Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bulldozers at South Central Farm

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Richard D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 10:44 AM
Original message
Bulldozers at South Central Farm
They are going to destroy it today. This truly is horrible.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2335930&mesg_id=2335930

http://www.southcentralfarmers.com

The Farm is under Siege!! Mobilize to the Farm
User Rating: / 0
Contributed by Fernando Flores
Tuesday, 13 June 2006
The South Central Farm is under siege. If you live in LA or anywhere near there please make your way to the farm to keep the protesters and farmers safe.

The immediate area around the Farm has been blocked off by the authorities limiting access to the site. Spontaneous rallies of support have sprouted on these perimeters with crowds increasing in size as the morning passes. Protesters still inside the Farm are being physically removed and arrested.

The easiest access is to come from the South side of the farm coming north on Alameda or to head east towards the Farm on 41st or any other streets that run east/west bound.

Once again, this is the Red Alert! The Sheriffs have begun and are carrying out the eviction! Mobilize as many people as you come to continue to protest this oppressive action

Arrests have already been made.
It is still unconfirmed but there are also reports that a protester was carried out on a stretche.

Bulldozer positioned nearby have began breaking through the fences.

Once again, please converge to the Farm.
41st Street and Long Beach Ave. Los Angeles, CA

Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
donsu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 10:46 AM
Response to Original message
1. my hatred of neo cons went up another notch


nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kajsa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 10:54 AM
Response to Original message
2. I thought the farm had been purchased

by donations to save the farm.

WTH is happening?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. The money was raised . . .
. . . but the owner refused to sell it to the farmers. He is a pig of the worst sort.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BFBILLER Donating Member (27 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Why, did the owner not sell?
Just curious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. He hates the farmers
I don't know the full story, but I believe he said that he wouldn't sell it to them for any price. Old bad blood. But really just a sub-human pigshit with no heart and no conscience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #8
16. Hi BFBILLER!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fed-up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 10:56 AM
Response to Original message
4. k&r n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cerridwen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 11:02 AM
Response to Original message
5. Adding my K & R since I can't be there in body....n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 11:06 AM
Response to Original message
6. People are being taken away in ambulances

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 11:11 AM
Response to Original message
7. K & R
me too. :hi: :kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maraya1969 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 12:41 PM
Response to Original message
10. Someone needs to get a trained panther in there. Have it sit in the
Edited on Tue Jun-13-06 12:41 PM by Maraya1969
middle of a group of people, (they are very nice if they are raised from a little kitten). If anyone shoots at a person surrounding the cat it will try and save the others which will mean people will get hurt because the cat does not understand that their teeth are sharp. The police cannot approach because someone will seriously ber hurt and they will not be able to get a tranquilizer dart into the cat if people are surrounding it and protecting it.

Just an idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meisje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #10
19. did you just buy a cabinet from Home Depot?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GirlinContempt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #10
25. Huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freedom_Aflaim Donating Member (745 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #10
27. I can't say I would condone murder
to protect a piece of land.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BraveDave Donating Member (130 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 12:50 PM
Response to Original message
11. So, why were they being evicted?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xithras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. The owner wants to develop it.
Highly condensed version of the story: The city took the land by eminent domain in the 1980's to build a power plant. Local opposition stopped the power plant from happening. After sitting empty a few years, some locals decided to start farming it. Many years later, the city decided that it doesn't need the land since it will never become a power plant, and the land is sold to a developer. The developer now wants to build something on it, the problem is that those "couple of farmers" have now grown to hundreds of urban farmers covering the entire 14 acre site.

The problem these farmers have is that they do not, and never have, owned the land. The farmers tried to exploit a technicality in the law to overturn the sale, but that attempt failed and the property legally belongs to the developer now (it's not clear what the effect would have been even if they'd won...at the most they probably would have just delayed the whole process by a year or two).

