Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
About the South Central Farm in Los Angeles
Synopsis of the history of the 14-acre urban garden located at 41st and Alameda Streets
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.
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 (“Alameda”), owned approximately 80 percent of the site. 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 community.
As part of the eminent domain proceedings, the City granted Alameda 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.
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.
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 (“Alameda”), owned approximately 80 percent of the site. 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 community.
As part of the eminent domain proceedings, the City granted Alameda 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.
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. 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; the Foodbank has been operating it as such since then.
In 1995, the City began negotiating with Libaw-Horowitz Investment Company (“LHIC”), the successor company to Alameda, to sell it the entire 14-acre property. The City’s 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.
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. 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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
On June 30, 2005, the Court of Appeal reversed the Superior Court’s order granting the preliminary injunction. The South Central Farmers Feeding Families have 40 days from June 30 to petition the California Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeal’s ruling. If the Supreme Court declines to hear the case, the urban garden will be demolished in about three months.
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 needs. 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.
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 needs, 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.
Accomplishments by the South Central Farmers
1. When Michael flood and the food bank turned their backs on the poor people of South Central. It was the South Central Farmers that protested, marched, and attended city council meetings. In this process they were able to keep the garden open and challenge the city on the sale of the property. The food bank had an opportunity to place its expensive lawyers on the issue but they chose instead to fight against them and they continue to fight us.
2. The South Central Farmers began a process of eliminating the corruption and self-serving attitudes that the agents of the food bank had fostered for over 11 years. This included cronism, nepetism, and extornsion. In direct violation of the permit given by the city the agents of the food bank and the food bank allowed the sale of plots to poor families. The prices began from 250 all the way up to 1000 dollars per plot. This was hurrendous. The SCFs have been attempting to remove these elements from the community garden.
3. In Feb 15, 2004, the SCF had a general assembly where two leaders were chosen democratically. The rules for governing the community garden were discussed and the type of democracy was also decided, Majority rule. From then on the leadership was given certain executives privileges always governed by the consensus of the community.
4. From that time on the community garden and its rules have been governed by the participatory membership of the South Central farmers. They chose which rules they wanted to be governed by and how transgressions should be dealt with.
5. SCFs have developed community leaders from the community garden. Some of our members have become members of the local neighborhood councils. Some our farmers have also been encouraged to become Master Gardeners. Some of our Farmers have developed their own economic development. One farmer currently rents 6 acres elsewhere and has developed his own distribution system.
6. SCFs have developed opportunities for community members. We have developed the monthly farmers market.
7. The SCFs have addressed the needs of the women membership by providing them the space to have their own cooperative space where only women work.
8. We have sustained City Council attendance, twice a week, only matched by the anti-war movement of the sixties.
9. We have developed the spiritual needs of the community by providing a monthly catholic service and a monthly Christian service. This helps to address the needs of the community.
10. We provide an avenue for up and coming bands during our yearly anniversary celebration. We have had two of them and have showcases many up and coming community bands.
11. SCFs maintain an abundant and resilient seed stock that is grown in the community garden.
12. The SCFs have brought traditional aztec dancers and ceremonies that resonate the cultural traditions of the people who grow food.
13. The SCF have made the community garden available to its memberships to have a family space for fiestas. The SCfs have also made the community space available for cultural exchange programs. Native traditional rural teachers from all over Mexico have used the space to do cultural exchange.
14. The SCFs continue to educate their members on the democratic process and how it applies to their local government.
Send letters of support to the individuals listed at the following link:
http://www.southcentralfarmers.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=25
* Save the South Central Farm - Photo Essay
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/05/157152.php
In 1995, the City began negotiating with Libaw-Horowitz Investment Company (“LHIC”), the successor company to Alameda, to sell it the entire 14-acre property. The City’s 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.
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. 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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
On June 30, 2005, the Court of Appeal reversed the Superior Court’s order granting the preliminary injunction. The South Central Farmers Feeding Families have 40 days from June 30 to petition the California Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeal’s ruling. If the Supreme Court declines to hear the case, the urban garden will be demolished in about three months.
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 needs. 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.
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 needs, 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.
Accomplishments by the South Central Farmers
1. When Michael flood and the food bank turned their backs on the poor people of South Central. It was the South Central Farmers that protested, marched, and attended city council meetings. In this process they were able to keep the garden open and challenge the city on the sale of the property. The food bank had an opportunity to place its expensive lawyers on the issue but they chose instead to fight against them and they continue to fight us.
2. The South Central Farmers began a process of eliminating the corruption and self-serving attitudes that the agents of the food bank had fostered for over 11 years. This included cronism, nepetism, and extornsion. In direct violation of the permit given by the city the agents of the food bank and the food bank allowed the sale of plots to poor families. The prices began from 250 all the way up to 1000 dollars per plot. This was hurrendous. The SCFs have been attempting to remove these elements from the community garden.
