Occupy Vancouver On Claims It Cost City $1 Million: We Provided $760,000 In Social Services

Occupy Vancouver

First Posted: 12/21/11 07:27 PM ET Updated: 12/22/11 07:37 AM ET

VANCOUVER - Occupy Vancouver protesters say they doled out almost as much in services as the city says it spent on dealing with the five-week encampment.

Earlier this week, the city's manager issued a report saying the protest cost taxpayers almost $1 million, but protesters say city officials chose to spend that much money by overreacting.

Occupy spokeswoman Sarah Beuhler says the protest camp actually fed and cared for people the city or the province might otherwise have had to.

She says the camp provided the equivalent of about $90,000 in sheltering costs and another $672,000 in primary medical care.

The city says as of it spent $981,103, including $590,000 on police overtime to monitor the camp, more than half of it in the first week.

City manager Penny Ballem said in the report that Vancouver's costs were in line with those incurred in other major cities.

Related on HuffPost:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST CANADA BUSINESS

VANCOUVER - Occupy Vancouver protesters say they doled out almost as much in services as the city says it spent on dealing with the five-week encampment.Earlier this week, the city's manager issued a ...
VANCOUVER - Occupy Vancouver protesters say they doled out almost as much in services as the city says it spent on dealing with the five-week encampment.Earlier this week, the city's manager issued a ...
Filed by Daniel Tencer  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 34
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
01:39 PM on 01/02/2012
In terms of costing lots of wasted money, CLBC did a great job in 2011. The CLBC board gave bonuses to managers who cut services to BC's most vulnerable, ie, the disabled in our province. Clark moved some people around, but that's it. She did not admit CLBC made a horrific mess. Keep an eye on CLBC for 2012 to see if they can do a better job. Putting the money in your pocket and denying services to the disabled speaks volumes to CLBC's senior management team.
06:58 PM on 12/22/2011
Hold on. Where did the protestors get this money from? And where did they get the medical facilities, in the middle of a park no less, to incur such high medical costs? Did they consider also the cost of infrastructure to pay for all the toilet flushing (or chemical toilets, I'm not sure), the additional electricity, the damage to the landscape, the policing to make sure that no one got hurt? I'm having trouble believing that the protestors paid for things for the homeless instead of paying for things they should have been paying for for themselves.

This sounds more like people who don't want to admit they've been a drain on the system they're trying to protect.
05:35 PM on 12/23/2011
The Toilets were donated, as was daily emptying of them. On-site medical staff (Doctors and nurses, all volunteer ) treated everything from cuts and scrapes to pneumonia and serious infections in a makeshift clinic made from tarps, pallets and plywood stocked with full array of donated supplies.

37,000 meals were served and housing for 30 homeless people over 37 days was provided by utilizing supplies donated by Vancouver residents. These kind of services cost money.

Many of the people that were serviced were not of the camp but people from the community as well.

There were on-site volunteer peace keepers (many of them professorial security guards) that were told regularly by the city workers and police alike that "you guys make our job easy".
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TwoZeroOZ
01:48 PM on 12/22/2011
"672,000 in primary medical care"

Haha, what???
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Johnny LaRue
political correctness is just incorrect
01:00 PM on 12/22/2011
Sounds correct to me. The government spends $981,103 to get $762,000 of dubious over priced services with money they don't have. Glad the occupiers took it upon themselves to see that the monies went to their personal cause rather then what the majority(real99%) would want.
12:32 PM on 12/22/2011
Over $700,000.00 is a lot of money. Where did the Occupiers get it from? The group I saw didn't seem to be that affluent.
photo
BCSLAVE
Got a key?
11:41 AM on 12/22/2011
V for Victory
photo
BCSLAVE
Got a key?
11:40 AM on 12/22/2011
Remember all the countries where protesters camped out for weeks or months at their respective capitals to make sure their democracy, their votes, and their constitution was being respected by the government. Fundamentally, its the same thing here.

Also, years ago the Japanese government loudly and angrily asked the city of Vancouver, and Canada to a larger extent, who "allowed" a demonstration against Japan's whaling industry in Stanley Park while the Japanese were a guest of an international conference. The Canadian politicians of every stripe (Mulrooney included) said proudly - In Canada no one needs to ask permission to peacefully protest nor do they need to get a permit to gather and peacefully demonstrate a political point.

How things seem to be changing for the worst. Freedom in peril

V of Victory
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TwoZeroOZ
12:12 PM on 12/22/2011
The problem with the way the Occupy movement handled things is that their 5 week 'encampment' began to infringe on the rights of everyone else.

Had they just been 'peacefully protesting' with picket signs somewhere from morning til night, there would have been no government intervention.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ProgressiveCDN
A Progressive Moderate
10:43 AM on 12/22/2011
What BS! Makes me wonder how much NYC wasted on their army patrol (NYPD) for croud control and ultimately dispersing... The city's choose to spend this much money instead of dealing with things more diplomatically and peacefully.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Brian Berneker
I have an opinion and I'm not afraid to state it!
08:19 AM on 12/22/2011
The insinuation of this is that the public's right to assembly is limited by how much the city wants to spend on "monitoring" and "protecting" it. Once the bill gets to a certain threshold, civic rights be damned.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Angus12
08:40 AM on 12/22/2011
The right to assemble is different than squatting on publicly or privately owned property for 3 months.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ProgressiveCDN
A Progressive Moderate
10:42 AM on 12/22/2011
No. It's actually no different than squatting on public property... assuming you keep things hygenic and decent, technically the right to assemble means the right to assemble peacefully anywhere for any amount of time.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Drect
He who ceases to learn cannot adequately teach.
11:03 AM on 12/22/2011
What part of "right to assemble" do you not get? Its not "right to assemble...only for a certain amount of time, while costing the city as little as possible"

Wow, try again.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TwoZeroOZ
12:20 PM on 12/22/2011
20 people want to set up camp in a park for a protest with no clearly defined goals or ideas. 20 people are costing the City hundreds of thousands of dollars just to maintain their safety.
100,000 people want to use that park, 100,000 people are paying the tab for those 20 people, 100,000 people have clearly been very patient but are starting to get a little pissed off after 5 weeks.

If you're a mayor, which side do you take?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ProgressiveCDN
A Progressive Moderate
03:32 PM on 12/22/2011
1) 20 people aren't going to prevent 100,000 people from using a park.
2) when would 100,000 ppl ever use a public park at one time?
3) the 20 ppl in the park have just as much of a right to be there as the 100,000 ppl who want to use it... and your assertion that 100,000 people are paying the tab is not logical, as the 20 people are taxpayers too, therefore they're also paying the tab.

As long as there's not safety concerns or damage to property the mayor wouldn't have to make a choice.. Those 100,000 ppl could stop being snobs and just go use the park and ignore the protesters
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Brian Berneker
I have an opinion and I'm not afraid to state it!
08:16 AM on 12/22/2011
Maybe they should have got cheaper pepper spray, say, through a volume discount at Costco.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:57 AM on 12/22/2011
Pepper spray was not used in the Vancouver eviction.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SayBlade
This micro bio intentionally left blank.
10:26 AM on 12/22/2011
Perhaps if they should have not used pepper spray at all and talked nice.