Joel C on June 13, 2006, at 02:15PM – #1

I'm proud to call myself a Liberal American on most issues, and like you I would like to see more green space in the city. But I have two big problems with the South-Central farm that prevent me from supporting it.

First, these protests are in favor of "the people" using somebody's private property for communal use, despite the fact that that somebody objects. So essentially this is eminent domain by the people. This flies in the face of a fundamental feature of capitalism, which allows somebody to buy private property and determine its use. Capitalism is currently our economic system. If the protesters want people to object to the fundamental idea of private property, then I think they're asking for a far bigger commitment people than they're letting on.

Second, I think the City Councillors are reluctant to support purchase of this land because really, who does this benefit? Does it benefit the greater public? I would say no, it benefits a small cadre of people who have moved to the big city, yet don't want to let go of their rural roots. A public park might be something the City Council (and the public) could get behind.

I can only guess that this project is being led by the same people that take over every anti-war protest to push their communist cause. I think their ideas and tactics are too extreme for mainstream acceptance. I would guess most people watching the current "showdown" would judge the protester's actions as petulant bullying toward the rightful owner of that land.

Johnk on June 14, 2006, at 04:16AM – #2

You're both wrong.

The farmers got support from several nonprofits, a lot of individuals, and some rich folks. They raised all the money to buy the farm. All this is PRIVATE money, not public money. They are only asking for the owner to sell the property at his asking price of $16 million.

Please think about that for a minute. Your assumptions about the situation are incorrect, and probably due to not really keeping up on what's happening with the land there. You're both making a lot of totally incorrect assumptions, and characterizing the situation based on a lot of prejudices.

Again, the facts are this: - the asking price has been raised from private sources. - the owner has used the cops to evict the tenants. - the city did not use eminent domain. - the developer is rescinding his offer to sell the land.

This isn't a "property rights" issue, except inasmuch as property rights allow the owner to go back on his offer to sell.

Horowitz is being a jerk. He offered to sell for 16 million, and so the people went and raised the money. A few angels stepped in with the cash. Now, Horowitz is saying that the rowdy demonstrators are so ungrateful, so, he refuses to sell.

He called the cops on them so they'd look like "radicals" (which they are) and he could back off from the deal without looking like a big liar.

eecue on June 14, 2006, at 12:08PM – #3

Acutally the Annenberg Foundation and the Trust for Public Land stepped up with $10 million and $6 million respectively but Horowitz then raised the price.

Jimmy on June 14, 2006, at 12:44PM – #4

$16 million for that?! For a plot of land that's being used like a larger version of the small vegetable patch in people's backyards?

When there are philantrophists out there who are willing to pony up that much cash for something as obscure as a makeshift farm, there had better be no less generosity in L.A. for other worthwhile, and truly public-oriented endeavors. And I'm guessing that unlike a public park, not anyone and everyone can walk straight off the street and use the "South Central Farm," no questions (or reservations) asked or required.

Joel C on June 14, 2006, at 12:54PM – #5

Johnk wrote: "Again, the facts are this: - the asking price has been raised from private sources. - the owner has used the cops to evict the tenants. - the city did not use eminent domain. - the developer is rescinding his offer to sell the land."

The purchase funds were indeed raised, but at the last minute. The "cops" implemented the law with respect to trespassing. The city did use eminent domain, but when after 17 years they did not use the land as they had planned (for an incinerator), they were legally forced to sell it back to the majority owner. And yes, the developer is rescinding his offer to sell the land.

Johnk wrote: "This isn't a "property rights" issue, except inasmuch as property rights allow the owner to go back on his offer to sell."

The right to not sell is a fundamental property right. The property owner, Mr. Horowitz, exercised that right. From what I read, he decided not to sell his property because he didn't like the activists and he didn't like their tactics. And from what I've heard from all parties, it seems Mr. Horowitz is completely justified.

Think about it. Imagine if you bought a piece of land (say a house property) and a number of activists decided to set up a farm in your backyard. You'd be pretty pissed, wouldn't you? Now imagine these same people, who have set up a public confrontation with you, demand that you sell them your land, and then they proceeed to physically attach themselves to your property. How likely are you going to want to negotiate with these people?

Is my analogy lacking, Johnk? If so, please explain to us what right, legal or otherwise, the activists have had to occupy Mr. Horowitz' land?

If their true objective was to increase green space in South L.A., these activists could have shown up to every City Council meeting requesting funding for new parks. I have been to several Council meetings in the past year and haven't heard one word from these people on this issue.

Instead, the farmers and activists chose the path of confrontation. They have focused for the past several years on maintaining their illegal occupation of another person's land.

Maybe the activists should stop boo-hooing and now figure out how to leverage the $16 million they say they have raised. I'm sure their are other property owners that would be willing to sell in the area.

Or maybe they can just take over another site that isn't theirs.

Joel C on June 14, 2006, at 01:00PM – #6

Also, the owner imposed a May 22 deadline on the transaction, according to the LA Times. So the deal had been dead for nearly three weeks, and in fact Mr. Horowitz did not go back on his word.

Omar on June 14, 2006, at 01:58PM – #7

Not a lot of people know but this two people Juarez and Tezozomoc are to blame for this (they have been there for around 3 years or so). They came and took over the South Central Farm and became the "spokepersons". They got very cocky and arrogant and they started brainwashing the famers and others, making them think the bad guy is "Mr.Horowitz". A lot of money was not accountated for and went missing, Ruffina Juarez and Tezozomoc were in charged. Also, Juarez and Tezozomoc intimated people if they didnt agree with their views, they were kicked out, they were harass, beat up at times. The garden could have been saved, but bad organization and leardership led by Ruffina Juarez and Tezozomoc the garden was lost...I am sad that the garden was lost.. I was one of the first families that was part of the farm back in the early 90's, until Ruffina Juarez and Tezozomoc took over my family and I left.

Heres a great article... http://www.laweekly.com/general/features/bushel-of-complaints/12871/

Fred Camino on June 14, 2006, at 02:11PM – #8

Thanks for the link Omar. Definately an interesting part of the story I hadn't really heard before. It seems in the end it (as these things usually do) became soley a political issue.

Omar on June 14, 2006, at 02:38PM – #9

Thats the only article i could find that tells the otherside of the story, not even the spanish media cover the dark side of the S. Central Farm.

Dana Gabbard on June 14, 2006, at 04:29PM – #10

This follows a familiar template of the left in L.A.--alleged "mass" movements that include protests, celebrities, a mult-ethnic working class group of folks fighting for their rights are actually manipulated by shadowy figures stage-managing and holding control, with the media happy to go along with the photo-op show being put on for the cameras.

ed on June 14, 2006, at 06:24PM – #11

Before anyone celebrates this as a complete victory by Horowitz, or a symbolic preservation of capitalism, or start the jokes that the deputies harvested nuts out of the trees , there's an interesting irony. Horowitz would not have the land if it were not for the protests from the neighborhood that thwarted the original plans for those lots to hold a trash incinerator. It's that same advocacy that has saved many things in Los Angeles; the Historic Core that has lofts requiring a token of affordable housing, theaters that lay dormant but are cherished, Olvera Street itself; all creating greater value to a city for people who live in it.

That's what I'll support; be it from people wanting to keep land as a functional farm and it being called "radical activistism", or people wanting to save a Hotel on Wilshire and it being called "concerned advocacy."

In the meantime, maybe Horowitz will open a Food-For-Less.

Dana Gabbard on June 15, 2006, at 02:07PM – #12

While Ed is right, don't confuse the neighborhood residents who stopped the incinerator w/the farmers. One of the reasons the deal stalled is many (if not most) of the farmers were not from the neighborhood (some didn't even live in Los Angeles). The neighbors receive little if any benefit from the farm so they didn't get involved or pressure local officials. Also the hopes of residents that some of the land would be turned into a park for their use was not championed by Juarez and Tezozomoc, neglecting what could have been a key alliance. Of course evidently a lot of different factors played out in the deal not happening.