Why is it so bad to have some open land in the county of Los Angeles? I'm born and raised in SoCal (Torrance, CA), and it's been developed upon every inch of the city. It's so dense, your next door neighbor is practically in your living room. It's ridiculous. Here's a perfect opportunity to have a little open land in the most urban setting to educate and serve the community with locally grown produce. But typical of developers and Big Brother (government), they see it as lost revenue. Ridiculous...

THANKS TO TREEHUGGER FOR POSTING THIS!!!

FYI to anyone who cares about this issue: public support is what has kept the farmers from being evicted thus far - the farmers and the public holding the Mayor (Antonio Villaraigosa) to his commitment to help keep the farm. You too can help with public support... call the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor, or perhaps Mr. Horowitz himself (I did it!) to give your support for the LARGEST URBAN FARM IN THE US. Some phone numbers, if you need them:

310-440-7878: Ralph Horowitz's office line.

213-613-4655: Horowitz’s law office. He doesn't work there but they do various legal projects for him – including the recent lawsuit against the families.

213-978-0600: to reach Mayor Villaraigosa or Deputy Mayor Larry Frank. Staff very nice to talk to usually.

213-978-0651: Larry Frank's FAX #.

213-978-0741: Mayor’s press office.

909-605-3136: Fernando - SCC Farm contact. They also have a website: http://www.southcentralfarmers.com

Have a good time calling - it is easy and painless.

This is exactly why developers will not lend the use of their undeveloped land for community farming… a decade of legal struggles. Newsflash: It’s not your land! An owner has the right to capitalize on his investment. The community farmers should be happy for the use of the land so far and be done with it. If they were smart they would have started plans to buy the land long ago, like the Fordhall Community Land Initiative. Because they have squatted on it for a decade does not make them the owners.

And another thing… You want to be Green? You want to make the world a better place? You want to be a real Treehugger? Then you better get your head in the game and start thinking like a capitalist. It’s exactly this kind of sentimental squabbling that slows our progress.

Damien may not be a adept at diplomacy but is ultimately correct. This is what turns off owners to the use of land by others.

In the long run it is better to form a co-op and purchase land or petetion for the government purchase of land for the specific purpose of community gardening.

Reguardless of what the law has to say about this it is just bad PR for community gardens in general.

I'm with Damien. They have absolutely NO right to take his land from him just because he allowed them to use it. Thats screwed up on so many levels. I'm completely willing to say that the farmers are morally bankrupt if they feel that they have a right to this mans land when he allowed them to use it and then wanted to use it for something else. I am completely against eminent domain over anything other then vital resource delivery, meaning there is no other option of delivering the resource. In the case of food there are many other resources.

Ok… I’ve done some independent research and here’s what I’ve come up with.

In 1980 the land was bought buy Horowitz (LA Real estate developer). He held it for several years before the city, using imminent domain, forced him to sell it to them at fair market value. After a failed city energy project there, it was declared public land. That’s when the farmers moved in. That’s the way it stayed until 2003 when Horowitz bought the land back from the city (with a requirement that several acres be developed into a recreation area) and he is now the full owner. The final price tag for all this mess… 15 million dollars. There are several non-profits that are helping to raise the money to buy the land and they have gathered about 11 million.

Given all this swapping of ownership I can see how the farmers would feel a kind of ownership to their piece of the farm, but the fact remains, they are not the owners yet and have no rights to claim so.

Oops, that was my research post. FYI - I am a LA resident.

Damien

One more for Damien. As much as I personally don't like Big Developers, Ralph Horowitz is the legal owner and the bottom line is he has the right to do what he wants with HIS PROPERTY as long as he follows City codes. I'm also against eminent domain, and "Big Brother" really needs to get a clue and stay out of this one.

"They have absolutely NO right to take his land from him just because he allowed them to use it. "
tell that to the indigenous people of the american continents. not so long ago it was all theirs, and now more than 95 % is legally NOT theirs. i think this is important because most of the farmers are from central and south america and are often descendants from the indigenous people, whose land we have taken.

