South Central Farm raided

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

South Central Farm raided

Postby professorpan » Tue Jun 13, 2006 4:07 pm

This makes me want to cry.<br><br>Motherfuckers. Stealing food from poor people's mouths, cutting down trees, uprooting goddam crops.<br><br>I know some people who have been part of the vigil/occupation. I hope they're okay.<br><br>--<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.southcentralfarmers.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=160&Itemid=2">www.southcentralfarmers.c...0&Itemid=2</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>The South Central Farm is currently under attack. An early morning raid began this 5-hour long eviction that is still in process. Trees are being cut down, bulldozers are leveling the families’ food, hundreds of protesters are on site rallying with tears in their eyes as the nation’s largest urban farm is destroyed before them. The L.A.P.D. is on tactical alert as fire ladders and cherry pickers are being brought in to remove the tree-sitters. The 350 families created this oasis 14 years ago in the wake of the 1992 uprising when this land was offered to the community by the then Mayor as a form of mitigation. <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
professorpan
 
Posts: 3592
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

The "official" reason for this ?

Postby slimmouse » Tue Jun 13, 2006 4:43 pm

<br><br> Sickening.<br><br> Do we have the "official" reason for this ? <p></p><i></i>
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: The "official" reason for this ?

Postby professorpan » Tue Jun 13, 2006 5:15 pm

Yep.<br><br>Mammon.<br><br>$$$. <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
professorpan
 
Posts: 3592
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Big deal

Postby nomo » Tue Jun 13, 2006 5:15 pm

They can just go get their food at the new Super-Wal-Mart that's going up there.<br><br><!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :x --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/sick.gif ALT=":x"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
nomo
 
Posts: 3388
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 1:48 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Money may be the excuse.

Postby slimmouse » Tue Jun 13, 2006 5:31 pm

<br><br> But what is the Reason ? <p></p><i></i>
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: Money may be the excuse.