3. In Feb 15, 2004, the SCF had a general assembly where two leaders were chosen democratically. The rules for governing the community garden were discussed and the type of democracy was also decided, Majority rule. From then on the leadership was given certain executives privileges always governed by the consensus of the community.
4. From that time on the community garden and its rules have been governed by the participatory membership of the South Central farmers. They chose which rules they wanted to be governed by and how transgressions should be dealt with.
5. SCFs have developed community leaders from the community garden. Some of our members have become members of the local neighborhood councils. Some our farmers have also been encouraged to become Master Gardeners. Some of our Farmers have developed their own economic development. One farmer currently rents 6 acres elsewhere and has developed his own distribution system.
6. SCFs have developed opportunities for community members. We have developed the monthly farmers market.
7. The SCFs have addressed the needs of the women membership by providing them the space to have their own cooperative space where only women work.
8. We have sustained City Council attendance, twice a week, only matched by the anti-war movement of the sixties.
9. We have developed the spiritual needs of the community by providing a monthly catholic service and a monthly Christian service. This helps to address the needs of the community.
10. We provide an avenue for up and coming bands during our yearly anniversary celebration. We have had two of them and have showcases many up and coming community bands.
11. SCFs maintain an abundant and resilient seed stock that is grown in the community garden.
12. The SCFs have brought traditional aztec dancers and ceremonies that resonate the cultural traditions of the people who grow food.
13. The SCF have made the community garden available to its memberships to have a family space for fiestas. The SCfs have also made the community space available for cultural exchange programs. Native traditional rural teachers from all over Mexico have used the space to do cultural exchange.
14. The SCFs continue to educate their members on the democratic process and how it applies to their local government.
Send letters of support to the individuals listed at the following link:
http://www.southcentralfarmers.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=25
* Save the South Central Farm - Photo Essay
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/05/157152.php
For more information:
http://www.southcentralfarmers.com
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Friday, May 26, 2006 - DAY 4 of the encampment defend the farm: There is a statewide call for environmental activists with direct action experience to come and help defend the farm. Forced evictions are expected early next week. There are three tree sitters at this time, Julia Butterfly Hill, John Quigley, and actress Daryl Hannah. There are hundreds on the ground right now.
There is free camping space and the farmers are providing free food, so is Food Not Bombs, Also great free music. Surprise guests are expected. Night vigils start at 7:00 every night followed by music concerts and dancing. The current scene at the farm is amazing. Part party, part protest. The mobilization to resist is ongoing and growing.
The solidarity is real and people are committed to resist eviction by any means they can. The story has gone international. The South Central Farm is now a flash point in the struggle for peace and justice. Tried of watching history. Come and help write it. The South Central Farm has become one of the front lines in the worldwide fight for environmental justice. Please consider a road trip, you will be welcomed with open arms
There is free camping space and the farmers are providing free food, so is Food Not Bombs, Also great free music. Surprise guests are expected. Night vigils start at 7:00 every night followed by music concerts and dancing. The current scene at the farm is amazing. Part party, part protest. The mobilization to resist is ongoing and growing.
The solidarity is real and people are committed to resist eviction by any means they can. The story has gone international. The South Central Farm is now a flash point in the struggle for peace and justice. Tried of watching history. Come and help write it. The South Central Farm has become one of the front lines in the worldwide fight for environmental justice. Please consider a road trip, you will be welcomed with open arms
print and pass along. Your immediate assistance is required
For more information:
http://www.southcentralfarmers.com
Corporate personhood adds 2 developer's clout;
The current debate over the future of the vibrant SouthCentral community farm appears to be between the campesino tenant farmers and a wealthy real estate developer named Ralph Horowitz. However, Horowitz is not acting as an individual private property owner in this case. In reality, Horowitz's claim of property ownership is bolstered by the support of two powerful investment corporations that he is partnered in. Horowitz is a partner and shareholder in both the Alameda-Barbara Investment Corporation and the currently named Libaw-Horowitz Investment Company..
The Alameda-Barbara Investment Corporation (ABIC) initially sold the land for 4.7 million in 1986 to the City of LA for the purpose of building an incinerator. The community rejected the proposed incinerator and the land lay dormant while ABIC and the city negotiated a price for resale. The city later transferred the land from Public Works to the LA Harbor Dept. for 13.3 million exchange. During this time the non-profit LA Regional Food Bank was given a permit by the LA Harbor Dept. to use the land for a community farm. The Harbor Dept. then resold the land to Horowitz's renamed Libaw-Horowitz Investment Company (LHIC) for just over 5.2 million in 1996..
