The Anarchist Library Goes to Court

The Anarchist Library has found itself once again in deep shit. Tomorrow the Anarchist Library, as consequence for fliers found adhered to certain lamp posts in the Mission District of San Francisco, will be going to court to fight fines mounting to a total of $2400, so far. Just today we recieved more citations so more is to be expected.
The citations were first issued ..... by the SF Green Patrol, an offshoot of DPW, that makes sure that the Mission district stays clean of anarchist propaganda and other things the city deems as a detourant to gentrification. The fliers that were found posted were advertisements for anarchist classes being held at CCSF. Classes were sponsored by the Anarchist Library, a student club that maintains an anarchist infoshop at CCSF. Fliers were distributed to anybody willing to help post them around the city. We were unable to post them at CCSF because the classes were'nt completely approved to take place. In an effort to get the word out but still keep it under wraps on campus, we hit another hurdle and in turn blew our cover. Fortunately the administration on campus has other things to do rather than waste thier time penalizing us for breaking rules but it still leaves us with a minor legal battle.
Originally the Green Patrol and DPW were going to go after Lawerence Jarach and Tom Wetzel on the premise that it was there names on the fliers. They in fact were on the fliers because they were the guest teachers for the semester but had no knowledge as to what was happening with class advertising. In a letter of complaint sent to CCSF
Chancellor Day, Gideon Kramer of Green Patrol had this to say:
The two instructors whose names appear on the poster will be recieving
the citationsat 88 Fourth St., room # 725. They are Lawrance Jarach and Tom Wetzel. It might interest to know that Mr. Wetzel is none other than the member of Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition, who in June 2002 article interview in the New Mission News about cleaning up the blighted Mission District, stated unabashedly: " the 'let's leave it [the Mission] trashy' mindset has a certain advantage. If the Mission is full of drug dealerss, prostitutes and people tagging, the professional managerial class of people is not going to want to buy property in those neighbohoods. With prices down, low income families will not fear being displaced, the homelss will not be run out, and creative, low income artists and Latinos can still call the Mission home. Clearly, and in keeping with the anarchist creed, Mr. wetzel is concerned with promoting a atmoshphere of blight so he and his cohorts can continue trashing the Mission and keep out "undesirables". I am wondering what in the world CCSF is doing sponsoring an "anarchist Library" staffed by people who appearantly dont just study the anarchist movement, a
legitimate academic endeavor, but behave like anarchists themselves and appearantly actively promote anarchism. I would appreciate your thoughts on this issue, as I think it reflects poorly on CCSF. sincerly, Gideon Kramer SF Green Patrol Member, Mayor's Graffiti Advisory Board 415 861 2480 Gykramer [at] earthlink.net


Tom Wetzel writes in his defense to the chancellor:
Don't you find it strange that Gidgeon has selected to seek citations for
10 posters for a city college class? I suggest this is selective
prosecution that has a political motive. Actually, Gidgeon makes this clear from his letter. Gidgeon quotes a passage from an article in the New Mission News that he says was published in June, 2002. Actually, the quote is from an article in May, 2003. The author of the article, Rachel DesJardins, was writing about a controversy over whether zealous
advocates of "cleaning up the Mission," like Gidgeon, are contributing to gentrification. What Gidgeon fails to tell you is that he is quoted in that article, as are various activists associated with the Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition. The author called me because I've written various articles about gentrification and am regarded as a knowledgeable source. The author of the article asked me a simple factual question: "Is it the case that trash, graffiti, prostitutes, homeless people and drug-dealing tend to slow gentrification of a neighborhood by
discouraging more affluent people from wanting to live in that
neighborhood or come there?" I said that this seemed to me to be true. The one part of that text that I actually said is this: "If an area is full of drug dealerss, prostitutes and people tagging, the
professional/managerial class of people is not going to want to buy property [to live] in that neighbohood." I think this is true. Note that I wasn't advocating anything. I was simply stating what many people would consider to be an obvious fact.From this quote Gidgeon then insinuates that I am advocating "trashing the Mission." In reality I don't advocate "trashing" as a political tactic. I believe that displacement of working class and low-income people needs to be fought through a broad democratic movement, not individualistic acts. But even if I had advocated
"trashing" (whatever that is), this provides no evidence that I put up the 10 stickers that he is complaining about.

Tomorrow we go up against these nutjobs (DPW) and the money they hope to get will never come from us since we only have $64 in our account. If the DPW tries to pursue the full amount then they are going to have to butt heads with the CCSF Associted Students Council which has already proven itself time and time again to be supportive of there little anarchist infoshop downstairs in the student union.

To hell with all bureaucrats, on with anarchy!