I live just outside Philadelphia, and while I draw inspiration each week from occupations across the nation, I have participated in actions and general assemblies (via streaming video) with the Occupy Philly group.  This weekend was a big one for OP.  After months of peaceful occupation and tenuous cooperation with the city, the camp was issued an eviction notice at the end of last week.  The notice itself came as no surprise to the occupants, as construction was scheduled for Dilworth Plaza (the location of their camp).  With the group acting in direct defiance of the eviction order and staging a huge show of solidarity which was supported by hundreds of OP friendlies, surviving Sunday night completely unthreatened by the police forces surrounding the plaza was a bit more unexpected.  What was most amazing, however, was the internal struggle of the group’s conflicting political opinions and how they turned this conflict into palpable resolve.

There is a mix of facts and rumors still to be sorted into a full account of what actually happened to create the friction that plagued the group and culminated in a screaming match of a generally assembled debacle on Friday night.  The long and short of it is that a group called Reasonable Solutions, which spoke with the city on the group’s behalf in an attempt to negotiate the messy business that is urban occupation, began making decisions that didn’t accurately represent that consensus of the larger group.  Reasonable Solutions was able to procure an agreement from the city to move operations to a plaza across the street.  Significantly smaller in size, the plaza would support only what the permit allowed: three collapsible canopies to be assembled and removed – along with all persons and operations – in accordance with permitted hours (9 am to 7 pm).  Now, I have not been close enough to the situation to pass on any reliable details of it, nor would I speculate as I believe speculation is akin to gossip.  What the intentions of the individuals who comprised Reasonable Solutions were, are being debated by many.  Be they agitators from the upstart or those who paved the road to hell with their good intentions, I know not, and I presume nothing.  The end result, however, involved a permit the majority of occupants did not want, a megaphoned hijacking of an important general assembly, and a public statement by OP severing ties to the Reasonable Solutions subset.

While I marveled from my living room, watching the chaos unfold via live stream on Friday night with a repeat performance circumvented with relative dignity on Saturday evening, I couldn’t help but ask myself what the justification was for not leaving the plaza.  The construction would, after all, create lots of (short-term) employment for the union workers; it would beautify the city, create a space for concerts which raises local revenue, and create (though extremely limited in number) some employment for those maintaining and managing the space.  The cost was extraordinary but it was mostly grants that had to be spent a certain way, and it was being paid into the local groups building the space.  Blocking the project seemed short-sighted.  I sat back, however, and refrained from passing judgment until I had more perspective.  I followed closely during Saturday’s GA and tried to find the reasoning behind this campaign to resist eviction.  The meeting, however, was business as usual.  They made plans for the eviction and discussed and voted on several other items, none of which gave me any insight into the reason for the stand or the split.  Then the time came for the campers to pack their tents and move out.

On Sunday, the camp was prepared for eviction, and so were the campers.  With a backdrop that seemed naked compared to the previously colorful, packed, and bustling center of democratic fervor, the occupants of Philadelphia’s camp and their supporters sat down on the steps of Dilworth Plaza and awaited their eviction… and waited… and waited… and waited.  They waited all night.  They filled the time and space with voices, some expressing themselves in the echoes of comrades during an “open mic” and others cheered and sang through vibrant drumming that lasted well into the night.  People in camp visited the people outside of camp via the video stream, answering questions and chatting.  In the morning, the camp was quiet.  Not because it was empty, as so many thought it would be, but because it was sleeping – piled in greater concentration than ever before in the few remaining tents.

Somewhere between the locking of the arms moments before the scheduled eviction and the sound of post-midnight jubilance, I realized why these people chose to make this stand, to sacrifice a relatively peaceful experience, to throw away months of positive relations with the local police, and to risk bodily harm.  The answer was simple: the deal was not acceptable.

The city issued its original permit for a 24-hour occupation, permitted camping, portable toilets, electricity, and even reduced police presence to ensure that those wanting to approach the camp would feel comfortable doing so.  Suddenly, now that the city had to commence a $50 million dollar project, that only stands to create 20 full-time jobs and promises to disrupt the lives of hundreds of homeless citizens, a restriction was being put on the functions of the Occupy movement.  With so many locations in the city to choose from, many with the space and features necessary to support the camp, the city wanted to force the camp – which is the movement itself, symbolically – into a smaller space with limiting ordinances.  What happened in the signing of the construction contract that made it legal to limit the first amendment rights of the people using the space?  What clause was there that gave Mayor Nutter the power to vote free assembly?  Was it somewhere between who will lay the concrete and who will plant the shrubs?  Of course, not.  So, they stayed – dividing themselves from a unit which, regardless of their intentions, was willing to bargain away their first amendment for reasons unknown to me but speculated by many.

Philadelphia, which literally means “brotherly love,” has never been a place renowned for its charm.  We are city of working class people, strong on culture and rich in pride, opinionated and close-knit, critical of our leaders (and sports teams), and fabulous at applying more swear words to a sentence than words comprising the actual thought.  We are sarcastic and sharp at the tongue.  We are as tough as we are loud, and we are equally unapologetic.  It is this character, read through our snickers and jeers, that often leaves the nation asking “where is the love?”  I try to help others understand us by asking them recall how their brother loved them.  He poked; he pinched; he knocked you around; but he loved you unconditionally, taught you to stand up for yourself, and never let you down when you really needed him.  We are the birthplace of the freedoms this nation has taken from granted and this movement is determined to put to work.  We are great in a debate, but even better in a fight.  And, we are really, really good when push comes to shove.

Occupy Philly demonstrated all things bold and beautiful about the history and character of this city.  They were uncompromising in their stance and unrelenting in their stand.  They saw an element that endeavored to sway them toward a compromise that left them holding all the short straws, regarding their camp and regarding their rights.  They withstood, with peace and dignity, the chaos that ensued when this now annexed portion of the project attempted to divide and harass them.  They made clear their objective and their ideology with their rejection of an insufficient negotiation that tried to limit their rights and their reach into the community.

This movement is not about compromise.  This movement cannot rely on those in power to do what is right for the people.  This movement cannot take leave of the rights written right here in my city so that mayors can be credited with a keeping on the peace sown by our commitment to non-violence.  And above all, this movement cannot be negotiated into smaller space and smaller time at so critical a moment in our American history, especially for the continuance of the same type of progress that has been pushing our nation backwards for half a century.  If the leaders of our cities want us to move, they are just going to have to give us the space they call their office – because that is what we are after: change in leadership.  Not by name, not by party, but by thinking, by conduct, and by construct itself.

It was a beautiful moment for Occupy Philadelphia.  It was a moment of epiphany for me.  And somewhere between the locking of the arms and the drums that celebrated long into the night, I’m sure the fathers of nation who lived and walked on these very streets, who rallied the servants of an empirical British doctrine designed for the profit of kings, who wrote the words on which we all stand now, did their own mic check.  We might not have heard it, but it was loud and clear to those who were paying attention, and it started off something like, “We, the people…”