"1995
By this time, Horowitz’ interest in the property is rekindled, and negotiations begin for ABIC – now the Libaw-Horowitz Investment Company, or LHIC – to buy the property back from the City."
Following a 2002 lawsuit from LHIC, in closed session the city agreed to drop the price to 4.5 million, lower than the initial price of 4.7 million sold in 1986. Without taking inflation into consideration, LHIC already scored 0.2 million on this deal. Include over ten years of inflation and the economic gain by LHIC is multiplied. The public taxpayers were not informed of any of the city's real estate transactions with LHIC..
"2002
The eventually-approved settlement includes (1) dismissal of the LHIC suit, (2) sale of the property to LHIC for $4.5 million, and (3) LHIC’s donation of 2.7 acres to the City for park and recreation purposes."
Timeline of SouthCentral farm @;
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/032206_war_past.shtml
also;
History of the farm
http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3028
Today in 2006 Horowitz's LHIC is asking the tenant formers for 16.3 million for the same land LHIC bought for 4.5 million in 2002. Clearly having an investment corporation's legal team available granted the same rights as human beings benefitted in LHIC's aquisition of the farmland for below market value in 2002, and their current legal support in demanding an above market price of 16.3 million from campesino farmers. Without the illegal modification of the US Bill of Rights that grants non-living corporate entities equal rights with human beings this situation at the SouthCentral farm would not be happening.
The lawsuit on behalf of the SouthCentral farmers is valid because a) the public was closed out of any and all decisions the City of LA made with ABIC/LHIC about transfer/sale of farmland b) the real estate transactions between City of LA and ABIC/LHIC involved the spending of public tax dollars c) NO taxation without REPRESENTATION!!
Voters throughout LA would most likely prefer a community farm over another warehouse and show their preference in the ballot box. However, the public comment period at city hall meetings are considered advice and not binding votes. Corporations like LHIC are certain to oppose any ballot measures or referendums to city council decisions because corporations usually lose against overwhelming public opinions that favor ecological sustainability and human rights above developer's profits. Thus corporate personhood prevents public votes from being expressed by granting corporation's greater rights only given to human beings..
"corporate lawyers (acting as both attorneys and judges) subverted our Bill of Rights in the late 1800's by establishing the doctrine of "corporate personhood" -- the claim that corporations were intended to fully enjoy the legal status and protections created for human beings."
more on problems with corporate personhood @;
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/
also;
"But throughout the 1800s, especially after the Civil War, "[u]nder pressure from industrialists and bankers, a handful of 19th century judges gave corporations more rights in property than human beings enjoyed in their persons."
The biggest blow to citizen constitutional authority came in 1886. The US Supreme Court ruled in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, that a private corporation was a "natural person" under the US Constitution, sheltered by the 14th Amendment [(even though that amendment had been written and ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of freed slaves) [3]] , which requires due process in the criminal prosecution of "persons." Following this ruling, huge, wealthy corporations were allowed to compete on "equal terms" with neighborhood businesses and individuals. "There was no history, logic or reason given to support that view," Supreme Court Justice William 0. Douglas wrote 60 years later. [4]
Once corporations were legally defined as "natural persons", they automatically were endowed with the same "Bill of Rights" as human beings, and so came to possess and then exploit with devastating consequences, the same "rights" of the freedom of speech, and the ability to participate in elections and lobby elected officials."
more on how to end corporate dominance @;
http://www.ratical.org/corporations/
To discuss the living soil ecosystem as if it were non-living property is itself repulsive to me. As people remove the borders and barriers between cultures and ecosystems we can allow natural ecosystems to flourish everywhere without concerns of defined boundaries and ownership. Community farm implies sharing and togetherness, that everyone reaps what the farmers sow and tend. In this oasis surrounded by non-living warehouses and oceans of petroleum based pavement, the human heart remains free and untethered, able to soar above the walls of corporate rules and into the life giving rain clouds above..
Clearly soil as a living ecosystem is more of a community than the non-living corporate entities ever will be..
"The soil is an ecosystem in which thousands of living creatures live and interact. There can be more organisms in a teaspoonful of good quality soil than there are people in the entire planet earth, i.e. more than 6 billion, a truly amazing fact."
more on soil ecology @;
http://www.soil-net.com/dev/page.cfm?pageid=ks4_intro_livingbeing
We desire a world without borders, corporations, police repression and property ownership. We desire a world where people return to healthy, loving and democratic communities not detached from the ecosystem that surrounds us. SouthCentral community farm is a model example of an intact ecosystem, an oasis of our desires surrounded by non-living warehouses and pavement. We intend and will act to fulfill our desires & manifest into reality..
written by;
dragonflies
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$55.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network