What are the Really Free Market Signs made of?

To Whom It May Concern:

Folks from the informal Really Really Free Market organizing collective in Carrboro apologize to all candidates for office in Carrboro whose current campaign signs are being used to publicize the event. The action did not reflect the consent or intention of many involved with the Market organizing, and was not intended to disrespect individuals or hinder their campaigns. We will not use any more signs made from the signs of current candidates, and in the future will be sure to advertise the market using donated/out-of-date signs. We hope that both the market and the elections are successful and that there will be no conflict between the two.

thanks,
Nick Shepard & others from the Really Really Free Market organizing collective

[this will also be sent to candidates whose signs were used]

Thank you, Nick. Now can we move on?

As far as I'm concerned we can move on. We've had an honest apology and assurance that it won't happen again. I think it would have been nice if Neal had made the candidates new signs, as a form of restitution, but that's certainly not within Mr. Shephard's power. The only person who can and should do that is Neal.

I do, however, take exception to the idea that this was "blown out of proportion." I take elections, particularly local ones, very seriously. I think Ruby, David, Gerry, And Jackie did an excellent job explaing why this was important.

melanie

"but I'm pretty sure yard-dart style political signs are a waste of money and effort."

Not so. Part consciously and part unconsciously, I used candidate signs to guage their political savvy, their level of support/funding, the organizational strength of their campaign, their common sense (based partly on location), and either a short message or image to associate with them. I'm sure some of those assumptions were wrong and some were right, but they were all incorporated into my perspective of that candidate. Not by any means the only or even a significant part of my determination for Town Council races, but, I will admit to being guilty of what amounts to a high crime on these boards: I don't particularly care about school board races locally and will admit to voting by name recognition and signs that I liked in that race.

Political signs work, at least for some people and on some level.

Ok
Now it makes sense.Will someone please give me my signs back or pay me for the ones that are missing?
Also-this has caused all sorts of hard feelings among canidates who think people are taking down each other's signs.
Please replace my signs.
Thank you
JAcquie Gist

finally some news (actually editorial) coverage of the whole mess, citing this thread!

http://www.dailytarheel.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/10/31/4365a1d3948e3

Jacquie, here's the kicker: our "repurposed" signs are history. (Yes, I'm a victim too.) They can't be replaced, nor can they even be counted for purposes of restitution.

What we do have is really, really free evidence of thievery. I have Exhibit #1 in my possession.

When I retrieved the free market sign I had pounded into the ground, I pulled it apart. Inside was a campaign sign belonging to Randee Haven-O'Donnell. I dropped it by her house today. It can still be used.

Thank you, Jackie, you were most thoughtful. I really appreciate the return of the sign.

Whoever has the rest of the RRFM signs should return them to their original owners. It's not too late for them to be used.

Ah, but why is it political speech? Because candidates put words on a sign, which is in turn property. :-)

Seriously, though, your point is a good one, and I certainly recognize the difference.

Painting over signs with a stencil and a spray can renders them unsuitable for re-use.

I got this email today from a Wake County listserv (school board runoff elections are tomorrow, city elections were decided October 11 here):

"Greetings, all --

If you have extra campaign signs or metal holders AFTER the election tomorrow, please put them to good use by getting them to Roger Ehrlich, our beloved Man with the Peace Van. He and various volunteers cleverly flip the signs inside out and use the unmarked sign for new messages.

If you are going to be at Eleanor Goetee's celebration tomorrow night, you can toss them in the back of my truck and I'll get them to Roger. Or contact him directly at:

Roger Ehrlich
PublicAssembly.net
(919) 6696-5995 / 380-8380"

I plan to keep my signs - PLEASE DON'T take them. Thank you, Will.

I'm keeping mine too.

A banner at the bike path entrance advertises Really Really Free Market this Saturday afternoon at Town Commons. It's also mentioned in yesterday's CHN Weekend section.

Anyone who wants to reserve Town Commons or Century Hall has to do so formally. The application reads fairly strictly, as it should with staff oversight required. Is this their beef?

What if they call it the Really Really Fee Market?

Whining without leaving a way to be contacted...now THERE is a mature response to conflict. Listen up, Freemarketers--if you want resolution--rather than just kvetching--give the people in power some way to reach you.

oy.

Well, you don't expect them to change their plans just because some group followed the RULES do you? How UNCarrboro...

Mark--I was speaking of the RRFM people. I was certain the Puppet people had filed their paperwork. Now. it may be that the RRFM people have the Puppet's permission to hold their event at the same time...

But if not...what a hassle for the Puppeteers. Which is WHY there is a system for reservations in place. I realize some folks find "rules" repressive--but sometimes they are neccessary.