Postby professorpan » Tue Jun 13, 2006 5:48 pm

Money is the excuse and the reason. <br><br>Same as it ever was... same as it ever was...<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.southcentralfarmers.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=9">www.southcentralfarmers.c...2&Itemid=9</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>What we are about?<br><br>Synopsis of the history of the 14-acre urban garden located at 41st and Alameda Streets<br><br>Since 1992, the 14 acres of property located at 41st and Alameda Streets in Los Angeles have been used as a community garden or farm. The land has been divided into 360 plots and is believed to be one of the largest urban gardens in the country. <br><br>The City of Los Angeles acquired the 14-acre property by eminent domain in the late 1980s, taking it from nine private landowners. The largest of these owners, Alameda-Barbara Investment Company, owned approximately 80 percent of the site had been compensated $4.7 million dollars. The partners of Alameda were Ralph Horowitz and Jacob Libaw. The City originally intended to use the property for a trash incinerator, but abandoned that plan in the face of public protest organized by the late Juanita Tate and the Concerned Citizens of South Central Los Angeles.<br><br>South Central Los Angeles took a large step towards earning some political respect within the city. At this point the community began to establish that health should comes first among other issues in this impoverished community<br><br>As part of the eminent domain proceedings, the City granted Alameda- Barbara Investment Company a right of first refusal if, within 10 years, the City determined that the parcel formerly owned by Alameda was no longer required for public use.<br><br>Following the uprising in 1992, the City set aside the 14-acre site for use as a community garden. In 1994, the City transferred title to the property by ordinance to its Harbor Department for $13 million. When it received title to the property, the Harbor Department contracted with the Los Angeles Regional Foodbank to operate the property as a community garden.<br><br>In 1995, the City began negotiating with Libaw-Horowitz Investment Company (LHIC), the successor company to Alameda, to sell them the entire 14-acre property. The City negotiators sent LHIC a purchase agreement, and LHIC executed the agreement and returned it to the City in October 1996. The terms of the agreement expressly made it contingent on City Council approval. The City Council never approved the agreement, and the sale was not completed. The proposed agreement fixed the sale amount at $5,227,200.<br><br>In 2002, LHIC filed suit against the City for not executing the purchase agreement. The City successfully demurred three times to LHIC’s complaint, but then agreed to sell the 14-acre property to Ralph Horowitz and his business partners for $5,050,000.<br><br>On August 13, 2003, the City Council discussed and approved the terms of the settlement in closed session, and then passed a motion to approve the settlement.<br><br>On September 23, 2003, the City sent the Foodbank a letter notifying it of the sale. The Foodbank, in turn, distributed the letter to the approximately 350 families that were using plots at the garden to grow their own food. The families using the plots are low income and depend heavily upon the food they grow to feed themselves. In addition to growing food for themselves, the people involved with the community garden hold Farmers' Markets, festivals and other cultural events for the public at large.<br><br>After receiving the notice from the City informing them that the garden property was being sold to a private developer, the farmers formed an organization-South Central Farmers Feeding Families- and began organizing to retain their right to use the property. South Central Farmers Feeding Families appealed to the City Council to prevent the sale from going through.<br><br>On December 11, 2003, however, the City transferred title to the property to Ralph Horowitz and the Horowitz Family Trust, The Libaw Family LP, Timothy M. Ison and Shaghan Securities, LLC.<br><br>On January 8, 2004, Ralph Horowitz issued a notice setting February 29, 2004, as the termination date for the community garden. In the meantime before February 29, members of the South Central Farmers Feeding Families obtained legal counsel (Hadsell & Stormer, Inc., and Kaye, Mclane & Bednarski LLP) and filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the sale of the property. The Los Angeles County Superior Court issued a temporary restraining order and later a preliminary injunction halting development of the property during the pendency of the lawsuit. Both the City and the Horowitz defendants appealed the Superior Court’s order granting the preliminary injunction.<br><br>On June 30, 2005, the Court of Appeal reversed the Superior Court’s order granting the preliminary injunction. The South Central Farmers Feeding Families had 40 days from June 30 to petition the California Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeal’s ruling.<br><br>The Court of Appeal ignored the law and sound public policy in overturning the injunction that was in place on the property. The Los Angeles City Charter allows the City to sell real property it determines that it no longer needs. Before selling property it no longer needs, the City must comply with various procedures designed to ensure that the City does not squander resources by selling property it does need. The intent of the Charter is that the City sell only property it no longer needs. The City’s sale of the garden property to the Horowitz interests did not comply with the procedures required for sale of property no longer needed by the City. The Court of Appeal held, nevertheless, that the City did not have to comply with these provisions because it had not determined that it no longer needed the garden property.<br><br>In other words, the Court of Appeal ruled that the City can avoid its own charter’s procedure for selling property simply by stopping short of determining whether the property it intends to sell is no longer needed by the City. By keeping the property it intends to sell designated as property it does need, the City can go ahead and sell it without having to comply with the charter provision for the sale of real property. The new procedure being approved by the Court of Appeal defeats the very purpose of the charter provision applying to the sale of real property. It encourages the type of abuse the charter provision applying to the sale of real property was meant to curtail. The city set up their own loop pole.<br><br>An appeal to the ruling of the Los Angeles Supeior Court terminating the temporary injunction was filed by the South Central Families: Feeding Families in the California State Supreme Court. On October 20, 2005 the court decided not to hear the case of the South Central Farmers. A hearing was scheduled then in the Superior Court to clarify the terms of the prior ruling to give the developer Ralph Horowitz his illegal detainer and writ of possession to the property at 41st and Alameda. The hearing was postponed several times from November and stretched into January. <br><br>After a few weeks of uncertainty, the South Central Farmers were served with an eviction notice on March 1, 2006. An error on the posting brought the Sheriff’s department out the next day to repost. The notice gave the farmers 5 days to vacate the premises. <br><br>Within those five days, the farmers used their legal right to appeal the eviction notice by asking to have a hearing in front of a judge. Since March 7, 2006, the farmers have been in a daily state of peril anxiously waiting to see if they’ll meet their terminal fate with the South Central Farm. <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
professorpan
 
Posts: 3592
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Money may be the excuse.

Postby Sepka » Tue Jun 13, 2006 5:58 pm

If fairness were the criteria for such dealings, the land would have been returned to the original owners when the city decided that they didn't intend to build the incinerator after all.<br><br>-Sepka the Space Weasel <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Sepka
 
Posts: 1983
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 2:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Nah...

Postby slimmouse » Tue Jun 13, 2006 6:00 pm

<br><br> <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Control</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> is the reason.<br><br> Money is the mechanism. <p></p><i></i>
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

With the greatest respect Sepka ....

Postby slimmouse » Tue Jun 13, 2006 6:15 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>if fairness were the criteria for such dealings, the land would have been returned to the original owners when the city decided that they didn't intend to build the incinerator after all.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br> What gives anyone the right to own the land which we all inhabit ?<br><br> Tell me how that works exactly ? <p></p><i></i>
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: Money may be the excuse.

Postby Sepka » Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:01 am

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>If fairness were the criteria for such dealings, the land would have been returned to the original owners when the city decided that they didn't intend to build the incinerator after all.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>And actually that's exactly what seems to have happened:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-farm14jun14,1,7618598.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california">www.latimes.com/news/prin...california</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Apparently it's more of a personal issue than a monetary one that prompted the evictions:<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>For his part, Horowitz said he had no intention of rewarding a group that included people he said had made anti-Semitic remarks about him even as they squatted rent-free on land that was costing him more than $25,000 a month to maintain — in addition to massive legal bills fighting their efforts to remain.<br><br>"If the farmers got a donation and said, 'We got $50 million, would you sell it to us?' I would say no. Not a … chance," Horowitz said. "It's not about the money." [...] Printouts of a Spanish-language Internet site that accused Horowitz of being part of a "Jewish Mafia" controlling Los Angeles were circulated at City Hall.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>In the end, I think that had the farmers shown a little bit of gratitude to Horowitz for having had the use of the land rent-free for fourteen years, rather than demanding that he give it to them outright, and offering him abuse when he didn't, the outcome might have been more amicable.<br><br>-Sepka the Space Weasel<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Sepka
 
Posts: 1983
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 2:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: With the greatest respect Sepka ....

Postby Sepka » Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:04 am

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>What gives anyone the right to own the land which we all inhabit ?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>A deed of title, obtained through due legal process. <br><br>-Sepka the Space Weasel <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Sepka
 
Posts: 1983
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 2:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: With the greatest respect Sepka ....

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:31 pm

"For his part, Horowitz said he had no intention of rewarding a group that included people he said had made anti-Semitic remarks about him even as they squatted rent-free on land that was costing him more than $25,000 a month to maintain — in addition to massive legal bills fighting their efforts to remain."<br><br>Bullshit he had no intention anyway, thats why he was paying the massive legal bills to get rid of them.<br><br>I spose he gets off on punishing the people that didn't make those remarks too. Squatting is using land that is not being used so what was he paying 25000 gran a month for anyway.<br><br>Maintaining land that other people were growing food on, how does that work?<br><br>""What gives anyone the right to own the land which we all inhabit ?<br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br><br><br>A deed of title, obtained through due legal process. <br><br>-Sepka the Space Weasel ""<br><br>Thats bullshit too.<br><br>Title deeds entitle the owners the legal right to maintain exclusive control on access to the land titled, and give them the right to carry out certain activities (within prescribed limitations) on that land. All land is owned by the state.<br><br>If you hold the freehold title and someone else the mining title they own whats under the surface, well they don't actually, they hold exclusive possession of the legal power to exploit those resources for their commercial gain. How was that land aquired by the state in the first place??<br><br>Anyway that due legal process is a western construct based in most cases on theft. And when its not outright theft, its fraud.<br><br>Human rights are inalienable, not provided by the state.<br><br>"In the end, I think that had the farmers shown a little bit of gratitude to Horowitz for having had the use of the land rent-free for fourteen years, rather than demanding that he give it to them outright, and offering him abuse when he didn't, the outcome might have been more amicable."<br><br>Quite probably, but then again maybe not.<br><br>Oh yeah squatters rights existed once, and 14 years rent free, while making unused land productive could well entitle you to squatters rights. I am pretty sure it does in Australia. Which has a similar legal system. <p></p><i></i>
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10616
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Anti-semitic remarks

Postby AlicetheCurious » Thu Jun 15, 2006 9:50 am

I just saw Darryl Hannah interviewed on Larry King Live; King asked her about the alleged anti-semitic remarks. She responded that she can personally guarantee that none of the protesters nor the farmers made those remarks, but that they were on a website that linked theirs. <br><br>If that's true, then those people can't control, nor should they be held responsible for, content that is on someone else's website. Right? <br><br>Besides, this isn't about him being victimized, it's about people with money, rather than those who are part of the community, who control the decision-making for the entire community.<br><br>I suspect this guy Horowitz is using "anti-semitism" to try to get sympathy, because right now he looks like every cartoonish evil developer in every hokey movie ever made about the little people being threatened with hunger and misery by this corrupt, rich, greedy, ruthless land-grabber.<br><br>All that's missing is the Three Amigos! galloping in, to save the day...<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
AlicetheCurious
 
Posts: 570
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 7:45 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

What is needed for Sepka.....

Postby slimmouse » Thu Jun 15, 2006 11:34 am

<br><br> In order to understand my point, Sepka needs to read the words of Chief Seattle.<br><br> To paraphrase, he asked exactly what right he had to sell the land which he inhabited to the usual suspects, or the glisten on the water, or the air that we breathe.<br><br> Not that I dont disagree that this leaves things somewhat messy in the context of modern day living.<br><br> But there has to be a better way IMHO. And thinking about that kinda thing has to start somewhere.<br><br> Of course the Romans tried it once over, until those senators who tried to introduce legislation restricting individual land ownership met the traditionally Gorey end.<br><br> I can remember in the earliest days of this forum a guy called WolfiPaul advocating a serious kind of tax on land ownership. Perhaps that is the way foreward.<br><br> I mean really, how much land for one person is enough exactly ? <p></p><i></i>
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: What is needed for Sepka.....

Postby Dreams End » Thu Jun 15, 2006 1:07 pm

I'll bet a lot of money it was the FBI provocateur site "voz de Aztlan".<br><br>Here's their current take:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr> The 14 acres had to be cleaned of trash and debris and water brought in by the farmers . The farm was divided into plots and has now been successfully cultivated for over 13 years by 347 families. Each family shares in the cost of operating the farm and has a vote in its management. In a back room deal with corrupt politicians, however, the powerful Los Angeles "Jewish Mafia" took control of the 14 acres and now they are about to evict the farmers. It is a shameful land grab that will impact a large number of families that depend on the farm for food and essential medicinal herbs.<br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.aztlan.net/save_south_central_farm.htm">www.aztlan.net/save_south...l_farm.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>An earlier article:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Los Angeles, Alta California- April 13, 2006 - (ACN) Not many people are aware that Los Angeles has a powerful "Jewish Mafia" that is in cahoots with the Los Angeles Police Department and many local elected politicians. This fact is becoming clear to the "campesinos" who are attempting to defend their 14 acre farm in South Central Los Angeles from Jewish land developer Ralph Horowitz.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.aztlan.net/jewish_mafia_terrorize_campesinos.htm">www.aztlan.net/jewish_maf...esinos.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>That's exactly why paying attention to the agenda of such sites is important. Ever since the FBI was driving wedges between the Black Panther Party and its Jewish supporters, such as Leonard Bernstein, through unscrupulous cointelpro tactics, this has been a part of their attempts to divide the left. Admittedly, we on the left don't always need help to be divided, but this is a classic operation. It goes well beyond the garden, which itself is a tragedy... but into the greater agenda of continuing to divide potential allies. I don't know anything about Horowitz...he could be a complete asshole. But the larger community, Jewish and non, will see this sort of thing as representative of people in South Central and back off in their support. <br><br>People here will blame it on the ADL...<br><br>It goes way beyond that. This even, I assume, has an intended audience in Mexico, which has a large Jewish population. <br><br>If people are not familiar with COINTELPRO and these tactics they will fall for this shit every time. <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Next

Return to Deep Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest