http://www.counterpunch.org/philpott03162006.html Tom Philpott did a lot of research, following the money:
Tezozomoc suggested that I look closer at the dealings between Horowitz and Delgadillo, the city attorney who gave him such a sweet deal on the farm tract. Rocky Delgadillo is an interesting figure. A Harvard law alum, he's a darling of the neoliberal Democratic Leadership Institute, which named him one of its "100 to Watch" in 2003. In a gushing profile on the DLC's Web site, Delgadillo describes his path from big-time entertainment lawyer to selfless public servant. His move, like the birth of south Central Farm, hinged on the Rodney King rebellion.
On the day the infamous acquittals, Delgadillo says in the DLC piece, "I felt a great sense of shock but also a great sense of purpose. Coming from the neighborhood I did, I felt fortunate for the opportunities I had been given. . And my parents always taught me I had an obligation to give something back. I knew it was my time to go back and help my community."
By 2003, he was handing his community's biggest chunk of green space over to a Brentwood-based developer at a cut rate. Perusing LA's Ethics Commission web site at Tezozomoc's urging, I found Ralph Horowitz bolstering Delgadillo's war chest for the city attorney race with the maximum donation of 00 in 2000. The only other local politicians Horowitz is on record giving money to are Eric Garcetti and Victor Griego-both of whom, Tezozomoc reports, have supported Horowitz's bid to pave the garden.
Horowitz co-owns the South Central Community Farm property with something called Shaghan Securities, which gave Delgadillo 00 in 2001; and with Jack Libaw, who handed Delgadillo 0 in 2001. (Jack's brother Evan also gave councilman Griego 0 in 1999.) As with Horowitz, these men are on record donating cash only to politicians who have directly benefited their bid to regain control of the Farm property. When you do a search on the Ethics Commission Web site of Delgadillo's contributors and the term "developer," a list of seemingly interminable length emerges. Like the LA Times itself, this fellow resides squarely in the pocket of the class that makes dirt fly in Los Angeles-"give back to my community" prattle aside. Delgadillo is now running for California Attorney General.
But this story is about more than back-room deals between politicians and developers and the craven daily newspapers that coddle them. It's about the contours of civic policy in an era of broad neoliberal consensus. To build the Alameda Corridor-the project that made South Central Community Farm so attractive to Horowitz-the city of Los Angeles cobbled together .4 billion. According to a press release from the US DOT's Federal Highway Administration states, the money came from: " billion raised by revenue bonds issued by the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, 0 million directly from the ports, 0 million provided by the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and a 0 million loan from the U.S. Department of Transportation."
--------------------------
Devon Pena's response to the LA Weekly article.
(LAW article is at
http://www.laweekly.com/features/12871/bushel-of-complaints/ )
------------------------
Letters to the Editor
L.A. Weekly
P.O. Box 4315
Los Angeles, CA 90078
March 17, 2006
To the editor:
I am writing in reference to the article, “Bushel of Complaints” by Daniel Hernandez and specifically to the longer on-line version appearing on Wed, March 15. I believe the author was previously terminated at the L.A. Times and I can now begin to understand why this was likely the case. The article is a poorly researched, inaccurate, and libelous hit piece designed to undermine support for one of the most significant democratically-organized and community-based campaigns for environmental justice in this country.
What exactly was the L.A. Weekly trying to do? Any reader familiar with the South Central Farmers Feeding Families can see that the intent was to smear the leaders of this grassroots organization but I am wondering why it went out of its way to do so.
In his article, Weekly writer Daniel Hernandez admits to interviewing only twenty of the South Central Farmers. Nowhere in the article did I see opinions expressed by the vast majority of the Farmers, the well over 330 families who support their elected leaders, Tezozomoc and Rufina Juarez. Why, I wonder, the glaring omission? Why the selective interviewing?
The companion article by David Zahniser, “Not So Fast, Antonio,” refers to the campaign to save the South Central Farm as having become a cause célèbre. It is that and deservedly so. The campaign to save the largest urban farm in the United States is embraced by citizens and organizations across the United States, Canada, and Europe.