It's tragic that a large urban farm like this is being destroyed, but the property does belong to somebody else. I really don't know what kind of solution these farmers were hoping for, but this was bound to happen. Contrary to what some of the farms supporters may claim, the developer did offer to sell the land for $16 million, a price completely in line with the current real estate market in Los Angeles. The farmers have only raised $6 million, and demand that the developer sell it to them for the price the city originally agreed to back in the 1990's (about $5 million). The developer obviously refuses to do so...the land is worth about $16 million today, and that's how much he wants for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. The farmers have raised the full 16 plus million
that Horowitz wanted. He refused to sell it to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xithras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Now THAT I didn't know.
OK, I switch sides. Horowitz is a prick who needs a good ass kicking. The last I'd heard, the farmers didn't want to pay the current market price. While I'm sympathetic to their cause, as a landowner I also understand that property can't just be given away. If he refused to sell it after they came up with the money, he's just being an ass and any understanding I might have held for his position evaporates.

FWIW, had I owned the lot, here's what I would have done: I'd have encouraged them to set up a 501c(3) nonprofit, and I'd have offered the land to them at full market value ($16 million), I'd have then DONATED half of that to their charity. They could have had the property for $8 million, and I'd have gained an $8 million dollar tax writeoff. That's how CHARITABLE investors work. This guy Horowitz must be a real piece of work if he wasn't willing to work with them at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Yes.
Horowitz is pigshit. I've spent most of the last week and a half at the farm. The loss to the city is immeasurable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BraveDave Donating Member (130 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. So, how much was the farm
paying in rent each month again?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. While the farm . . .
. . . was in the ownership of the City, they were paying no rent. Once the ownership was (very possibly illegally) transferred to horowitz, eviction proceedings were started immediately. So horowitz would not have accepted any rental payments since they were there "illegally" and if he accepted rental payments, it would have been a a tacit agreement that they were there with his permission.

Funny, but this is the argument I've seen coming from the far right wing. Are you perhaps a troll under the bridge?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freedom_Aflaim Donating Member (745 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. Horowitz owned the property from the beginning
The land was taken from him by eminent domain, the land was not used for the purpose stated during the condemnation process, so he got his land back.

While I do not understand, nor can I defend his refusal to sell to the farmers at any price, that is his right as a property owner.

The owner sounds like a piece of work, but if we start disrepecting property rights, then what would protect the farmers if they had bought the land?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freedom_Aflaim Donating Member (745 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #12
22. Actually the guy who lost the land to eminent domain
got it back from the city by repaying what they paid him.

I understand the residents plight, but we really have to respect the owners rights.

The owner has already had the land taken, and had to fight to get it back.


Just because the owner is wealthy isnt a reason to start trampling property owner rights....The same rights that would protect the farmers if they had actually bought the land.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #22
28. Here's the full story from their website
What we are about?

Synopsis of the history of the 14-acre urban garden located at 41st and Alameda Streets Since 1992, the 14 acres of property located at 41st and Alameda Streets in Los Angeles have been used as a community garden or farm. The land has been divided into 360 plots and is believed to be one of the largest urban gardens in the country. The City of Los Angeles acquired the 14-acre property by eminent domain in the late 1980s, taking it from nine private landowners. The largest of these owners, Alameda-Barbara Investment Company, owned approximately 80 percent of the site had been compensated $4.7 million dollars. The partners of Alameda were Ralph Horowitz and Jacob Libaw. The City originally intended to use the property for a trash incinerator, but abandoned that plan in the face of public protest organized by the late Juanita Tate and the Concerned Citizens of South Central Los Angeles.

South Central Los Angeles took a large step towards earning some political respect within the city. At this point the community began to establish that health should comes first among other issues in this impoverished community As part of the eminent domain proceedings, the City granted Alameda- Barbara Investment Company a right of first refusal if, within 10 years, the City determined that the parcel formerly owned by Alameda was no longer required for public use.

Following the uprising in 1992, the City set aside the 14-acre site for use as a community garden. In 1994, the City transferred title to the property by ordinance to its Harbor Department for $13 million. When it received title to the property, the Harbor Department contracted with the Los Angeles Regional Foodbank to operate the property as a community garden.

In 1995, the City began negotiating with Libaw-Horowitz Investment Company (LHIC), the successor company to Alameda, to sell them the entire 14-acre property. The City negotiators sent LHIC a purchase agreement, and LHIC executed the agreement and returned it to the City in October 1996. The terms of the agreement expressly made it contingent on City Council approval. The City Council never approved the agreement, and the sale was not completed. The proposed agreement fixed the sale amount at $5,227,200.

