Ralph Horowitz= Millionaire developer from LA who is sueing some of the poorest families living in South Central for trying to keep the largest urban garden in the country open. Call Ralph and let him know how you feel for stealing a community farm and trying to turn it into a warehouse in the most industrialized part of Los Angeles. Let him know that the working poor won't stand for this. Speak your mind. Or Just call and let him know how your day is going trying to survive while pay check to pay check, while people like him rape our communities. The office of Ralph Horowitz: 310 440 7878 www.Southcentralfarmers.com (Note- not an official message released by the South Central Farmers. Authored by a concerned citizen)

Please explain to me how he is "stealing" a community farm when he is the man who owns the property? I am a liberal, but even I love the fact that there is such a thing as private property in this country. Would you really want there not to be?

What if the South Central Farm fed every poor person in Los Angeles? Would it stil be okay for a developer to destroy it? Is that the kind of world we want to live in?

Private property is the bane of all evil, at least as it's constructed now, when private property interests outweigh any and all public good. My earned income is my private property, except that the state takes some of it to finance war. My land is my private property, except that the state can take it for a construction company to overcharge for another highway, or to deplete natural resources or, according to the Supreme Court, for private development.

What doesn't happen often enough is that the state redistributes private property to satisfy the real need to keep people alive and flourishing. Hunger, cold, and the threat of death are quick ways to keep most mouthy people quiet, at least for a while.

The City took the farmland from the taxpayers (OK, they did get $5M for a property worth $16M, so the taxpayers "only" ate $11M) to give it to a private developer, one Ralph Horowitz. Then the developer, who has no accountability to the public will and need, nor, apparently, to his own conscience, refused his own asking price for the farm expressly in order to hurt/punish the people who need it. They write great dramas about this kind of stuff.

So you and other liberals (are you reading this, Mr. Mayor?) who get all queazy about preserving property rights might take another look at how far those rights extend. Do they really extend to deliberately punishing poor people? Do they extend to the right to be racist? Do they extend to the right to do intentional harm? Are property rights absolute, or are there boundaries? If there are limits, how can you justify that Ralph Horowitz's refusal to sell the Farm for the price he asked is anywhere within those limits?

"Private property" as an absolute is a messy, caveated principle to stand on. And I find principles with a bunch of exceptions attached aren't very sound. Follow your stand on private property out to its logical conclusion and tell me what you get. We all saw what Ralph Horowitz got. And what the Farmers got.

And no, I'm not a Marxist. Just a thinking person.

Don't mix up legality issues with emotional issues. Squatting on people's property is simply wrong. Why? Cause the law says so. Mr. Horowitz owned the land before, it was taken away from him though eminent domain, he bought it back in 2003. But during the time the govenment owned the land, these land squatter appeared. Mr. Horowitz was nice enough to have let them stayed all this time. These people, called him names and anti-semitic retorics. He is fed up now. Who is the victim here?? Are you really suprised that he is so pissed off that he is not selling for ANY PRICE to these people?

How would any of you like me to bring just a couple of illegal day labors from Home Depot, and just show up in your back yard, planting and gardening and refuse to leave. And because you are a property owner, potentially having more monery than these people do, you are somehow, responsible for their well-being. If you complain, I am going to call you names and make you feel like you are a bad person.

Since when, in this great nation's history, are the riches responsible for the poors? You know, Sharing of Wealth?. Last time I checked, USSR and China did that, it's called Communism, and it's not working out so great. I am by no means wealthy, but I do not believe in vilifying Mr. Horowitz just beause he happens to be rich and wants people off his land. I agree that it would be nice to have a piece of greenery in the middle of the city, but don't impose your personal desires and how you think things ought to be upon other people who don't share your views, especially if other person is the LEGAL land owner.

Mr. Horowitz never jacked up the price, he has been asking for $16M, and the land is worth $20M. After 3 years, these squatters had until May 22 deadline to come up with the money, and they never did. As of yesterday June 13th, they only came up with $11M, with a promissory note to payback the $5M, so it's a blatant lie when the Mayor said they had the money, but the price was raised. Once again, he is trying to make Mr. Horowitz out to be this greedy Jew who can't seem to get enough money.

By the way, do any of you know, ever since 2003 after Mr. Horowitz bought the land back, these people have NEVER paid him any rent, yet Mr. Horowitz has been responsible for paying for the monthly mortgage of over $20,000? Can you blame him for getting upset?

How would you react when I tell you that your backyard is more useful to me as my family vegetable garden than it is to you, because I am poorer than you, and my family needs the food, and you have rest of the house and the front lawn to enjoy. To kick me out would me morally wrong.

Would that be an acceptable reason for me to take over your backyard, without paying and also rent-free? If it is, let me know where you live, and I will be sure make a good use out of it. I have a condo, and I need space.

1) Horowitz has jacked the price between $16M and $20M for weeks now.

2) $16M was offered to Horowitz a week or more ago.

3) The Farmers paid monthly dues to the Food Bank. Meanwhile, Horowitz is writing the land off his corporate taxes.

4) If I'm hungry and I ask you for food, and you have food and let me starve, then you have some responsibility for my death. If you deny me the means to feed myself and I starve, then you have some responsiblity for my death. If the concept of private ownership means that I starve, then the concept of private ownership is responsible for death. If you don't know that much, then you haven't read Marx, the bible, or virtually any serious philosophical or religious text. And I don't see Horowitz living on the property in a living room or anywhere else, nor is his survival dependent on the farm.

5) Neither the mayor or anyone associated with the Farm called Horowitz a "greedy Jew."

Horowitz could have settled this at any point by helping the farmers, finding a non-profit to back them, helping them out with terms--a thousand things he and/or the mayor could have done. But that wasn't the point for any of them, was it?

Well said, so what is your address and bank routing number? I consider myself constantly starving and famished. You may not be a miilonair, but I am sure you got more food in your fridge than mine.

So now I have just told you my problem, the BURDEN IS ON YOU to do something about it, otherwise, you are just a bad bad human being and ought to be ashamed of yourself.

I should also be entitled to part, if not all, of your bank account, again, I am under-priviileged, and YOU are responsible for my well-being, unless you want to see me starve. You don't want that, do you?

So, once again, I damnad to know where do you live and bank account number. By the way, gas is expensive, you need to come over to pick me up just to help my take-over process. Unless... you don't care to be a good human being. Afterall, Su Casa es Mi Casa, No?

Here is where I live:
23635 San Fernando Rd.
Newhall, CA 91321

It's not Horowitz's house or yard. It's 14 acres in the middle of a community in which he doesn't live and has nothing to do with except to exploit. There is a difference.

Wow! What a sense of entitlement you are trumpeting, you are such a Robin Hood.

You got food in your cupboard that you are not going to eat right away, so gimme gimme gimme.

You don't live in your backyard. Your bed is no where near it, so I damand you hand over your backyard to me, so gimme gimme gimme.

I am sure you have extra savings in your bank accound, that you don't really need in the next year or so, so gimme gimme gimme.

The United States is more prosperous than Mexico, so we are reponsible for all of its economic problems, and for Mexican govenment's ineptitude and gross neglegence to take care of its own people, and we have to absorb all of its citizens, afterall, PLEASE DON'T CALL US RACISTS. so...Gimme Gimme Gimme! NOW!

Sam, I hope you don't ever own any property that's not near where you live, because I will call upon my day-labor brotherhood to take over, afterall, why would anyone own any property that's not close to his home, it must be greed.

Once again, Su Casa es Mi Casa, and I want YOUR money.

"why would anyone own any property that's not close to his home, it must be greed."

Must be. Maybe you can offer another explanation as to why Horowitz owns the property.

Explain why the rich have more say on how land are resources are used than poor people do.

And don't give me an answer like "it's his right as an American" or "we live under a capitalist system". Those answers are cop-outs.

Before you answer you should know the definition of greed:

Greed - An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/greed

By the way Ricardo, I'm actually talking about justice where you're defending the entitlements of the rich.

I believe the owner of the property has been unjustly treated. His property was taken, supposed to be used for specific city purposes, purchased again, giving the "squatters" 60 days to vacate. three years later, Ms. Hanna (to whom I will never patronize again) media bimbo, trespasses to bring about the injustice done to the "squatters". Am I the only one taking crazy pills???? I suggest Ms. Hanna turn over her own property to these gardeners.....

Socialism is the politics of envy.

I am an out-of-job computer progammer with a wife and a kid to support. So I am demanding that you, Sam, to send money to me at:

23635 San Fernando Rd.
Newhall, CA 91321

And I want it ASAP. Please FedEx next day. If my family ever suffers any harm, I wiil hold you personally liable, because you FAILED TO ACT. Every movie you go to, every piece of clothing you buy, to me, is excessive and wasteful, because I am out-of-job. Therefore, I am asking you to send those money to me, so I can feed my family. I know what to do with you money better than you do.

Until you are willing to subject yourself to the same "moral" standard as you are demanding from Mr. Horowitz. As far as I am concerned, you, Sam, are no better than any of tham greedy dirt bag hypocrites, rich or poor.

I know this might blow your mind, Sam, but poor people can be greedy too, they actually have more incentive.

When you become rich one day, Sam, you can start your own beautiful community farm in South Central, until then you really have NO RIGHT TO BE GENEROUS with other people's money, just because they are rich.

To be rich is evil, and the poors are always innocent. Sam, what is the incentive for an American to work hard, to start businesses, if he just wind up giving it away to the poors and be vilified??

So how about that money huh? Should I expect it this weekend? Sam? Every minute you wait, is every minute my little daughter has to suffer.

Sorry Sam, I forgot to tell you how much I need:

Rent: $1,050
Food: $ 800
Gas: ...I am out of job, so I don't drive
Cable+Internet: $94
Electricity: $60

Total: $2,004 (Let's Round it to $3,000)

Make Check Payable to:

Ricardo Alejandro Ruiz
23635 San Fernando Rd.
Newhall, CA 91321

I am waiting......Sam

Everyone else is welcome to help out, too.

Can't answer my questions, that's fine. I wasn't really expecting an answer. You can't seem to grasp simple concepts. You have a sort of one track mind. Harping on the same point over and over and over again while still not quite making that point.

I'll ask again: Explain why the rich have more say on how land are resources are used than poor people do?

I'm talking about general concepts of private property and justice. I'm not even singling out Horowitz. But rich people don't just get rich through their own hard work. Rich people, especially land developers, get rich from the hard work and sweat of a lot of other people. So...

My first recommendation for you Mr. Out-of-work-computer programmer would be to readjust your food budget. $800 seems like a little much. Maybe use some coupons, maybe stop ordering pizza delivery. And feel free to cancel your cable.

To answer your simple question, Sam:
The rich (Mr. Horowitz) has the right to the usage of the property ONLY because.........

He has miraculously produced the DEED to the land. And the court agrees! Wow, what a strange concept! Other than that little piece of paper, you are right, he really has no business there.

If he didn't own it, I will be the first to protest, because he (Mr. Horowitz) will be the squatter. I am not defending him as a person, I don't know him. I am defending the rights that comes with property ownership. If a poor guy owns it, I will defend his right to the land as well. Comprendes? Mi amigo??

He had own the property before the 1990's, and the government took over, the illegal squatter also moved (invited) in during that time frame. Then Mr. Horowitz bought it back from the govenment, and became it's owner, once more in 2003, and he has every right to evict these people out. He has given this people 3 years to pack and move, not only did they not do that, they spent the 3 years suing Mr. Horowitz, all the while, not paying him any rent. I guess in your simple mind, OWNERSHIP doesnt' mean much huh???

To you:
Farm = Nice Color = Sam Like = Must Keep
Warehouse = Ugly Color = Sam No Like, Yuch! Yuch! Must Remove

Guess what, Sam, without meeting you, I already think of you as a wacko kook job, who has no concept of the law, and I think of you as a pretty despicable human being and a sleez ball, who just wants to sponge off the society. Maybe that's what you do all day, I don't know. At least I had a job a one point. So: Sam = Wack Job = Ricardo No Like

Now, Sam The Wise... It's your turn to step up to the plate and answer my simple question:

When are you going to pay me the money so I can take care of my family? Don't dance around the subject because you are too cheap and stingy. What is it to you that my food bill is $800, I have 3 people to feed and I am a big fat 270 lb hispanic computer programmer who sits all day in front of a computer, I need lots of food. My mom also comes over to eat, she is fat too. What's to you? Fine, I can cut it down to $500, you still owe me $2,500.

Don't divert the subject like you are accusing me of. Are you going to pay me or not, now it's $300 less??

All I am asking from you is the SAME moral standard you are imposing on Mr. Horowitz.....Helping out the needy, and I am the needy.

So, until I see a check in my mail box, do not act like a saint who stands up for the poor, because I AM THE POOR, and you have refused to help me out, and my daugher Raquel also needs medical care. Until you help out my family, you have no right to go to movies or eat out.

What a raw nerve you have to judge Mr. Horowitz. What are you, Sam, doing for these poor farmers? You are no better than the man you despise. It's easy to sit at home in front of a computer and critisize Mr. Horowitz for being a greedy bastard, Are you going to invite any of these poor farmers over for a nice warm meal? And what about my family? What are you doing for my family now you know my financial difficulties?

Don't judge people, Sam, unless you want to be judged. And yes, I am totally, absolutely judging you. You are a hypocrite. Any one else here wants to take a shot at me? I am open for judgement.

So when are you going to pay me? If my daughter dies, her blood is on your hand. Comprendes, mi amigo?

Wow, what a heated debate.. Ricardo, you sure talk alot. But being home all day without a job does this to people. No offense.

But Sam, Ricardo is right, I don't agree with Corporate strong arm take over tactics, but in Mr. Horowitz's case, he lost the land to the govenment, now he got it back. He never asked for any of this to happen. He didn't invite the farmers, but he is stuck with the mess. You really cannot ask him to give up the profit, afterall, this is a capitalistic society. What you are asking for is socialism borderlining communism. Compassion is nice, but it doesn't come cheap, and who is willing to bear the cost? You? If you are, then I got nothing more to say except applaud you.

There is another similar bible verse that says, let he who has never sinned cast the first stone.

Looks like you gonna have to help out poor Ricardo, and give him the $ for his family. Otherwise you do look kinda bad for only criticizing and not watch your own actions.

Peace Out

Maybe I don't have the rock solid logic skills of an out of work computer programmer but I'm having a hard time seeing how me (Sam) helping out you (Ricardo) and your family has anything to do with the larger issues of equity and justice.

See, I actually do support my wife and son and my mother occasionally comes over to eat. If I sent you the $3000 you’re asking to meet your monthly food budget my family would starve. I got to the movies about once a year and rarely buy new clothes.

But see, rich developers and their kids don't miss any meals and the rich see poor people like us arguing about how many rights "they" have and they sit back and laugh.

They're amused that a poor, fat man like you with a fat mother, wife and daughter sitting at home all day in your air conditioned apartment could so vehemently defend the entitlements of the rich. They love it when "we" “identify with the boss". You defend the rich even while your family lives with no members of the family actually working. You're a funny, simple man. Turn off your cable TV!

Questions: Explain why the rich have more say on how land and resources are used than poor people do? Why should rich developers have the right to own large swaths of land in communities in which they don't live? Why is it not the people of these communities that get to decide how the land and resources are used?

By saying it's because they have the "deed" to the land you're not answering the bigger questions. An answer like that is a simple a to b logic leap. I urge you to take an a to c leap and actually critically think.

As for po’ boy, you say “You really cannot ask him to give up the profit, afterall, this is a capitalistic society.” I guess you have me there. But what do you really think of an economic system that would have people starve (and I’m not just talking about the South Central Farm) just to make a profit. Can we as a society do better? Maybe you think this is the best we can do.

Ricardo:
There’s no point talking to Crazy Sam, who is obviously self-absorbed, self righteous. As far as I can see he is not even a good person by making fun of your weight. Quit spending too much time on this dumb blog and spend more time feeding your family. Geez!!

Sam:
You are an idiot and and an A-Hole. Talking about a GREATER PICTURE of social justice…
This society isn’t comprised of two entities: Big Nasty Corporations trampling the rights of the little pions. Other ordinary individuals also make up the fabric of this GREATER SOCIETY that you are talking about. And injustice is being committed each day. It isn’t as simple as Big vs. Small.

When big corporations go out of line, I don’t defend them either.

Isn’t Mr. Horowitz part of this society?
Isn’t Ricardo part of this society?
Aren’t you part of this society?

Who is looking out for Mr. Horowitz’s rights, not as a rich person, but as an land owner? If he had not been so rich, would he be any less of a villain to you? Sam? Would his actions be more justified?? What do you know about Horowitz and his background that qualifies you to judge him, Nothing!

Only thing you know is he is rich.

And rich = big corporation = evil = stepping on the weak. Gosh, is everything so simple to you?

And who is looking after Ricardo’s family? (By the way, Ricardo, you need to loose some weight and eat less)

Talking about the greater picture, Sam, what are you doing to help out the society? And helping out doesn’t mean mindless criticisms.

I agree with Ricardo, perhaps you cannot change the society, but you can start out somewhere. Instead of having a bladder full of hot air, and do absolutely nothing about it, why don’t you start out somewhere? Why don’t you help out Ricardo’s family? Perhaps not $3,000 but $100 would be good.

I have no respect for the left-wing socialist hypocrites like you, Sam, who is only too eager to dispense right and wrong from the comfort of your own home. You really need to shut the f*** up

This is a dumb blog, see you all idiots later.

I see I've touched a nerve! But, it's funny, I still can't get an answer to my questions.

Property for living, like your home, is different from property for business.

They are treated differently in the law, and by custom. Farmers at this farm are not equivalent to squatters invading your backyard to farm.

Private Property Fundamentalists are saying the two are equivalent, with the hope that homeowners will side with land speculators. It's a dirty propaganda scheme; it's dishonest, and they know it.

That's an interesting twist. He rents, but defends landlords.

He rents from his Mom, who lives upstairs.

Property is theft.
Capitalism is murder.

No war, but class war!
All power to the people.
Take action now!

Ignorance is strength

I totally agree that Eminent Domain for big businesses is wrong and evil where big corporations can just come over, kick people out and build whatever they are trying to build, meanwhile ruining people's lives. Is it immoral? Yes. But the Supreme Court thought otherwise.

The South Central Farm is NOT such a case, and must be treated differently. When you are the land owner for years and your property was taken over by the government through Eminent Domain; during your absence, farmers were invited in by the government to farm and garden. When the government couldn't fulfill its original reason to take over your land and sells it back to you, and you want to resell it, while the farmers refuse to leave, what would you do? Who is the victim?

Answer:
Both sides are victims of a bad situation created by the government. But the owner has the ultimate rights. Again, the court agrees on that issue. I do not defend Horowitz as a person; he could very well be an immoral bad person in every other aspects of his life. But I must insist on his right as the owner. After all, he was there before anyone else was. If you can even agree on this fundamental issue, I guess there really isn't more to talk about, we simple agree to disagree.

Like someone said earlier, it would be nice to accommodate for all the unfortunates in the world, but it comes with a cost. Who will bear that cost in a capitalistic society? Unless you are willing to, don't criticize the person who actually has a stake in the situation. Capitalism is money driven. Is it wrong? I don't know, but all I know is it has made this country great. If you don't like this form of society, you are more than welcome to get out and make room for those who want to come here and make something of themselves.

I guess the only way Sam can get his straight "answer" is for me to drop this view, in that case, Sam, you will never get your answer. Meanwhile, Sam, to mirror your total disregard to Mr. Horowitz's personal reasons and difficulties, and your insistence that he must help out the squatters, I also don't give a rat's ass with YOUR financial difficulties, all I know is, you danced around MY question, when I asked for your help. I guess my simple YES/NO question will also never be answered either.

The reasons you have given are unacceptable. Try again, why you can’t just hand over $2,500 to me, it's obvious my family is suffering, and by telling you my problem, obliges you to do something about it, doesn't it? Anyone wants to help Sam answering why he shouldn't just give me $2,500? Obviously he isn't capable of answering such convoluted question by himself.

Let me give you a hint: The word “ENTITLEMENT"

Frodo loves Sam, but Frodo agrees with Ricardo.

I guess I'm still not understanding your point wrapped in a question. What would it prove if I gave you $2500 to feed your family?

Would it fundamentally restructure the worldwide economic system which is designed to benefit the rich, a system in which benefits to the poor or working people are just an added bonus but not particularly required? It's a system in which the land and resources large areas of countries around the world are privatized into very few hands, usually leaving only crumbs for the vast majority of people.

I'm not even directly talking about the South Central Farm. I was trying to get you as an apartment dwelling, poor person to explain why the rich are the ones in society that get to decide how land and resources are used.

I'll agree that the situation of the South Central Farm is a complicated mess, made more complicated by the city's use of eminent domain and then the backroom deal in 2003 which returned the land to Horowitz. More than any party involved the city of Los Angeles completely bungled this one.

Now that I've conceded that point answer my questions about the nature of private property. I'm waiting.

I don't even fudamentally agree with your view that the rich get to "deicide" how the land or resouces are used. They have no more "decision" power than you if you were to own the same land and resources. You are asking a question, to me, that is not even a valid question. Just like me asking you "Why is the sky purple?" Yet we cannot even agree on the fact that if the sky is really purple in the first place, how can you answer my question?

However, if you absolutely have to say that they do "decide", then they do it through the process called "ownership". But again, that's no different from anyone else who own things. It just so happens that they own more. Since they have more money, the chance of them "owning" things also increases. The rich own more, the poor own less. The quantiity of ownership maybe different, but the quality is exactly the same. Bill Gates cannot get more usage out of a $5 bill than anyone who has a $5 bill, he just has tons of it. I am not sure what's so unjust about that.

Your rights as a little house owner is no less than the the rights Bill Gates would have if he were to own the same little house you are living in. Under the law, there is nothing he can do to that little house that you, as a less wealthy person, do not have the "right" to, if you had the money. He can add a pool, you can add a pool; he can bulldose the house down, you can do the same, the only difference is that you may not be able to afford such activities, he does. He can also buy the entire block and raze it to the ground and turn it into a giant ugly warehouse, you can too, if you have the money.

I vehemently oppose to the concept of Eminent Domain where the rich corporation can just force you to sell your property for their own financial gain, with the backing of the govenment.

You have not answered my simple question: Why should you not send me the money? Since you are all about standing up for the poor, well, HERE I AM, what are you going to do about it. I don't want to hear your sob story with your family, I don't need your lame excuse that it's not going to change to society. What is the one valid reason that will send me to go pound sand? Anyone??

Sam, one day when you own a 14 acre land somewhere, you also get to decide how to use it to your liking as well. You can very well turn it into a beautiful farm, as long as it's allowed by the city, and no one else would have the right to tell you not to. But the irony is, if you own a 14 acre land, I guess you'll be part of the "RICH" too, won't you? And if you are so vehemently aginst the rich making decision on the usage of resources, I hope by then, when you are rich land owner, you will remember what you are saying today and have the courtesey to relinquish the decision making of your land to those who are less fortunate. Will you do that?

What are you talking about? You say the rich have no more right to decide how land and resources are used than I do if I owned the same land and resources. That would make me rich too! Your statement is technically true but makes no sense. It’s too bad you took so much time to write that long reply all the while thinking you were answering the questions I posed. It turns out not.

Imagine that, instead of feeding 350 families, the South Central Farm or a place like it fed 50,000 families. Would you still say that the owner would have every right to bulldoze the land and use it in any way he sees fit? If you say yes, which you would have to based on your other posts, than you believe that “ownership” supercedes all public good. That’s very sad.

And, the one reason I’m not going to send you $2500 to feed your family is that you’re a defender of capitalist owners, a system based on inequality, you paradoxically explain private property rights all the while defending the status quo. You DESERVE to struggle and starve on your own without “handouts” or “entitlement” as you would call them. You believe that this system that leaves the poor to starve is just fine. So go pound sand, assuming there is even a park with a sandbox near your little apartment.

Mr. Horowitz may be a multi-millionaire but is poor in spirit.

Obviously An Observer understood what I was saying. Just because my answer can't penetrate your thick skull, doesn't make it a paradox. Why can't you just admit you just don't have the brain power to comprehend? Like I said, I think the sky is purple, you disagree, we agree to disagree. Let's leave it as such.

I absolutely believe ownership supercedes what YOU deem to be public good. Public good is a subjective statement, keep that in mind. I happen to LIKE Wal-Marts and K-Marts over farms and gardens. Who the hell are you to tell me otherwise? Who made you my local congressman? That's why the only objective way is to go by the DEED.

I think it's sad and dagerous that you believe you have the right to impose onto the majority what you and the radical few believe is good for the society. Thank god that the majority of the public is middle ground reasonable folks. You and your radical opinions will continue to surface but will continue to be beat down. I admit, I am a little no-body, but the only place where you, Sam, can feel like you are somebody is in a sorry internet blog. The South Central Farm is already bulldosed, perhaps it's your turn to go pound sand?

I cannot believe now you are ridiculing my living situation.
I know you'd like to be good person, but you really are just a little prick dishing out social justice on the internet. If I were to agree with your radical views, would you have sent me the $2500? By now, it's clear that you will find every sorry excuse not to. You are no better than Horowitz, the "Filthy Jew".

You're right, I forgot that I am too poor to have a sand box, but you know where I live, you are welcome to come over so I can pound you into the ground, it's the least you can do for poor Ricardo. WHAT A HYPOCRITICAL LITTLE WORM YOU ARE.

FYI Ricardo - -

Paradox: A seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paradox

And yes, your answer is a paradox.

I guess my example of feeding 50,000 families is only a subjective example of what could be considered “public good”. Others, like you, can believe that the “public good” can be better served by the few owning and privatizing the majority of the land and resources of the world. We can agree to disagree, just realize and remember what side you’re on.

I think it’s sad and dangerous that the elite, ruling class, through state and private institutions, has the right and authority to decide what they believe is good for society and the means to implement whatever they see fit with full backing of police and military. Not only are their objectives and motives often contradictory to the public good they often times are adversarial to it. More often than not decisions are made with the bottom line of profit in mind rather than the well being of the majority.

Favoring Wal-Marts and K-Marts over gardens and farms not only pegs you as short sighted it also reveals as much about your character as it does about your seeming inherent lack of understanding of the basic tenets of capitalism, the very economic system you so passionately defend. Your arguments lack historical context as well as a necessary acceptance of historical change, which is important if we as human beings are going to make this world a better place.

Saying that “the majority of the public is middle ground reasonable folks” says nothing since only 13% of Americans can even find Iraq on a map.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/

The majority of Americans are wholly misinformed and can’t even begin to explain the economic system under which they live, let alone argue it’s intricacies.

Trying to belittle my arguments by saying that “the only place where you, Sam, can feel like you are somebody is in a sorry internet blog”, not only shows that you’ve never studied the basic concept for debating it also reveals the weakness of your arguments since you don’t know who I am and are probably only projecting your own insecurities

Projection: The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or desires to someone or something as a naive or unconscious defense against anxiety or guilt.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/projection

As for ridiculing your personal situation, it was you that brought it up in the first place. Your ridiculed yourself first. You’ve resorted to more name-calling than me and your arguments are less substantive than they are simply explaining the status quo, a condition in which any conscious person is already well aware. You’ve ridiculed yourself through your weak arguments

Once again Ricardo, remember what side you’re on.

WOW!!! You've really out done yourself (and me) this time.

Hey, I got all the time in the world to keep this going, Sam.

I admire you fervent defense of your obviouse lack of Intelligence, by citing definitions and links.

Look up the definitions for HYPOCRITE and CHARLATAN, por favor. Dumb people tend to do that to cover their lack horse power in the brain. Wanna keeping on dancing, Sam? What a moron.

Oh yeah, look up the definitions of MORON and RETARD, while you are at it. :-))))

Is that how you spell OBVIOUSE, Sam? I think it doesn't have an E in the back. Could you look that up for me, please....SAM

:-)))

"Maybe I don't have the rock solid logic skills of an out of work computer programmer"


This is the first thing you've said that I agree with.

"... but I'm having a hard time seeing how me (Sam) helping out you (Ricardo) and your family has anything to do with the larger issues of equity and justice."

Sam, you aren't about 'equity' and 'justice'. Equity is equal treatment under the law, no matter who you are, but you aren't willing to give Mr. Horowitz that treatment. You'd rather usurp the law, if you could get away with it, and seize his wealth. Is that 'justice', Sam? Under your own rules Ricardo would be justified in coming over to your house and seizing your wealth because Ricardo has no job. He's poorer than you, so by your own rules, he has a right to seize what you own. Is that 'justice', Sam? Will it feel like 'justice' to you when Ricardo is carting your furniture out your front door? Will it feel like 'justice', Sam, when he seizes your bank account? Remember, he's only seizing it in order to satisfy your definition of 'equity'. You should he happy when he seizes your wealth. You will be happy, won't you Sam?

Ricardo has been repeating this mantra to you because you are too dull to see the ramifications of your own 'ideas'.

Endless name-calling such as you engage in is what really betrays a lack of intelligence and a basic understanding of the subject being discussed. It's not the other way around.

Ever hear the expression "a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent"? That's what I've been doing with you.

And no, citing examples and sources to back up an argument isn't something "stupid" people do. It's actually something intelligent people do. But you wouldn't know that. Because you don't back up your arguments. You probably couldn't if you tried.

You still can't back up your points or answer my questions in a way that shows a basic understanding of larger issues. You've been exposed.

Trident, people like Sam don't go by logic, equality and law, they go by emotions and feelings, and by how they THINK the world ought to operate base on their little ideologies.

They know what's best for the communities, and Big Bad Wal-Mart is definitely not it. This is no different from all the radical religious wack jobs in the Middle-East, who will declare you an INFIDEL and kill you simply because you do not subscribe to their believes. Given these people the power, they will force their views upon you, and that is very very scary.

Ricardo's answers will never satisfy him until it becomes what he wants to hear. Until then, he will continue his mockeries.

By the way, Sam, Ricardo didn't resort to name-callings, he HAS BEEN calling you names all along. He never boasted to be a moral person anyway. Count how many times you have been called a hypocrite? I agree with Erika and Ricardo, you are an idiot at best, a wack job at worst.

Sam, where do you get your groceries? Where do you get your clothes? From a Farm? You better not let me catch you shopping at Ralphs or Vons, because they are also Big Bad Corporations. Sam: Look up the Definition of INFIDEL, please.

Oh yes. Anarchists are SUCH big-hearted, compassionate people.

You all are stupid. This man bought his land back fair and square. You tree huggers are retarded! You LIVE IN LA! It is a city. If you want to farm move to OHIO!

I realize that the guy is unarmed but you can still let him fight his own battles...

Rednecks and Yahoo's. Great choice of words. I'm sure there are jews in Ohio. I'm pretty sure there are jews everywhere. What does that have to do with anything though? LA is full of FAKE tree huggers! Every single state has something wrong with it. The only thing they have in common is they are all in a messed up nation. People can sue over anything now a days and it's wrong. This man owns his land and these damn actors/actresses think they can change something. I'd never even heard of this woman before she climbed her dumbass in a tree for three weeks. I don't give a damn if she is in a movie or two she has no right going onto someone elses property. Personally I think a warehouse would be better there. Who needs a farm in LA? Everyone there thinks they are too good to live anywhere for a city!

To have a Battle of The Wits, both parties need to have some what of an intelligence. Seems like everyone agrees that you arn't the one with the wits here. So I guess there really isn't a battle afterall huh?? How about that for a Paradox, Sam? However, you do have an ounce of dim wit, but by by no means are you a worthy opponent.

Frodo...HAHA, I haven't even noticed. I have been calling him names all along huh? Hey Sam, you are a hypocritical idiot. There, I just did it again!! 2 names in 1.

Think Sam! Think hard for another good come back! Screw the farm, who cares, it aint mine anyway. But, I got all the time in the world for personal attacks. I am loving this....

But, Sam, you have finally exposed me....but what did you expose anyway?

Perhaps Darryl Hannah can purchase some property somewhere else and invite all these wonderful entitled people over to HER house so they can farm vegtables. She has lots of money and maybe then she could be putting her money where her mouth is instead of climbing up into trees and making a spectacle of herself.

What I find offensive is the concept that there are people who have a socialist entitlement in this country - they believe that land should be taken from an individual who has rightful title ownership of a property and want to redistribute it to the masses. It reminds me of an eastern block communist movement to me...

I exposed the fact that you don't know how to back up an argument. And no, everyone else doesn't agree with you, they just feel bad because I've been kicking your ass here and they were trying to help.

Trying to prove you're intelligent by using a sentence like this...

"To have a Battle of The Wits, both parties need to have some what of an intelligence"

...is no way to do it. That sentence was a grammatical abomination and proves once again that you're unarmed.

Reading your comments reminded me that I need to take out the garbage.

Hey Hypocritical, Dim Witted Tree Hugger. Wow, I've out done Ricardo here, 3 in 1.

Ok you're right, you are kicking Ricardo ass here, if you say so.

And you'v got a hell of a come back. You really arn't winning here, Sam, go home and cry to your mom, and then go climb a tree. Bow your head down in shame.

This is like a schoolyard fight where one guy gets his ass kicked and his buddies try to console him on the way home and tell him he's still "cool".

That's all you got lett huh? Picking grammatical errors in a sentence? Why don't you throw a couple of definitions at me while you are at it. You really haven't impressed me, or anyone here for that matter, so far. So....GO LIVE IN YOUR TREE. But before you do that, let me come over and take all of your furnitures, because, afterall, I am the poor and the needy. And the society is responsible for me. Gimme GImme Gimme.

I am going to bed now. Nite Nite.

Just because you say it does not make it so. Being in denial is harmful to your mental health, Sam.

Sam's logic all boils down to his following reponse....because Horowitz doesn't live on the farm, he, therefore, MUST be explioting the poor. Like Ricardo said. "Wow, what a Robin Hood"!!!

HIS PROPERTY
by Sam Thursday, Jun. 15, 2006 at 8:03 AM

It's not Horowitz's house or yard. It's 14 acres in the middle of a community in which he doesn't live and has nothing to do with except to exploit. There is a difference.

Okay, I'll point out another grammatical error...

"Furnitures" is not a word, furniture is already plural, which means more than one. To respond, taking my furniture would be stealing, that's not the same as an equitable distribution of resources. Can you get that through your programmed skull?

The reason you have all these people trying to help you out isn't because you're right, it's because they know you lost and feel bad. You tried so hard. If you put this much effort into looking for a job you just might find one.

I kind of feel bad for you too. There are so many points you could have made if you just had a basic understanding of the bigger issues. By the way, can you find Iraq on a map?

But it's too late for all this. You lost, I'm done.

I know you're just trying to help but you're making Ricardo look bad. He's a big boy, let him take his lumps like everyone else.

Just because you say it does not make it so. Being in denial is harmful to your mental health, Sam.

I know it's painful to watch. But can't you guys just let Ricardo fight his own battles.

How many times have YOU said "you lost" in this thread, Sam? You should learn to think before you type, Sam.

What a sore loser Sam is. Having difficulties making his point valid, so he resorts to picking spelling errors, and declares his own victory before going to bed. HaHa What a nut case. All smart people I know are bad spellers, Sam!

"But can't you guys just let Ricardo fight his own battles."

"You Guys" is not proper English, "YOU" is already plurel.

And you forgot to add a "?" to the end of a question.

BAD ENGLISH, SAM, a sign of lack of proper education. You lost!

Sam, you remind of of Bagdad Bob, the Iraqi Foreign minister, who was holding daily press conferences on the amazing Iraqi progress in defeating the US and declaring Iraqi victories every day, even when CNN was showing US troops knocking on Bagdad's front door, shutting down the airport.

I don't think people are fighting for Ricardo, I think people just don't like you and your radical views. Being a sore loser doesn't help either. What kind of idiot would declare his own victory, when it's clear that he is out-numbered. You are pathetic. Sam.

Ricardo, although being poor, is admirable in that he still has enough logic and sense of justice to know not to blame his problems on the rich. Unilke you Sam. You are a leech to this society, and the world is better off without people like you. You are digging your own grave by opening that big mouth of yours. Sad thing is, nothing intelligent has yet to come out. You really are no match for Ricardo.

Picking on people's spelling errors doesn't make them look bad, just makes you look even more desperate and confirms the notion, among all the people who have responded tonight, that you are just a little asshole, who has ran out of meaningful things to say. Don't tell me whose side I should stand on, I don't like you or your radical views, period. And I don't think people like you here either, Sam. Fighting a lonely battle is a sad thing. Time to offer your kingdom....or furniture for a horse, Sam / Bagdad Bob

Take your delusional ideologies elsewhere, where people actually give a crap about what you have to say, 'cause you aren't going to find it here.

Do you Know where Bagdad is, Sam?????

I think the real problem is that there are a few people who have seats of power who really believe their S**T don't stink y'know?
If they see someone poor and on the street, that person to them is no better than a piece of garbage. It's this faulty pompous perspective that is the cause of all this confusion. These aristocrats who control societies and banks, should be more human. As it stands today, the few who possess all the wealth, are really control freaks and anallly inhibited. They should take a hatha yoga class and get in touch with their humanity and learn the following meditation technique: http://www.santmat.net
We're all living beings on this planet, and all men are created equal, have the same kinds of bodies, etc., it's what we do with them that makes us who we are.
So we should choose are actions carefully..............

Just think, Ralph Horowitz, as a Jew, what you are doing by opposing and forcibly taking away something very important from poor people. Your actions are of the type which caused the rise of National Socialism and the persecution of our Jewish people in Europe !
Be more reasonable and less grasping. Shalom.

If indeed you're a rabbi rather than a gentile posing as one, you're one helluva ignoranus about the causes of antisemitism, or at least the cause and effect relationship between deeds committed by Jews as individuals and antisemitism expressed by Jew haters.

The only people that cause antisemitism are gentile Jew haters themselves aided by their willing antisemitic accomplices among the Jews.

Hang your head in shame for attempting to come across as a person speaking in the name of reason. If you're even Jewish.

Wow, the right-wing trolls really come out of from everywhere when Sam speaks. It's funny how nobody can really address any of my points. My main question is: Why should the rich decide how land and resources are used?

As for the spelling critiques, Ricardo invited it with his excessive name-calling and belligerent ignorance.

Erika, I think you've missed taking your daily dose of the latest designer anti-depressant. Chill out for a second. See definition #8 for projection
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/projection

Ricardo, just because the right-wing trolls came out to defend you it doesn’t make you right. It means four internet trolls were needed to drag you out of the line of fire.

Ricardo, Karen, Ericka, Frodo are trolls. They are against this site. they are probably from Free Republic site. They are already brainwash from the bush regime.

Wasn't sure about your gender Sam.
Is it
"Ripped HIM a huge asshole" or
"Ripped HER a huge asshole"?

It's fun messing with your little head.

Blah, FYI, I happen to own Michael Moore's 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine, and I love them both. When I started reading this site, I was neither for nor against the farm issue. But Sam's consistent failure to make his point caught my attention.

As it is for Ricardo, it's just fun to mess with Sam, watching him getting all mad, I can just imagine how much sleep he had lost last night. This is not politically motivated, rather, we are picking on him for consistently failing to make a point. It makes the liberals look bad. Well, I am not sure what Ricardo's political affiliation is, so I can't speak for him, maybe he has been Bush-Washed.

SAM are you a man or woman, or to put in a language you will understand, are you an innie or outie ( and I don't mean belly button)? Damn it, now Ricardo has brought up that issue.

The point has been made. It was in the form of a question which nobody here has been able to address.

The question is: Why do the rich get to decide how land and resources are used?

it's simple --

because he is the owner

is this hard for you to understand?

Well, John, it's not that simple, for you see, Sam here is asking a rhetorical question. She doesn't want an answer, she is making a statement, and what a powerful statement that is!!

And the proper answer she wants to hear is: "Rich should not get to decide, because it's wrong and unfair".

Unless you agree with her on that particular point, she will repeat the same thing over and over like a broken record, and laugh at you for not understanding her "profound" question. And, she will show her "superiority" by picking on spelling mistakes. And the funniest thing is, she will than declare victory for herself.

I agree with Erika, I don't think Ricardo needs any help, he's fine on his own, it is you, Samantha, that is UNARMED, and needs much much help. Mentally, and also as a debater. Ricardo was kicking your ass.

I have a rhetorical question too for Samantha: "Why do nut jobs like you get to tell people how they should and should not act?"

"The question is: Why do the rich get to decide how land and resources are used?"

Answer: The rich get to decide how the land and resources THEY OWN are used. That's the key Sam... ownership.

Just as YOU get to decide how YOUR resources are used, they are legally entitled to make that same decision for themselves about the resources THEY OWN. If they own more resources then their decisions may impact more people... but that doesn't make their decision any less legitimate.

We all know that the concept of property ownership rubs you wrong Sam, but its the LAW and its in the CONSTITUTION.

It's sad that this has to be explained to you. But I've learned over the years that sometimes functionally illiterate Leftists require a little more help.

I am in agreement with Rabbi Blumenthal. I think it completely unworthy of Horowitz to take such advantage of ordinary people.
Evidently these people have offered Horowitz a reasonable deal. If he were an understanding person he would do everything in his power to assist them including some financial assistance. If Horowitz took this path he would be respected - rather than many of the community casting him as some sort of Shylock which reflects badly on the wider Jewish community.
If he forces these folk off these 14 acres of land just to profit himself from industrial development then I would not want to be in his shoes. I would advise him to think carefully about this matter as today we live in an 'eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' society.
Look carefully what is down the track when suburbia will be finished and the energy crisis will be causing serious problems. These 14 acres will feed a lot of people - an industrial complex will then be worthless and will certainly not assist the wider community.
When that time arrives Horowitz might well be pleased to be provided with fresh fruit and vegetables
from the market gardens that he helped to establish permanently. Some of the produce will undoubtedly even be kosher !

He has the right to sell the property because he owns the land. The fact that he is Jewish should, and does, have nothing to do with it. If he was a non believer would he be getting the same treatment? And to relate what he has done to rise in anti Semitism is the same as blaming a rape victim because of the way she was dressed.

Those that hate don’t need someone to give them a reason to hate; they will find it or create it.

It would have been good if something would have worked out to keep the farm but it seems there is going to be a different use for the land.

A warehouse will be built on the land and with it will be jobs, jobs that will be taken by some of those that were working the land. There will be construction job; many in the construction trade are Hispanic, and then jobs in the warehouse. Many of the workers in the warehouse will be the same people that worked the land.

There appears there is nothing that can be done to return the farm, so we can yell and insult the property owner or prepare to make sure those jobs created by the development of this land are those who worked the land. How about using energy in a positive way and not to hate.

>>>> I happen to own Michael Moore's 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine, and I love them both.

what's your point Erika? anybody can get those films and still believe in Bush.

Chances are 'Rabbi Blumenthal' is an imposture.

Anyway, the point is this: no matter how evil or stupid one single Jew appears to be, there's no justification for projecting his actions or utterances on other Jews. Castigating him with racist stereotypes and lumping other Jews in with him is akin to assigning collective guilt to the US Muslim population at large due to similar apparently wicked actions taken by an American Muslim. That's bigoted and has no place in a democratic and pluralistic society like the US.

Hey Bleh, read rest of my sentence:

"When I started reading this site, I was neither for nor against the farm issue".

And yes, I am a moderate Democrate, and will always be so, because there are Democratic values that I subscribe to, I just don't like Sam and his logic, period. Last time I checked, not all Democrates agree on EVERY ISSUE.

I am still allowed to disagree, am I? Without being classified as Bush-Washed?

Horowitz did indeed "steal" the land where the Southcentral Farm was located. When the City took it from him under the right of eminent domain about 13 years ago, they paid him 4.8 million dollars. Ten years later, City Attorney Rockard (never met a developer I din't like) Delgadillo and Jan Perry orchestrated a resale of the land to Horowitz, with an additional 2-3 acres for 5.2 million dollars. The land in question exchanged hands between the Sanitation Dept and the Harbor Dept for $13 million - it's assessed value three years ago. In other words, Horowitz was the beneficiary of corrupt politicians who sold land owned by the City and ostensibly its residents for less than half its market value. It that isn't theft neither are the costplus, no bid contracts that Bush and Cheney gave Halliburton, Bechtel et al to rebuild the Iraq the US military destroyed.

Not living in LA but having travelled there several times, I consider a 14 acre community garden in the depressed inner city a major benefit and a model project other inner cities could emulate to revitalize their surroundings.
Horowitz could've been a hero, made a killing on selling the property, and stipulated that this oasis be named after him or glorify his benevolence. Instead, he is now just another greedy developer who doesn't understand how his money grab is destroying a unique and obviously vibrant cultural center.
I doubt the asphalt and warehouses he's proposing will stimulate anything economically. It will only add to the generic, lifelessness that is downtown LA.
But hey, paving everything for "mega-capitalism" is the American doctrine. What good are gardens that feed people or give a community a purpose or sense of identity? That only benefits lots of people and beautifies and renews the area. Can't have that when there's arable land to trample and turn into a profit that won't trickle down to anyone except the sad, greedy land owner.
The inability to conceive of how to use capital and resources wisely to create sustainable opportunities and communities within our inner cities is exactly what's wrong with our present government and their short-sighted priorities.

I acknowledged mis-spelled your “name”. So be original, don't play that name game with me, it’s already been done once. At least I have enough pride to use my REAL name- Erika. You must have a sorry name that’s not even worth pronouncing which you have degraded to BLAH. What an appropriate choice! Be-Laughed -At-Hard (BLAH)? Is that grammatically correct? Not sure, I wasn't born here, go ask Sam.

Ok, ok, enough with making fun of your name….I actually am quite flattered to be despised by people like you and Sam. It means my view MUST represent that of the majority. I guess that also makes you and your kind the radical extremists, who are sitting on the dark fringe of the society, rosy-palmed, craving to be looked upon. The day you agree with me, is the day I have to re-evaluate myself.

Like someone had suggested to Sam, you can find yourself a sturdy noose and a strong oak tree, perhaps that's how you will find your paradise :-) Or, like what your Middle-Eastern terrorist counterparts often like to do, you can also find yourself an empty farm and blow yourself up to kingdom come and take out a couple of cows with you. And that, BLAH, is quite alright with me. The less of your type around the better the world will be. I really really believe that.

By the way, although I am a moderate Democrat, my boyfriend will tell you my 28-year-old, 121 pound 5’8” German-made race frame is by no means a “Moderate Fuck”...but you wouldn't know what that means anyway, so, blah to myself.

I am outta here. Have a fabulous life together with Rosy…if you decide not to take my aforementioned advice. Bubye, Muah!

Ralph Horowitz 's attitude towards the community is inexcusable and I think that he ought to reconsider his actions so that this 'farm' can continue on a permanent footing. Such an approach would be so positive that Ralph Horowitz could reap many benefits himself - he might be very surprised. I sincerely hope that he would reconsider his actions !

>>However, if you absolutely have to say that they do "decide", then they do it through the process called "ownership". But again, that's no different from anyone else who own things. It just so happens that they own more. Since they have more money, the chance of them "owning" things also increases. The rich own more, the poor own less. The quantiity of ownership maybe different, but the quality is exactly the same. Bill Gates cannot get more usage out of a $5 bill than anyone who has a $5 bill, he just has tons of it. I am not sure what's so unjust about that.

You're missing the point of capitalism. Capitalism is about the renting of capital (for the purpose of starting businesses).

A very wealthy person has a huge advantage in a capitalist system, not because they can buy more, but because they have the opportunities to rent out capital in exchange for interest. In this way, they exert control over peoples' labor.

>>Your rights as a little house owner is no less than the the rights Bill Gates would have if he were to own the same little house you are living in.

LOL. Yeah right.

So you're a programmer. Do you also think that the "memory" in your entire address space is the same, whether you've allocated 1 kilobyte or a million kilobytes? Do you consider remote objects to be the same as local objects, because they share the same interface? Do you distinguish between a copy of a pointer to data and a copy of that data?

(The correct answer is "no." The differences often don't make a difference, but, sometimes they do. That difference is important when implementing real-world software. Analogously...)

Property ownership rights (and zoning) are abstractions for the real issue of land use and community regulation of land use. The abstractions are concretized as laws, but even these laws are subject to interpretation by the courts.

Land use is a big, big issue. The most common issue brought before city councils are zoning variances, and requests to alter land use. A large fraction of most city budgets is dedicated to city planning and zoning reguation. At each step, people are making decisions to interpret and enforce the laws, abstractions, and actual land uses.

All this labor is expended to compensate for the failures of the simplified abstraction to "work" in the real world.

(Just as most experienced programmers accept that simplifed models can't work in the real world, city planners know that land use isn't like Sim City.)

Your basic argument is that the real situation of the SCF should be forced to conform to your extremely simplified model of Property Rights. The problem is, the realtiy of the situation has gone far beyond the abstract. (That's why Horowitz brought that issue up. He's got a big advantage if the public believes he's just a guy playing a theoretical game of Sim City.)

(Yeah, this is real late.)

>Perhaps Darryl Hannah can purchase some property somewhere else and invite all these wonderful entitled people over to HER house so they can farm vegtables. She has lots of money and maybe then she could be putting her money where her mouth is instead of climbing up into trees and making a spectacle of herself.

>What I find offensive is the concept that there are people who have a socialist entitlement in this country - they believe that land should be taken from an individual who has rightful title ownership of a property and want to redistribute it to the masses. It reminds me of an eastern block communist movement to me...

The SCF were offering to buy the land, at the price the owner demanded. Then, the owner reneged on the sale.

The situation has little to do with taking over land, though the developer framed it as such. If anything, the developer USES eminent domain, because his company does public redevelopment projects around LA. If there's anything reminiscent of the Eastern Bloc, it's the way the government and their cronies are working together to deny some measure of participation and self-determination to poor people. That, and the masses of property-rights patriots that come to the defense of the corrupt state. (I mean, really, what's next? Parades around City Hall where the presidents of the homeowners associations all goose-step in formation?)

Justice in this situation is simple: the politicians should have pressured their crony land developer to sell the parcel to the organized community group. That is their job -- to represent the will of the people, not the will of a small development company with connections.

>BAD ENGLISH, SAM, a sign of lack of proper education. You lost!

You have some errors in your writing too. You started your sentence with "but."

More importantly, your style is choppy and vernacular. If you're going to deride someone for poor English grammar and style, you should strive, at least in the relevant post, to use something resembling standard written English.

Incidentally, Sam's conversational style isn't bad. It is easier to read than your writing. Achieving that balance is, I think, a learned skill; it's not a verbatim transcription of spoken vernacular English, but a translation into writing.

You also assert, in a different post, that all smart people are bad spellers. This hasn't been my experience.

The idea that communities should control land use isn't "radical" in the least. There are zoning laws, master plans, and extensive procedures for enforcing or overriding these laws.

Moreover, today, there are redevelopment zones of many kinds. These zones allow the city to exert even more control over the land, by encouraging specific kinds of development via tax incentives or direct grants. The Supreme Court even upheld a decision (of which I'm personally suspicious, BTW) that says it's okay for local government to use Eminent Domain to take property for the purpose of enhancing the local economy.

The scope of "community" control over resources isn't really dispute. (In particular, it's not disputed by people like Jan Perry or Ralph Horowitz!) The real question is which "community" is in control here. Is it the community of insiders at City Hall, or the community of people who live around the land in question.

The question isn't even whether to improve land or not, because this parcel has been significantly developed already -- as an organic community farm. The question is who develops it, for what purpose, and to whose benefit.

A victory for the Farmers is a victory for real communities, and would likely represent a victory for people who live in regular houses, and have mortgages.

why can't we all...just get along?

Sam was making a statement, which the majority of the people he was debating with didn't agree with on a fundamental level. Yet he made his statement in the form of a rhetorical question, but unlike most of people who ask rhetorical questions for the purpose of making statements and not truly expecting an answer, he actually expected an answer that would agree with his view, from a crowd who didn't share the same view. Then, he got frustrated, because the answers people gave didn’t agree with his point. A person can make a statement and debate on it, or he can ask a rhetorical question in front of people who fundamentally agrees with his view and he can talk all about how great of a point he has brought up.... or he can honestly ask a true question and be open about whatever answers he gets. He cannot have all three ways. This is what so stupid about this whole thing. Reading through the dialogues, Ricardo told Sam at one point "WE AGREE TO DISAGREE". Yet Sam mock at him, basically calling him stupid, in so many words.

If I am a pro-choice person, and want to talk about the good abortion brings. There are 3 things I can do:

#1 Simply make the statement "Abortion is great". When I make that statement, I should expect some people to disagree with me, but I got to be a good sport about it, in order to have a debatable topic.

#2 Ask the rhetorical question, "Why is abortion so great?" I cannot ask this question with the pro-life people, because they don't fundamentally agree with my point, they don't even like abortion, how can they tell me why abortion is so great? When I ask this rhetorical question, I have to ask it in front of people who share my view to begin with. If I don't do that (such as in your case) the alternative is that I should expect some people to give me answers I don’t like, such as in Sam’s case.

#3 Ask a true question, "What are the pros and cons of abortion?" I will draw people from both sides, not to debate me, but to offer their views. But I also need to be open about the answers, because after all, I asked the question.

Sam was not doing any of this. He tried to make a statement, yet he also tried to come off like he was asking a genuine question, but every time he gets an answer, he would mock at the answerer for not understanding his “point”, because he asked the question in front of the wrong crowd who didn't agree with his statement. He then proclaims victory for being intellectually superior to everyone else, because no one gets his little riddle. Like Po’Boy said, he will never be satisfied until he hears what he wanted to hear. Sam is just an all around bad sport and a sore looser.

Greedy creatures like Ralph Horowitz exist only to collect the quick American dollar while destroying natural resources that people need and human lives depend on. Maybe when some of his family members breathe in too many greenhouse gases and end up swimming in tumors, just maybe he'll have a change of heart. I pity the fool

Hey Mr. Cha, if you have more money in your bank accont than I do, I guess you are responsible to take care of my financial needs and share your wealth, otherwise can I call you a greedy Korean???

If a greedy rich Jew like Horowitz is being held responsible for the wellfare of these illegal immigrant land squatters, then the least you can do is take care of one family - mine. Since I am not an illegal, it also should give me more claim to your wealth, shouldn't it?

Don't worry about what rich people should or shouldn't do with their wealth. It's no more of your business than your money is my business.

Walk the talk, Mr. Cha. Judge not, lest ye be judged.

Hey Mr. Cha, if you have more money in your bank accont than I do, I guess you are responsible to take care of my financial needs and share your wealth, otherwise can I call you a greedy Korean???

If a greedy rich Jew like Horowitz is being held responsible for the wellfare of these illegal immigrant land squatters, then the least you can do is take care of one family - mine. Since I am not an illegal, it also should give me more claim to your wealth, shouldn't it?

Don't worry about what rich people should or shouldn't do with their wealth. It's no more of your business than your money is my business.

Walk the talk, Mr. Cha. Judge not, lest ye be judged.