According to "Community Farming in LA" from CounterPunch, "In 2003, after repeated lawsuits had failed to force the city to resell it to him, [Ralph Horowitz] cut an out-of-court deal with city attorney Rockard 'Rocky' Delgadillo. The city sold Horowitz back the parcel of land for $5 million."

Now the city suggests the famers, all of who whom live under the poverty line according USDA's guidelines, buy the land for $16 million. How exactly do 350 families under the poverty line "think like capitalists" and buy a $16 million plot of land that the city sold from under their feet for a third of that price? While I don't agree with eminent domain, Ralph Horowitz was compensated $4.7 million for the then unused land in the '80s and thereafter had no legal right to the land.

"...tell that to the indigenous people of the american continents..."

This is subject is a little off topic but since its been breached…Hmmm…OK.

"Hey, They should have fought harder…After the show I’m going to the parking lot, jumping into my Jeep Cherokee and driving home." – Drew Carey

Right or wrong, land is one of the spoils of war; and has nothing to do with the article.

Open space in a city it probably a function of available land and population density. Granted zoning, allowing multistory houseing affects openspace also, population density is usually the deciding factor.

Also in responce to Marwin, I didn't know that the Aztec, Mayan or Inca's had any land up here that "WE" took from them. Maybe the Shoshoni?

“How exactly do 350 families under the poverty line "think like capitalists" and buy a $16 million plot of land that the city sold from under their feet for a third of that price?”

1. A third of the price, is not an unthinkable number. All markets were down in 2003, we were just going to war and consumer confidence was at a severe low. Most markets have at least doubled since then.

2. How do they think like capitalists? We need to throw out the idea that we/they are ethical people, playing in an unethical game. This is just the nature of business. We need to adapt to the idea of thinking uglier than Mr. Horowitz. People are not helpless, they can do something, and not by protesting that something isn’t right (which under the current system it is). You beat people like Horowitz by thinking smarter than he does. If we/they can’t do that, then the inequities will continue and the poor will suffer.

"Most markets have at least doubled since then."

Most real estate markets have doubled in 3 years? No. A handful may have, but not many.

"We need to adapt to the idea of thinking uglier than Mr. Horowitz."

I'll take issue with that. If you start believing that, then it's an ugly future.

Creativity is a lot more effective than brutality.

Based on several homes surrounding the LA Farm. Average prices in 2003: 130K. Average price in 2006: 430K. In other words, the average price for real estate in that area has gone up 3.3 times since 2003. Taken from zillow.com.

“If you start believing that, then it's an ugly future.”

I merely meant that good people must adapt the to the current business strategies, or we will always loose. We are fighting this battle with one hand tied behind our back if we don’t. We must work all the angles, because you can be sure that they will.

“Creativity is a lot more effective than brutality.”

What does that even mean?

"Most real estate markets have doubled in 3 years? No. A handful may have, but not many."

From 2003-2005 according to a Forbes.com ZIP code analysis, within the Watts ZIP of 90059, home prices rose 91.9%; more than any other ZIP in Los Angeles.

Not Many?

"From 2003-2005 according to a Forbes.com ZIP code analysis, within the Watts ZIP of 90059, home prices rose 91.9%; more than any other ZIP in Los Angeles.

Not Many?"

You proved my point. In LA, which is a relatively high growth market, the highest rate within that market is less than double.

Thanks for the help, albeit unintentional.

"I merely meant that good people must adapt the to the current business strategies, or we will always loose. We are fighting this battle with one hand tied behind our back if we don’t. We must work all the angles, because you can be sure that they will."

Yet you said we "need to think uglier" than Mr. Horowitz. In my experience, that's a race to the bottom, and the one who usually wins that one is the one who is best at being nasty. I often see the same mistake when lefty political types use military terminology -- trying to out-martial the professionally martial. Such things are doomed to failure.

I agree that people need to get beyond the beggar approaches, but it doesn't mean taking on the traits of people who don't behave ethically. As I said, it's more about being creative than being brutal (or nasty, mean, etc).

This story illustrates one way of looking at these things differently:
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/1883/dobson.html

Those of you who say you are against eminent domain, but also feel that "land is one of the spoils of war" are confused at best. Eminent domain simply means might makes right. Taking land by force IS eminent domain. If you approve of the imperialism that brought this area of Mexico (California) into the American family, then you also approve of that same government taking this South Central land from the current so-called "lawful owner." American has always stolen what it needs or craves. Always.

Most Americans don't object to their government using eminent domain to secure the resources of other peoples, but if that same government should try to use eminent domain on THEIR property, then all of the sudden they become proponents of liberty and individual rights. Americans only object to eminent domain when it benefits the poor.

If Exxon steals from Nigerians, it's good business and "a boon to shareholders." If those Nigerians insist on exercising "eminent domain" over their own land, they're terrorists and we send in the troops.

America is rolling up Iraq and is on the verge of taking Iran next and some of you are getting on your highhorse about 14 acres of farmland in LA?

Please.

Might makes right.

Right?

Thanks to all those who did some extra research on this while I was locked up in office work. It HAS been established (i.e. I've talked with the Mayor's office about this) that Ralph Horowitz cut a secret deal with the city for far less than it's market value. He was initially compensated $4.7 mil as one of the owners of the land the city took to put in a waste incinerator. (I doubt this was the full value because compensation for land taken via eminent domain NEVER is, in my experience). But his purchase - for about $5 mil. - did not reflect the value either.

The one thing I really want to emphasize here is NOT whether or not he has"rights" to the land - he does. There are some ethical questions about how he got them.

But what it really comes down to for me is that this is the largest urban farm in the United States. It is allowing hundreds and more hundreds of people access to local, organic food, which would otherwise be unavailable to them (both price and location). It should serve as a model for community improvement in urban centers everywhere.

How many of you have been to South Central LA? This is not a challenge, but a question. Consider your own access (or inaccess) to organic food, to green spaces, or even to control over your own life. Think about what the existence (or nonexistence) of 14 acres of relative paradise (food, biodiversity) - relative to South Central L.A. - means to this community. Think about what other such gardens would mean to other cities.

I'm not saying that Ralph Horowitz should not be compensated for money he lost due to the City's political and legal blunderings through waste incinerator plans, etc.. I think that anyone who has their land taken via eminent domain deserves compensation.

But his compensation is not at stake right now - its amount is uncertain, but he will get millions. What's at stake is a centre of community and major foodsource of 350 families. They're the ones due to be evicted, unless there is public intervention.

Just wanted to put a picture to the words. Check out this satellite image of the area.

http://maps.google.com/maps?t=h&q=E+41st+St+%26+S+Alameda+St,90058

Zoom in on it... it seems quite an oasis of green beauty in that area.

Guess what Damien... your research stops just short of support for any argument but your own. Mr. Horowitz has BEEN compensated... in any eminent domain proceeding, the gov't must pay fair value as if it were any private transaction. So let's not pretend he EVER lost any money on the deal in the first place.

If you live in LA, try going to the area and even remotely *pretending* that particular area has risen by over 150%, the profit *over and above* what he has already made, and the further money he is demanding. Where were you when the warehouse across the street was on fire three nights ago, either by arson, criminal neglect, or both? You really think another warehouse is going to make him some money? Nobody in their right mind on the open market is going to pay what he's asking. He's doing this for pure spite.

And your research also failed to mention that the people are there LEGALLY. That land was granted to them for their use, for just this purpose, WHILE it belonged to the City of Los Angeles after they lost their homes and businesses during the 1992 riots. It has not had a "decade of legal struggles..." it has had a decade of Mr. Horowitz' greed and revenge-motivated harrassment.