In 2002, LHIC filed suit against the City for not executing the purchase agreement. The City successfully demurred three times to LHIC’s complaint, but then agreed to sell the 14-acre property to Ralph Horowitz and his business partners for $5,050,000.

On August 13, 2003, the City Council discussed and approved the terms of the settlement in closed session, and then passed a motion to approve the settlement.

On September 23, 2003, the City sent the Foodbank a letter notifying it of the sale. The Foodbank, in turn, distributed the letter to the approximately 350 families that were using plots at the garden to grow their own food. The families using the plots are low income and depend heavily upon the food they grow to feed themselves. In addition to growing food for themselves, the people involved with the community garden hold Farmers' Markets, festivals and other cultural events for the public at large.

After receiving the notice from the City informing them that the garden property was being sold to a private developer, the farmers formed an organization-South Central Farmers Feeding Families- and began organizing to retain their right to use the property. South Central Farmers Feeding Families appealed to the City Council to prevent the sale from going through.

On December 11, 2003, however, the City transferred title to the property to Ralph Horowitz and the Horowitz Family Trust, The Libaw Family LP, Timothy M. Ison and Shaghan Securities, LLC.

On January 8, 2004, Ralph Horowitz issued a notice setting February 29, 2004, as the termination date for the community garden. In the meantime before February 29, members of the South Central Farmers Feeding Families obtained legal counsel (Hadsell & Stormer, Inc., and Kaye, Mclane & Bednarski LLP) and filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the sale of the property. The Los Angeles County Superior Court issued a temporary restraining order and later a preliminary injunction halting development of the property during the pendency of the lawsuit. Both the City and the Horowitz defendants appealed the Superior Court’s order granting the preliminary injunction.

On June 30, 2005, the Court of Appeal reversed the Superior Court’s order granting the preliminary injunction. The South Central Farmers Feeding Families had 40 days from June 30 to petition the California Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeal’s ruling.

The Court of Appeal ignored the law and sound public policy in overturning the injunction that was in place on the property. The Los Angeles City Charter allows the City to sell real property it determines that it no longer needs. Before selling property it no longer needs, the City must comply with various procedures designed to ensure that the City does not squander resources by selling property it does need. The intent of the Charter is that the City sell only property it no longer needs. The City’s sale of the garden property to the Horowitz interests did not comply with the procedures required for sale of property no longer needed by the City. The Court of Appeal held, nevertheless, that the City did not have to comply with these provisions because it had not determined that it no longer needed the garden property.

In other words, the Court of Appeal ruled that the City can avoid its own charter’s procedure for selling property simply by stopping short of determining whether the property it intends to sell is no longer needed by the City. By keeping the property it intends to sell designated as property it does need, the City can go ahead and sell it without having to comply with the charter provision for the sale of real property. The new procedure being approved by the Court of Appeal defeats the very purpose of the charter provision applying to the sale of real property. It encourages the type of abuse the charter provision applying to the sale of real property was meant to curtail. The city set up their own loop pole.

An appeal to the ruling of the Los Angeles Supeior Court terminating the temporary injunction was filed by the South Central Families: Feeding Families in the California State Supreme Court. On October 20, 2005 the court decided not to hear the case of the South Central Farmers. A hearing was scheduled then in the Superior Court to clarify the terms of the prior ruling to give the developer Ralph Horowitz his illegal detainer and writ of possession to the property at 41st and Alameda. The hearing was postponed several times from November and stretched into January. After a few weeks of uncertainty, the South Central Farmers were served with an eviction notice on March 1, 2006. An error on the posting brought the Sheriff’s department out the next day to repost. The notice gave the farmers 5 days to vacate the premises. Within those five days, the farmers used their legal right to appeal the eviction notice by asking to have a hearing in front of a judge. Since March 7, 2006, the farmers have been in a daily state of peril anxiously waiting to see if they’ll meet their terminal fate with the South Central Farm.

Accomplishments by the South Central Farmers
1. When Michael flood and the food bank turned their backs on the poor people of South Central. It was the South Central Farmers that protested, marched, and attended city council meetings. In this process they were able to keep the garden open and challenge the city on the sale of the property. The food bank had an opportunity to place its expensive lawyers on the issue but they chose instead to fight against them and they continue to fight us.

