About 50 supporters in the fight to save the South Central Farm picketed today outside the offices of the developer, Ralph Horowitz who wants to raise the farm and build a warehouse on the site. Here are some photos from the event.

(The protest was monitored by three uniformed police and an unknown number of undercovers. One of the uniformed officers took photos of the protesters for reasons they would not disclose.) Otherwise the event was without incidence and there were no arrests.

error

error

error

error

error

hey a friend and i are thinking of coming up to camp with the farmers the last few days in solidarity to keep the land. im wondering if this would be alright? or discrediting those who've camped there for months, and is there anyone i should ask for and rules on where to set up the tent? let me know what you think

If this isn't a case of imminent domain, what is.

The city should buy this land from Horowitz, whether he wants to sell or not, and keep the farm going.

That's what I think, anyway.

No way once the city starts grabbing the power to control an individuals property no one will be safe especially minorities who do not hold favor with the city or state. We will all be slaves to the state. The land belongs to howowitz, he may be a jerk and a buttwipe, but that land is his to do with as he wishes.

The city screwed it up. The city needs to fix it. Emminent domain, suck it up and pay Horowitz market value, find 14 contiguous fertile acres in the area, whatever. Not much more to discuss, really.

It was already ED'd. This is a post-ED situation. Read the whole story.

The city took the property to build a trash incinerator (across the street from residences!) People protested, it was stopped. The LA riots happened. Buildings burned. People turned the lot into a farm.

This sounds like a reasonable situation to exercise ED. No homes are being taken to build some shopping mall. It's not a mixed-use retail/housing project by a for-profit redevelopment real-estate agency, like the CRA or TELACU. The current use is less expensive than a manicured park, and more productive than a community center building. Nothing at all has to be built. The project is largely self-managed and self-maintained. People are making offers to try and buy the land.

This situation cannot set a precedent for ED, because it's so unusual.

There are few things to be gained from a warehouse. You will get some jobs. You will get a greater amount of property tax. That's it. No retail sales tax, because it's a warehouse.

What you lose are the community benefits of, first, a lot of fresh organic food. Second, a place where the community can mingle and work together toward a common goal. Third, for kids, an alternative to gangs, and hope, and a general improvement in the quality of life in a part of the city where the quality is very low.

These things, if the city were to try and implement them with programs, would be expensive, and I suspect, less effective. Building a warehouse there would be like taking a functioning machine, or a living organism, and smashing, or extinguishing it.

It is being threatened with destruction because the people using the land are "little people". They're political nobodies. They are the people who don't get their names on brass plaques on government buildings, or get their names on a brick in a walkway at some hospital. They don't get invited to Hollywood parties, or even wrap parties. They're poor people and working class people who are sacrificing so their children might do better. They're the people who get recognized once for getting married, once for each kid, and once at the company dinner when they're given a small gift, for 20 years of working for $8 an hour, which they accept in halting English. They're the people who still know how to cook, and put in some herb or spice to make your flu less horrible.

-------------------------------------

In 1649
To St. Georges Hill
A ragged band they called the Diggers
Come to show the peoples will
They defied the landlords
They defied the law
They were the dispossessed
Reclaiming what was theirs

'We come in peace' they said
'To dig and sow
We come to work the land in common
And to make the waste land grow
This earth divided
We will make whole
So it can be
A common treasury for all

The sin of property
We do disdain
No one has any right to buy and sell
The earth for private gain
By theft and murder
They took the land
Now everywhere the walls
Rise up at their command

They make the laws
To chain us well
The clergy dazzle us with heaven
Or they damn us into hell
We will not worship
The God they serve
The God of greed who feeds the rich
While poor men starve

We work, we eat together
We need no swords
We will not bow to masters
Or pay rent to the lords
We are free men
Though we are poor
You diggers all stand up for glory
Stand up now

From the men of property
The orders came
They sent the hired men and troopers
To wipe out the Diggers' claim
Tear down their cottages
Destroy their corn
They were dispersed
But still the vision lingers on

You poor take courage
You rich take care
This earth was made a common treasury
For everyone to share
All things in common
All people one
We come in peace -
The order came to cut them down

This is not about property rights, but about how he got property rights.

Horowitz has never had any legal rights to the land, Judge W. Crispo ruled 3 times against him and the city still gave the land to him anyways and 25% more land! Horowitz stands to profit at the expense of the taxpayers and we will have to foot the bill.

In 1986 the city obtained the land under eminent domain and paid Horowitz 4.7 million dollars, in 1994 the department of public works sold it to LA harbor for 13.3 million.
It's very clear that the city council knew the true worth of this land and that he had no legal right to it.
But the City Council gave it away anyway for only 5.1 million and gave him 25% more land.

There is a difference of 8 million that we, the taxpayers have paid for.

This is part of the reason why the community is outraged - we're tired of tolerating this form of corporate welfare.

Horowitz knows this sale is illegal and he has an obligation to void the sale. And as citizens we have an obligation to ensure this happens.

Horowitz and the city should nullify the sale and return the land back to the community use.

The land was taken by the city through eminent domain, horowitz had no real choice in the matter, very similar to the way new orleans is taking land from poor minorities. The city did pay the man some money in order to hide what the situation really is and that is land theft. If horowitz sold the land of his own free will then the people of the garden would have a just claim, but that is not the situation. The land was stolen by big government plain and simple.

The issue in your mind is property rights, and you're using the Katrina victims as justification for your position.

The real situation there is that the government and capital are working together against the interests of poor people.

The situation here in LA seems to be the same. ED is the power of the government. By not exercising their ED powers, the government is working against the interests of the poor, and for the interest of capital.

"This is not about property rights, but about how he got property rights."

He Legally purchased the land before imminent domained by the city. Why would the city be paying millions to individual in a forced sale if that individual has no legal claim to the land? The part where you are correct is that horowitz is not entitled to the 25% more land given back to him by the city.


"
In 1986 the city obtained the land under eminent domain and paid Horowitz 4.7 million dollars, in 1994 the department of public works sold it to LA harbor for 13.3 million.
"

It seems that not only did the city force a citizen to sell his private property, they also had the nerve to give the man less then the land was worth.


"This is part of the reason why the community is outraged - we're tired of tolerating this form of corporate welfare."

Then fire the city officials who engaged in the land theft.


"Horowitz knows this sale is illegal and he has an obligation to void the sale. And as citizens we have an obligation to ensure this happens.
"

What obligation, the man is the original owner of the land. You should be thank full that horowitzs does not sue you for civil rights violations. Not that he'll win in this ever increasing socialist country. What rights are the leftists going to strip away next in order to create their ideal communist state.



The right to own property - Immenent domain will strip you of that dirt.

The right bear arms - nearly dead, only cops and crooks have the guns.

The right to free speach - the politically correct are watching your every word.

The right to justice - How long did it take to execute tookie, decades.

>The right to own property - Immenent domain will strip you of that dirt.

It's spelled "eminent domain". Property rights don't exist without the state. The state should not exist without the consent of the people governed. Thus, in some cases, the people, via the state, can take property.

The state tends to protect it, because (in the US) there's a lot of land, and people like the idea of private property. It's countered by the idea of democracy -- that people, not acres of land, are represented by the government.

Some the right wingers who say "property rights are sacred" or hold that basic idea, I think, just want to go back to a system of feudalism.