Through years of creative work, members of the South Central Farmers Feeding Families have transformed a barren industrial wasteland into an oasis. Those who have visited the farm site see at once what a special place it is. As an anthropologist and ethnobiologist, I have carefully studied the biological diversity of the 14-acre site. My studies document a world-class level of biological diversity that includes rare species of heirloom crops native to North America. The South Central Farm is a biological treasure that rivals the botanical collections of any herbarium or university collection in Southern California.
The Farm has become a tremendous asset to South Los Angeles and promises to enrich the lives of people living there for generations to come. In addition to providing wholesome, nutritious food to people of meager means, it is a place of refuge in the asphalt jungle and fosters a sense of community among those who work the land and purchase food at the Farmers’ Market. All of us who want to see the Farm endure know that it is the type of open, green and healthy space that cities like Los Angeles need much, much more of. The Farm is a significant natural asset in an area of LA that is seriously deprived of open space, park lands, or green belts.
Another benefit of the Farm is the reduction of crime and gang activity in the area. Mayor Villaraigosa realized this when students at Harvard recently asked him why the City of LA would want to allow the eviction of grandmothers and mothers who tend the verdant plots with their children while keeping them out of gangs and off drugs. This Farm is one of the most effective anti-crime programs in LA and should be protected and expanded as a model of grassroots “New Urbanism.”
Rather than using its resources to help preserve a precious asset, the Weekly has made a careless and wrong-headed editorial decision to be the naysayer and help sink the ship. Nowhere is the Weekly’s bias more apparent than in its decision to refer to the farmers as “squatters.” They are, in fact, not squatters. They are legally occupying the land. With all its negative connotations, the word “squatters” implies that the Farmers are at fault in what they are doing. In fact, they have done nothing wrong or illegal and are merely asserting their rights under the law.
Moreover, as an authority on what’s up with the Farm, Mr. Hernandez cites Mark Williams, a board member of Concerned Citizens of South Central Los Angeles. Asking Mr. Williams for his opinion on the South Central Farm is like asking Donald Rumsfeld for his opinion on the war in Iraq: Williams’ entrenched position against the Farm makes anything he says highly suspect. Concerned Citizens of South Central Los Angeles has opposed efforts to save the Farm right from the start. Mr. William’s opposition most likely stems from misplaced resentment over the demographic “churning” that has transformed South Central LA from a predominantly African American to a majority Latino area. The same can be said of Jan Perry, the area’s representative on the City Council.
Despite what the Weekly’s article says, the Farmers have agreed that 2.6 acres of the 14-acre site should go to the City’s Parks and Recreation Department for non-agricultural use such as soccer fields. Soccer fields are not the issue. Concerned Citizens is really concerned about something more: it wants to see the entire Farm come tumbling down. Mr. Williams’ animus may well flow from Concerned Citizens’ failed attempt to purchase the land.
The references in Mr. Hernandez’s hatchet job to “allegations of abuse, intimidation, sexual harassment, and purging of farmers” are also mistaken. The allegations, if true, apply only to the few farmers that were ejected from the Farm and not to the democratically-elected leadership. In fact, some of the farmers interviewed by Hernandez were ejected from the farm for abusive behavior including corruption, sexual harassment, and threats of violence against the leaders. Why did Hernandez fail to report on the assault of Ms. Rufina Juarez by machete-wielding thugs consisting of ejected parties? Are these the objective sources that Mr. Hernandez wants to rely on for a critique of sexual harassment?
Prudence, they say, is the better part of valor. It should also be the better part of journalism, especially for a publication that considers itself politically progressive. I sincerely hope that next time the Weekly will do a better job of reviewing an article before it publishes an inaccurate and reactionary hit piece on a worthy cause. Please try to engage in more accurate investigative reporting instead of allowing inflammatory hatchet jobs to be perpetrated by a dishonest and inept reporter.
Sincerely,
Devon G. Peña, Ph.D.
Professor of Anthropology
Box 353100
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195-3100
dpena@u.washington.edu