to those interests and did much better than candidates who are. In fact most times that a non-profit or labor progressive ran against a more independent progressive, the independent won. Gonzalez/Ammiano and Mirkarimi/Haaland are two examples.

The US Government is a protection racket run by and for business with less and less trickling down to Americans. The government and these mega corporations hate Americans, you ally yourself with them, therefore you hate Americans and by extension America.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 3:27 pm

the voters told him that was their number one issue.

Avalos had no policies on the private sector because he doesn't understand it. He came across as being out of touch, whereas Lee made it very clear that jobs were job one, and he has delivered on that, which is why Lee's approval ratings are at 65% and rising.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 3:42 pm

Avalos lost because he was constrained from putting together a coalition that could carry him across the finish line because key members of the coalition were conflicted. Tough shit that he was out spent, it was his job to put together a winning coalition and he could not, would not do that.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 4:29 pm

to keep politics from inexorably moving to the right.

I understand the statement; it simply doesn't make any sense.

Avalos -- just like the liberals in the 1960s who kept us from winning in Vietnam -- didn't *want* to win.

Posted by lillipublicans on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 5:19 pm

If you think that appealing to the majority of San Franciscans who are not serviced by the nonprofit and labor dominant sectors of the coalition is "moving to the right," then that demonstrates your cluelessness on how to craft a viable progressive message.

Nonprofits and labor cutting deals with corporate power to keep their lights on and us in the dark is "moving to the right."

Posted by marcos on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 6:00 pm

the local economy, even though polls clearly showed that to be the number one issue.

Suicidal.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 07, 2013 @ 8:57 am

There is no reason other than he is an out of touch A-hole who takes his orders from SEIU.

But a symptom is his main talking point of raising $500,000 more dollars for city government.

Few working productive citizens of the city give a shit about this, while to progressives like Avalos, who are SEIU monkeys, they think it is high logic.

Progressives utterly out of touch with the actual citizens of the city.

Posted by Matlock on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 7:58 pm

what pays 4% of their earnings in taxes.

And a good thing it is for them -- and us too of course! -- that no amount of American blood is ever spared in keeping the U.S. Dollar in ascendency... for a little while longer...

And of course all those top U.S. banks are real peachy-keen too.

Posted by lillipublicans on Apr. 06, 2013 @ 3:28 pm