Ruby,

I knew there was more than one puppet extravaganza happening--but I was afraid I would misspell "Radicackalacky"--so I shortened it. We are going to Greenville to take The Boy and his roommate out for dinner--as said Boy just turned 18--so I will miss the puppetry.

So long as the RP folk know that they are sharing space with the RRFM then I don't suppose RP will have a problem...but I see the Town's viewpoint. They want to know who is taking RESPONSIBILITY for the use of the space. (A liability issue?) Hmmm....seems this sort of concern might have a bearing on another issue that is getting a lot of "web-time" on this board...

They should have been sanctioned back in October for "re-purposing" dozens of campaign signs to advertise an event at Town Commons. We were told at the time that it was the work of one over-zealous volunteer, but I still bristle whenever the RRFM sets up on town property.

This email to Mark Chilton (sent last thursday night) was sent out to the RRFM listserve where I received it today. It will hopefully clear up some misconceptions people have about the RRFM. Despite Chilton's calls for dialogue, he has not responded to this email.

The RRFM email address is reallyfreemarketnc@riseup.net.

Mark,

We got your email, forwarded to us by vinci, who i think you've talked with about the
really really free markets. We appreciate your concern and support for the free markets,
and your effort to communicate with folks who have called you with concerns over legal
action against the really really free market. Those phone calls were prompted by flyers
put up around town and hundreds and hundreds of handbills given out at markets which
explained that one past "organizer" (i.e. person who had paid for a permit) had recieved
a threatening letter from Brough Law Firm, which was an action taken by Kokeita Miller,
head of parks and rec.

It is actually not true that free market "organizers" have not met or talked with parks
and rec; we have done this extensively, though this process was obstructed by parks and
rec.'s unwillingness to make any exception for this completely free event. One of the
reasons parks and rec. wanted us to get a permit was so that the commons wouldn't be
doublebooked. On the one occasion that this occured, we contacted the group (La Leche
League) beforehand and arranged to share the space with them. This arrangement was to
the ultimate advantage of both groups. The other reason given was that the permit fee
was needed to pay staff to open the bathrooms. However, we contacted local businesses
that were more than willing to open their bathrooms to free marketeers. It was not until
after being threatened by a law firm with "civil penalties" that attempting such dialogue
with parks and rec. seemed fairly useless and, as always, unnecessary.

This history aside, we are thrilled to hear from you that there in fact is no danger of
legal action against any supposed free market "organizer." We should make a point here,
that there is not really any one group of "organizers" of the really really free markets
in carrboro. at this point dozens upon dozens of people help, and hundreds have helped,
publicize the markets. The markets could not in fact function if it were not for their
very decentralized nature; where would all the stuff come from otherwise? They have
happened monthly since March, unpermitted, and it looks like people have been talking
about having them happen the first saturday of every month on into the future. They are a
carrboro "institution." Not paying for a permit for the markets allows for this
decenentralism to happen, and it also makes logical sense, since there is obviously no
income to the markets.

Not having a permit is also inherent to the spirit of the really really free markets,
which are designed to providing an experience of a world without money, bureaucracy, and
privatized "public" space. This is why Carrboro Town Commons is such a great space for
the events.

Regardless of what action the town takes, the free markets will continue to happen. Even
if one "organizer" tried to call them off, others would continue to come. It seems like
the best option would be for the parks and rec. guidelines to be changed so that public,
free events that do not require the town hall to be opened can use this space without
paying a fee. We would even be willing to work with the town government to draft these
changes.

We welcome further dialogue with you about this issue, and invite you to the next free
market this Saturday to talk with the diverse participants of the markets.

- Friends of the Free Markets

I understand that people are still upset about the improper use of campaign signs last October, it was clearly a very disrespectful thing, but I think that it is a bit much to continue having so much anger at a rather diffuse group of people for a mistake that was made last year by what was most likely a small minority of those involved with the market.

I am not trying to defend anyone, but I feel that the demonizing on both sides on this issue is really unproductive. There are serious and complex issues at stake about what a COMMONS means--both ideally and realistically. I agree with Ethan that this deserves a new thread, so that the issue of the use of the Town commons can be discussed without being completely overwritten by personal feelings towards particular people.

Ruby, how do you reconcile your statement about Eli's comment with your approach to the "dance-in" on private property to protest the management's policy? You earlier wrote:

"I am so thrilled to hear of people taking action on this! The craziest thing is that this attempt to stifle their own customers will only damage the very values (or perception of them) that bring people to Weaver Street Market and Carr Mill's lawn in the first place."

Isn't Carrboro in effect, stifling their citizens with the onerous burden of having to reserve a Town facility?

Ruby--

So should the RRFM hold "Market In's" until the Town rescinds IT'S "absurd policy?" CMM is simply trying to control their space...as is the town. What, substantively, is the difference?

Ruby, if you don't see how they are related then we would probably talk (write) pass each other. Mark C makes the point that I would agree with - abiding by a set of rules is not too much to ask.

People have the "right" to protest the CMM's policy and CMM has the "right" to take legal action against those on their property. Carrboro has a right to a usage and reservation policy; RRFM doesn't have to go there if they find the Town's reservation policy onerous ; CMM has a right to a no dancing policy; and people have the right not to shop there if they dislike the policy. Who is the dace-in ultimately going to hurt? Is that OK?

I hope, however, that no one will continue to equate as some have done this dance-in to the sit-ins - doing so is just repugnant (in my opinion).

I haven't paid much attention to this thread but sat next to 2 of the RRFM supporters at the BOA meeting. The folks who spoke ere very respectful and quite elegant. It's kind of sad to hear the frustration of the adults in dealing with this, and it's kind of sad to think that these young idealists are being indoctrinated into the way of bureaucracy as part of their attempt to create a different model of commerce and shared space. My life from the late 1960s and 1970s passed before me tonight. :~)

I know this isn't an onerous requirement Mark. That wasn't the point. When I was talking with the young man sitting next to me, I asked why they didn't just make the reservation and ask for a waiver of the fee. That's the practical, way-the-world works approach. But I also remember being young and knowing that this is the beginning of the loss of ideals and the entry into the world of bureaucracy. We lose one ideal for the sake of accommodating the rules, and then we lose another. That's how all the 60s war protesters and flower children ended up in Congress and the boardroom.

Terri, what was their response to your question about why they can't fill out a form? And exactly what ideal is being lost by filling out a reservation form? To me, not bothering to follow the process seems to reflect a sense of entitlement that contradicts the whole free market concept as I understand it.

The 2 guys I talked to didn't object to filling out the reservation--but they looked at me like I was completely missing the point of common space. They did adamantly object to paying a registration fee of $100 for a really really free market. I'm not sure if the mayor's promise that someone else was willing to pay had not be understood or whether they object totally on principle, but I didn't see or hear anything last night that smacked of entitlement.

My POINT when I wrote my post last night was one of nostalgia for the idealism of youth. Clearly should have kept those thoughts to myself.

The BOA bent over backwards last night (a little too far, I thought) in reacting to the RRFM's presence. They said many nice things about the organization and its politics, and referred the matter back to town staff. What for?

The Carr Mill dancing flap should not have been mentioned last night, not even in jest. It doesn't pertain.

Of course, express whatever you wish, Terri. I guess I don't understand what you meant when you say we lose one ideal for the sake of accommodating the rules, and then we lose another. Certainly not a big deal though. This discussion has a mtn out of a mole hill quality to it that I have helped build! :)

To my knowledge the issue here was not that the RRFM refused to fill out a reservation form, they just didn't want to pay the fee and they were told that they could not reserve the space if they could not pay.

Also One fundamental mis-understanding I know happened is that people who work on the RRFM were told that it was ok for them to have un-paid events there as long as they ceded the space if another group had made a reservation.. to the best of my knowledge there was one time when another group had reserved the space and the RRFm actually helped that group set up and there was no actual problem.....

I do think the Carr Mill Mall issue has everything to do with the RRFM/Town Commons Issue: they are both about balancing control and management of commons, or public spaces, with the right to freedom of expression and association in spaces not mediated by commerce. I am not aying there are easy answers to give to either of these situations, but i really think this conversation and most of this thread has been unduly shadowed by personal anger/catiness, and not enough discussion of one of the most important yet complex issues facing us today: namely how we re-invigorate democratic engagement, and combat the incessant privatization of EVERYTHING, including eliminating almost all spaces where people can engage with one another outside of commerical spaces. This I would argue has led to increasing individualism and lack of critical debate and been one of the most devstating things to American Democracy.

It would be interesting to think about whether or not there are more dynamic ways to have a respecful and productive use of the commons. Is it possible to think of forms of self-organization and self-management that allow the community and different groups within it to make necessary accomodations..... I am not saying there are not real concerns about making sure the costs of maintaining the commons are covered, nor that there might not be competition over the space, I guess I think it would be worthwhile to see if there are some creative ways we can overcome these obstacles together.

As for McDonalds and Wendy's being able to use the space-- i think that could easily be handled by saying no "for profit" events/activities without special approval......