AND, the fourth amendment doesn't guarantee rights to use the property any old way the owner chooses. It guarantees a REASONABLE use of the property. Another abandoned warehouse-cum-crackhouse to contribute to an already crime penetrated and poverty stricken area is HARDLY reasonable.

You're probably one of the ones who cries hardest about all the welfare monies too... and about how the poor have to take care of their own families, their own communities, blah blah blah... while these people are doing some good for the air, the culture, the neighborhood and themselves. Are you even aware of their Farmer's Market? Their cultural events? Their charity events... NOT for themselves?
But Mr. Horiwitz "needs" $4m MORE than the $11m he's already ransoming this property for?

Have a nice Memorial Day Weekend. All those men and women who fought, and are still fighting, for your freedom appreciate your "research." I wonder if they've even crossed your mind.

and btw, I live in LA too. I took the time to go. The FACT is that Mayor Villaraigosa made promises he did not keep, and allowed the Council to make a back room deal with Horowitz, but is ok with pursuing $800m in the budget to attract a football team. Or maybe that's ok with you too. It won't be when some developer wants to put something you don't like in your neighborhood... I've been City Clerk of two different Cities... what we call those who think like that are "NIMBYs" Not In My Back Yard... go play foul somewhere else and I won't mind.

And finally, PLEASE don't pretend you live in South Central, or have a clue about what they face every day, while they HAVE created a LEGAL oasis of sanity.

dear Lauren,
I don't know what your personal experience is re eminent domain, but I've been a land use paralegal for 24 years and City Clerk of two different cities. The law clearly states that in any eminent domain proceedings, the gov't must pay full and fair market value for the property... and in my experience, which is somewhat vast, the landowners were paid more than fair market value and walked away very happy, simply to avoid situations just as the one imposed by Mr. Horowitz' continued harrassment suits, which are to no one's benefits and cost not only the agency's and the original landowner's money, but taxpayers' money in tying up the courts as well.

Mr. Spudnuts, if you want to sit on your low horse and declare that something is being done wrong in Iraq and Iran, and therefore it is just fine that more wrongs should occur, that is up to you. However, your argument makes neither logical nor moral sense. If your neighbor murders his wife, it's ok for you to rape a senior citizen after you've knocked over a liquor store? Please.

Others happen to feel that this is a tangible, soluble, WORTHY goal that will not only sustain the 360 families involved, it will also keep YOUR air cleaner. Maybe we can't stop the ATROCITIES that are being committed around the world... but here is something positive we can do. Some of us DO positive acts rather than decrying negative ones out of scorn.

Finally, there is NO WAY the land is worth what Mr. Horowitz is claiming... *except* perhaps to an agency such as WalMart whose business dealings are already known to be shady, ruthless and greedy five times any extent of Enron's executives. Their slave labor tactics are a world-wide economic threat... witness Sam's and his childrens' involvement and long-standing good friendship with GWB Sr., who now wants to do a literally time-immemorial, universally unprecedented environmental atrocity via breaking apart the Chilean glaciers to simply pursue more gold, permanently, poisonously polluting two pure rivers and displacing countless families... not to mention any other effects that literally cannot be foreseen by such an unprecedented act.

If any of you think Kathy Lee did something wrong, multiply her activities to the nth degree and you *may* come near the danger and grotesque daily practices of WalMart. And Mr. Horowitz' *desires* for MORE millions than he already stands to gain over these people's *needs* and exemplary activities AND the community good in terms of air quality is justified?
I think not. Poor man, he'd get a write-off bigger than even before, at worst.
Ugh.

Mary,
I would love to contact you to talk more about the farm and about any and all possible action at this point in time. I was calling politicians and others nonstop until a couple days ago and am now feeling broken and trying to figure out what to do at this point.

I can also talk to you about my (limited) experience with people who had property seized by eminent domain - I have very little time for computer access right now.

Email me at larana@planet-save.com if you would like to discuss this issue further.

Thanks for all your passionate comments on this issue. I appreciated a little more concern about this issue than some people were giving it - on this supposedly tree-hugging list.

Take care,
~lauren