2. The South Central Farmers began a process of eliminating the corruption and self-serving attitudes that the agents of the food bank had fostered for over 11 years. This included cronism, nepetism, and extornsion. In direct violation of the permit given by the city the agents of the food bank and the food bank allowed the sale of plots to poor families. The prices began from 250 all the way up to 1000 dollars per plot. This was hurrendous. The SCFs have been attempting to remove these elements from the community garden.

3. In Feb 15, 2004, the SCF had a general assembly where two leaders were chosen democratically. The rules for governing the community garden were discussed and the type of democracy was also decided, Majority rule. From then on the leadership was given certain executives privileges always governed by the consensus of the community.

4. From that time on the community garden and its rules have been governed by the participatory membership of the South Central farmers. They chose which rules they wanted to be governed by and how transgressions should be dealt with.

5. SCFs have developed community leaders from the community garden. Some of our members have become members of the local neighborhood councils. Some our farmers have also been encouraged to become Master Gardeners. Some of our Farmers have developed their own economic development. One farmer currently rents 6 acres elsewhere and has developed his own distribution system.

6. SCFs have developed opportunities for community members. We have developed the monthly farmers market.

7. The SCFs have addressed the needs of the women membership by providing them the space to have their own cooperative space where only women work.

8. We have sustained City Council attendance, twice a week, only matched by the anti-war movement of the sixties.

9. We have developed the spiritual needs of the community by providing a monthly catholic service and a monthly Christian service. This helps to address the needs of the community.

10. We provide an avenue for up and coming bands during our yearly anniversary celebration. We have had two of them and have showcases many up and coming community bands.

11. SCFs maintain an abundant and resilient seed stock that is grown in the community garden.

12. The SCFs have brought traditional aztec dancers and ceremonies that resonate the cultural traditions of the people who grow food.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freedom_Aflaim Donating Member (745 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Wow, no wonder the guy is pissed
14 years of bureacracy. That would drive anyone mad.

I still think he should sell to the folks willing to pay and who seem to want it the most.

Sounds like the bad blood and bueracratic nightmares have clouded his judgement.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. Exactly . . .
. . . bad blood all he way around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 11:45 AM
Response to Original message
20. May that land owner rot in hell!
:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Indeed . . .
. . . rotting in hell is too good for him. May he feel, all at once and forever, the collective heartbreak of all the beautiful campesinos and their friends and supporters, whose hearts (but not spirit!) he broke when he had their loving tending of the land for 14 years, their food, their medicine, their place of sanity and comfort, a place where the community could gather, a place of beauty and peace in the midst of the madness, bulldozed and destroyed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BraveDave Donating Member (130 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. So it takes 3 years
to evict someone in LA?

Seems the evil Mr. Horowitz shelled out about $1 mil in mortgage payments and whatnot while the farmers were squatting on his property.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freedom_Aflaim Donating Member (745 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Its worse than that
The guy owned the land 14 years ago. The land was taken from him to build a powerplant that never happened.

This guy then had to sue the city to get his land back, and then spend years evicting the squaters who set up camp during the last 14 years as he has fought regain what was rightfully his from the beginning.

But he's wealthy, so its ok to ignore on his rights as a property owner :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FlaGranny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. Right, and
poor people don't need no rights and no food anyhow. :sarcasm:

Actually, this neighborhood garden is the only reason I can think of to actually justify eminent domain - a community project that actually helps residents. The city SHOULD have sold the land to the farmers and not the previous owner. The previous owner was compensated when the city first took the property by eminent domain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freedom_Aflaim Donating Member (745 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. It not an either or situation.
Edited on Wed Jun-14-06 03:47 PM by Freedom_Aflaim
In fact Id say that the gardners have had their rights represented well considering that they have managed to use property that they don't own for 14 years.

And I think that the $14 million they've raised will fund more than 2 trips to the grocery store, so I reject your suggestion that they will now starve.

Look. Gardens are good things, especially in an inner city. But the good of a garden does not outweigh the bad of trampling property rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC