NationStates Jolt Archive

Out in California, there is an "urban garden" in South Central Los Angeles...one that has been used by some 350 people for several years. The only problem: the owner of the 14 acre parcel, Ralph Horowitz, doesn't want them there...he wants to develop the land and build a warehouse. He tried to clear the land to begin construction and that's when all hell broke loose.


The farm has been the site of protests for several weeks after Ralph Horowitz, the owner of the 14-acre property, served farmers an eviction notice so he could sell the land to be developed--meaning that the 350 or so farmers who have grown produce and flowers on the site for more than a decade would be forced to abandon their garden plots, E! Online said.

Los Angeles Sheriff's Department representative Kerri Webb said some protesters chained themselves to picnic tables and concrete barrels to resist eviction from the garden.
...
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said the raid on the farm was upsetting.

"Today's events were disheartening and unnecessary," he said at a news conference Tuesday. "After years of disagreement over this property, we had all hoped for a better outcome."

Where's the offer from the 'urban farmers' to buy the land? Why should the rightful owner be coerced into allowing them to continue farming? What is the 'better outcome' hoped for by the Mayor?

It's a park though? This sounds like the land was public before and that the city just recently gave it to this Ralph person.

If that's the case, then the squatters may have something.
Otherwise, if it's just that Ralph has changed his mind on the usage of it, or if the previous private owner sold it to Ralph, I agree with you. The farmers should take steps to purchase the land themselves.

Interesting question for the rights people though. If someone owned property, but was not making productive use of it, and others came along and made productive use of it, who has the rights to the products of that land?

Why should the rightful owner be coerced into allowing them to continue farming? What is the 'better outcome' hoped for by the Mayor?

Maybe because he is taking this all away from them with no good reason and the better outcome would have been that he had kept them on the land.

I don't know the details of this situation, if there was some sort of agreement between the farmers and the owner of the land or if they just decided to work some land that seemed abandoned, but the story seems awfully sparse of detail. If the owner hadn't done anything with the land and this was the first time he'd bitched, then the farmers might have a complaint along the lines of squatter's rights, but I doubt it. The one thing that's more sacred than religion in the US is property rights, after all.

I agree with the OP. Maybe instead of just doing this hippie style protest, maybe the farmers should get together, pool their resources together, and buy the land themselves.

Where's the offer from the 'urban farmers' to buy the land? I highly doubt that they can afford to buy the land.
Why should the rightful owner be coerced into allowing them to continue farming? Well, I think this question is much too broad to answer here, so I will concentrate on other aspects of this issue.
What is the 'better outcome' hoped for by the Mayor?Perhaps the Mayor hopes the city will buy the land and turn it into a public farm?

Google is your friend:

http://www.la.indymedia.org/
http://www.clipi.org/blog/archives/210
http://feeds.losangelesnews.net/?rid=7ca155cc3100e2e8&cat=a7d0846f876c8187&f=1

It's hard to comment with so few details.

It's hard to comment with so few details.
The only detail you need to know:

the guy owned the land

Period.

In the US, that means he can develop on it, or sell it, or lease it to someone else.

He is well within his rights to have them driven off.

Ah, yes...I forgot we were talking about the land where property rights trump every other right.

Ah, yes...I forgot we were talking about the land where property rights trump every other right.
Isn't there private ownership of land in Canada?

Don't I remember a certain group buying up wilderness so they could prevent trophy hunting? Making the land their private reserve, so hunters could not hunt?

The earlier battle over the Alameda space began in the mid-1980s when the city bought the land through eminent domain from its owner, Ralph Horowitz, developer of Home Depot on Figueroa Street and the Los Angeles River Center. The city’s plan was to build a garbage incinerator. But the community successfully fought to stop the incinerator.

What they got instead was a 14-acre vacant lot.

http://www.clipi.org/blog/archives/210

Doesn't seem so cut and dry.

Isn't there private ownership of land in Canada?

Don't I remember a certain group buying up wilderness so they could prevent trophy hunting? Making the land their private reserve, so hunters could not hunt?

Ownership of land is not always clear. Especially in Canada right now, with various aboriginal claims ongoing. Ownership of land is also affected by issues such as usufruct, leases, land-use designation. I said there are too few details at this point, and I stick with that...it seems that the question of ownership hasn't quite been settled in this case.

http://www.clipi.org/blog/archives/210

Doesn't seem so cut and dry.
What it looks like is that the city took the land by "eminent domain" to build an incinerator, which was stopped.

Since the "public good" of building an incinerator was stopped, the land reverts to the owner, barring another suitable "public good".

Looks like no one could come up with one - not if the city was going to have to compensate the owner for millions of dollars worth of property. Maybe it was a budgetary limitation.

So he probably still owns the property. And since he was able to legally sell it (and since the sheriffs' office fulfilled an eviction order, the ownership and sale are NOT in question), the city obviously took too long screwing around.

Ownership of land is not always clear. Especially in Canada right now, with various aboriginal claims ongoing. Ownership of land is also affected by issues such as usufruct, leases, land-use designation. I said there are too few details at this point, and I stick with that...it seems that the question of ownership hasn't quite been settled in this case.

According to the articles, the courts clearly settled it in 2003. He was forced to sell the land for a project, project fell through so he got his land back through the courts.

Why hasn't he done anything for the past decade?
Oh, it looks like he didn't actually own it.

Why hasn't he done anything for the past decade?
I think that would have been the time that the city had possession of it.

Did the city pay him for the land?

Did he buy it back?

How would that have worked?

Why hasn't he done anything for the past decade?
Because the city "owned" the land by exercising "eminent domain" for the public good (the city wanted to build a trash incinerator, which was opposed by the locals).

In 2003, he got the land back, because the original intent behind the declaration of eminent domain was moot - the locals won their lawsuit against the city's proposed development.

He only got the land back in 2003. Since 1980s LA owned it after buying it for the construction of an incnerator, which was never built.

It's a park though? This sounds like the land was public before and that the city just recently gave it to this Ralph person.

If that's the case, then the squatters may have something.
Otherwise, if it's just that Ralph has changed his mind on the usage of it, or if the previous private owner sold it to Ralph, I agree with you. The farmers should take steps to purchase the land themselves.

Interesting question for the rights people though. If someone owned property, but was not making productive use of it, and others came along and made productive use of it, who has the rights to the products of that land?
Horowitz owned it. The city took it from him under imminent domain laws about 15 years ago. When the city decided they couldn't do anything with the land they decided to sell it. Horowitz went to court and said taht since they had taken the land from him in the first place that he should get to buy it back. The court agreed and Horowitz paid $5 million to get his land back that the city had taken from him for nothing. As part of the deal the city said he had to let inner city victims of the riots, mostly lower class African Americans, farm the land as part of a community center for a decade. Instead, Illegal aliens moved in and squatted the land. Horowaitz paid $5,000/month mortgage on the land since he got it back a few years ago. During that time the squatters have tried to take it from him again in court and have picketed his house, filed lawsuits and even harrassed his family. It's now been a decade and a half and he's tired of paying for these people to be on his land. He finally kicked them off of it yesterday after he got a court order. Good for him.

And before we domonize the land owner, he offered to sell the land to the farmers who didn't raise the money to purchase it:

Horowitz offered to sell 10 acres of the land for $16.3 million to a trust set up on behalf of the farmers. The group failed to raise the money before the purchase option expired May 22, and Horowitz got the eviction order.

Why hasn't he done anything for the past decade?
Oh, it looks like he didn't actually own it.
Because the city took it from him.

And before we domonize the land owner, he offered to sell the land to the farmers who didn't raise the money to purchase it:

Horowitz offered to sell 10 acres of the land for $16.3 million to a trust set up on behalf of the farmers. The group failed to raise the money before the purchase option expired May 22, and Horowitz got the eviction order.

It's obvious that some will demonize the land owner regardless of how fair he might have been.

Now would be a very good time for the landowner to use his second ammendment rights to recalim his property.

Edit: I forgot, this is LA where only the gangbangers have the right to bear arms.

It was his land

City took it away from him without fair and just compestation

City did jack shit with it

He paid $5 million to get it back.

Bunch of people come to farm on his land for free.

He pays $5,000 a month mortage or lease, whatever.

After fullfilling his decade obligation, he decides he would like to make some of his money back that he spent on the land. Sounds like the owner of the land has every right to sell it for it to be developed.

Now would be a very good time for the landowner to use his second ammendment rights to recalim his property.

Edit: I forgot, this is LA where only the gangbangers have the right to bear arms.

and you wonder why people think gun owners are gun nuts. :rolleyes: . You only use guns as a form of protection. At least I do. In this case, having the LAPD come out in full riot gear is good enough.

and you wonder why people think gun owners are gun nuts. :rolleyes: . You only use guns as a form of protection. At least I do. In this case, having the LAPD come out in full riot gear is good enough.

He would be protecting his rights to his property.

Horowitz owned it. The city took it from him under imminent domain laws about 15 years ago. When the city decided they couldn't do anything with the land they decided to sell it. Horowitz went to court and said taht since they had taken the land from him in the first place that he should get to buy it back. The court agreed and Horowitz paid $5 million to get his land back that the city had taken from him for nothing. As part of the deal the city said he had to let inner city victims of the riots, mostly lower class African Americans, farm the land as part of a community center for a decade. Instead, Illegal aliens moved in and squatted the land. Horowaitz paid $5,000/month mortgage on the land since he got it back a few years ago. During that time the squatters have tried to take it from him again in court and have picketed his house, filed lawsuits and even harrassed his family. It's now been a decade and a half and he's tired of paying for these people to be on his land. He finally kicked them off of it yesterday after he got a court order. Good for him.

Sounds reasonable then. Personally, I have serious problems with the city taking land as eminent domain and then selling it to private interests in the first place -- that's where the primary mistake was made. If the public takes land from a private owner, than that land had better stay in the public's hands, or the previous private owner must receive any of the proceeds the sale of it brings in excess of what he was paid when the public took it to begin with. That Ralph agreed to the conditions of that deal and didn't press his fight further in the courts says to me that he's an extremely reasonable person, if not downright charitable. It's about time he got some return.

As you say, good for him.

http://www.clipi.org/blog/archives/210

Doesn't seem so cut and dry.
Actually, it does. The city sold it back to Horowicz.

The roots of the dispute go back to the 1980s, when the city forced Horowitz to sell the land to for $4.8 million for a trash-to-energy incinerator. The project fizzled and the city turned the land over to the Los Angeles Regional Food Bank, which allowed people to begin gardening there after in the early 1990s.

Horowitz then sued to have the right to buy the property back and in 2003, he did. Now it's his. This should be the end of the story, but we need to worry about those "unfortunate" few.

Actually, it does. The city sold it back to Horowicz.

Horowitz then sued to have the right to buy the property back and in 2003, he did. Now it's his. This should be the end of the story, but we need to worry about those "unfortunate" few.
Those illegal unfortunate few.

Those illegal unfortunate few.

And the ditzball celebs that need thier names in the paper again.

Google is your friend:

http://www.la.indymedia.org/
http://www.clipi.org/blog/archives/210
http://feeds.losangelesnews.net/?rid=7ca155cc3100e2e8&cat=a7d0846f876c8187&f=1
This whole thing is very distressing. These people squatting on the land have no rights to it at all. The right of land ownership is absolute. The fact that the people squatting on it were there for a long time and were upset that they had to leave is irrelevant. People cannot simply occupy land and expect to keep it when the owner wants it back.

This whole thing is very distressing. These people squatting on the land have no rights to it at all. The right of land ownership is absolute. The fact that the people squatting on it were there for a long time and were upset that they had to leave is irrelevant. People cannot simply occupy land and expect to keep it when the owner wants it back.

Exactly. If the people want the land so bad, they can pay for it themselves.

I think that would have been the time that the city had possession of it.

Did the city pay him for the land?

Did he buy it back?

How would that have worked?

Yes the city paid him 4.8 million

He bought it back for 5 million and court costs

It was costing him money to have the land sit.

He offered to sell it to the farmers

They declined and wanted to continue using it for free

He went through all the legal channels so he could finally use his property as he sees fit.

From an article linked on the very first page of this discussion

The roots of the dispute go back to the 1980s, when the city forced Horowitz to sell the land to for $4.8 million for a trash-to-energy incinerator. The project fizzled and the city turned the land over to the Los Angeles Regional Food Bank, which allowed people to begin gardening there after in the early 1990s.

Horowitz sued to get the site back and the city settled in 2003 by selling it to him for $5 million.

Garden supporters took legal action, but ultimately the state Supreme Court decided against hearing the case.

In the meantime, Horowitz offered to sell 10 acres of the land for $16.3 million to a trust set up on behalf of the farmers. The group failed to raise the money before the purchase option expired May 22, and Horowitz got the eviction order.

When they go to court on July 12, the farmers' attorneys will argue that the city's sale was essentially a backroom deal.

I love the way the leftist Indymedia spins this whole story: http://www.la.indymedia.org/

Oh, the poor, downtrodden, oppressed masses! Oh, bullshit!

And before we domonize the land owner, he offered to sell the land to the farmers who didn't raise the money to purchase it:

Horowitz offered to sell 10 acres of the land for $16.3 million to a trust set up on behalf of the farmers. The group failed to raise the money before the purchase option expired May 22, and Horowitz got the eviction order.I'm not suggesting that he offered to sell the land just to save face, but it isn't reasonable to expect that they would be able to cough up $16.3 million. Not everyone has that lying around.

I'm not suggesting that he offered to sell the land just to save face, but it isn't reasonable to expect that they would be able to cough up $16.3 million. Not everyone has that lying around.

Then tough shit. Thats the price.

I love the way the leftist Indymedia spins this whole story: http://www.la.indymedia.org/

Oh, the poor, downtrodden, oppressed masses! Oh, bullshit!


The bestest part of that article was this bit:


"There is also a report that some of those arrested were placed in body bags.

Bulldozers cut a 30 foot wide gash through farmer’s plots to get to the tree where tree sitters were holding out. Once at the tree sheriffs discovered the commitment and determination of the farmers and their supporters. "

ZOMG body bags! I blog dead people! Stop t3h tree sheriffs and t3h 30feet gash!

I'm not suggesting that he offered to sell the land just to save face, but it isn't reasonable to expect that they would be able to cough up $16.3 million. Not everyone has that lying around.
Darrel Hannah, Danny Glover, Leonardo DiCaprio and Laura Dern probably do. They want this guy to just give them the land or sell it to them at below markt value? I have an idea, how about they either pay for the land themselves or sell their own land to the squatters at below market value? ;)

Then tough shit. Thats the price.Oh, I'm aware that U.S. law enshrines the myth of private property rights and so I would say that Horowitz is well within his law to both offer to sell the land and evict the people on it, but this does not mean I agree with it.

Darrel Hannah, Danny Glover, Leonardo DiCaprio and Laura Dern probably do. They want this guy to just give them the land or sell it to them at below markt value? I have an idea, how about they either pay for the land themselves or sell their own land to the squatters at below market value? Any of these solutions is fine...I would say that the latter would probably make the most people happy.

The bestest part of that article was this bit:


"There is also a report that some of those arrested were placed in body bags.

Bulldozers cut a 30 foot wide gash through farmer’s plots to get to the tree where tree sitters were holding out. Once at the tree sheriffs discovered the commitment and determination of the farmers and their supporters. "

ZOMG body bags! I blog dead people! Stop t3h tree sheriffs and t3h 30feet gash!
This says little for the intelligence levels in LA. Either the LAPD arrest dead people or the writers at Indymedia think they do. I'm gonna bet it's the latter.

Darrel Hannah, Danny Glover, Leonardo DiCaprio and Laura Dern probably do. They want this guy to just give them the land or sell it to them at below markt value? I have an idea, how about they either pay for the land themselves or sell their own land to the squatters at below market value? ;)
You can start with the private beaches they own in Malibu, which they will not let anyone else use.

Complicated.

Land seized by eminent domain to build incinerator. Incinerator building blocked. Land turned over to the Los Angeles Regional Food Bank, which allowed people to begin gardening there after in the early 1990s.

So for a decade, the people farming there were not squatters, and had legal usage rights to the area.

Horowitz sued to get the site back and the city settled in 2003 by selling it to him for $5 million.

Garden supporters took legal action, but ultimately the state Supreme Court decided against hearing the case.
Apparently, various courtcases on this issue have been going on since the 80's! (First Horowitz versus the city, then people vs Horowitz, etc) I wonder if, when Horowitz got his land back for $5 million, whether he had to repay the money he received when the land was seized by the eminent domain ruling, since they give fair market value for the land? (Of course, fair market value in the 80's is a lot different than fair market value now!)

In the meantime, Horowitz offered to sell 10 acres of the land for $16.3 million to a trust set up on behalf of the farmers. The group failed to raise the money before the purchase option expired May 22, and Horowitz got the eviction order.
So Horowitz was trying to give the farmers an option, but it's not exactly easy to raise $16.3 million dollars.

Like I said, complicated. I think I would have liked to hear what the court's actual ruling on this was; it's not clear from the article whether the court reached a decision in Horowitz's favour, or whether the city just finally decided to settle instead.

Darrel Hannah, Danny Glover, Leonardo DiCaprio and Laura Dern probably do. They want this guy to just give them the land or sell it to them at below markt value? I have an idea, how about they either pay for the land themselves or sell their own land to the squatters at below market value? ;)

Can we say Limosine Liberals. They just need thier names in the papers again.

Darrel Hannah, Danny Glover, Leonardo DiCaprio and Laura Dern probably do. They want this guy to just give them the land or sell it to them at below markt value? I have an idea, how about they either pay for the land themselves or sell their own land to the squatters at below market value? ;)
But ... but ... but that would mean they might have to give up some of their OWN money! OMFG!! We can't have THAT! The horror! The HORROR! :rolleyes:

LOL! You win the thread!

Can we say Limosine Liberals. They just need thier names in the papers again.
Can we say "fucking demented, arrogant, spoiled-ass, little bastards?" :headbang:

This whole thing is very distressing. These people squatting on the land have no rights to it at all. The right of land ownership is absolute. The fact that the people squatting on it were there for a long time and were upset that they had to leave is irrelevant. People cannot simply occupy land and expect to keep it when the owner wants it back.
Exactly! This is exactly the stance that aboriginal people take in regards to land that was seized without treaty. I'm glad you support us.

Complicated.



So for a decade, the people farming there were not squatters, and had legal usage rights to the area.


Apparently, various courtcases on this issue have been going on since the 80's! (First Horowitz versus the city, then people vs Horowitz, etc) I wonder if, when Horowitz got his land back for $5 million, whether he had to repay the money he received when the land was seized by the eminent domain ruling, since they give fair market value for the land? (Of course, fair market value in the 80's is a lot different than fair market value now!)


So Horowitz was trying to give the farmers an option, but it's not exactly easy to raise $16.3 million dollars.

Like I said, complicated. I think I would have liked to hear what the court's actual ruling on this was; it's not clear from the article whether the court reached a decision in Horowitz's favour, or whether the city just finally decided to settle instead.


His land was taken from him for $4.8M under the justification for a public project. The public stopped the project so he sued to get his land back. He paid $5M to get it back + legal fees. He lost the use of the land all this time and is still paying taxes etc. while the people use it for free. How much money has he lost over the years for the city's failed policies?

Oh, I'm aware that U.S. law enshrines the myth of private property rights and so I would say that Horowitz is well within his law to both offer to sell the land and evict the people on it, but this does not mean I agree with it.

Any of these solutions is fine...I would say that the latter would probably make the most people happy.
Ok, oh wise one, how is private ownership of land a "myth?"

Exactly! This is exactly the stance that aboriginal people take in regards to land that was seized without treaty. I'm glad you support us.
Then you support the owner in this, not the squatting gardeners.

Then you support the owner in this, not the squatting gardeners.
I haven't made a decision yet. You see, I don't support kicking people off land they've been occupying...else you'd hear me telling you to buy some ocean liner tickets.

Ok, oh wise one, how is private ownership of land a "myth?"Because the concept was created out of thin air without regard to needing to be a part of a consistent set of rights or a consistent policy.

However, with that said, I think that to elaborate further on this would be to perhaps to hijack this thread, so I will not do so here, but would love to do so in another thread.

Exactly! This is exactly the stance that aboriginal people take in regards to land that was seized without treaty. I'm glad you support us.
Suprisingly enough ( and distressingly enough! ) I actually DO support this. Although it was acceptable practice at the time to dispossess aboriginal peoples from the land they had occupied for thousands of generations, that doesn't mean it was either right or even the best thing to do for the land itself.

Because the concept was created out of thin air without regard to needing to be a part of a consistent set of rights or a consistent policy.

However, with that said, I think that to elaborate further on this would be to perhaps to hijack this thread, so I will not do so here, but would love to do so in another thread.
So you oppose private ownership of land?

So you oppose private ownership of land?Yes. I believe land rights should be based upon occupancy and use.

Yes. I believe land rights should be based upon occupancy and use.

I'ld like another home then. Where do you live?

You might also note that he was FORCED OFF HIS PROPERTY in the first place.

I'ld like another home then. Where do you live?I'm occupying and using my home, sorry.

You might also note that he was FORCED OFF HIS PROPERTY in the first place.I'm not certain that he was occupying and using this piece of land...with that said, I think it is absurd that it seems he was still paying taxes on it even after it was seized via eminent domain.

The only detail you need to know:

the guy owned the land

Period.

In the US, that means he can develop on it, or sell it, or lease it to someone else.

He is well within his rights to have them driven off.
Sense when does owning a piece of property give you supreme rights over it?

I just mean you make it sound so absolute when its not really

I'm not certain that he was occupying and using this piece of land...with that said, I think it is absurd that it seems he was still paying taxes on it even after it was seized via eminent domain.
That does seem odd...how did that manage to stick?

Sense when does owning a piece of property give you supreme rights over it?

I just mean you make it sound so absolute when its not really
As long as I am complying with zoning restrictions, environmental laws, and whatnot, I can develop, sell, or lease any land I own.

Sense when does owning a piece of property give you supreme rights over it?

I just mean you make it sound so absolute when its not really
Maybe not supreme, but he has the right to have the squatters removed from his land. They however don't have the right to free land just beacause it's ownership has been in contention recently.

As long as I am complying with zoning restrictions, environmental laws, and whatnot, I can develop, sell, or lease any land I own.
Correct as far as that goes but the post I quoted started with ownership being the only considerations needed

Which is not so

Personally think this guy owns this land ... that it would be best if he would come to some sort of a deal with the city or these people but in the end it is his land

It was just so ... absolute which just smacks of a discontinuity of the real world

I'm occupying and using my home, sorry.

He legally owned it until he was forced off it. EM laws in many cases don't include whether it's currently occupied. Your home could be condemned, be taken from you and sold to a private enterprise and you wouldn't get a cent in return.

I'm not certain that he was occupying and using this piece of land...with that said, I think it is absurd that it seems he was still paying taxes on it even after it was seized via eminent domain.

He legally owned it. It could have been developed (as he's planning). He wasn't paying taxes on it after the EM but he is now even while the squatters are using it. They don't own the land. They never did. He lost money on future developments based on the justification of a failed public project.

Maybe not supreme, but he has the right to have the squatters removed from his land. They however don't have the right to free land just beacause it's ownership has been in contention recently.
I agree I was just commenting on the absoluteness of the post … I tried to make that clear but I guess I missed my mark.

*is waiting for Jello Biafra to start a thread on the issue of private property*

I agree I was just commenting on the absoluteness of the post … I tried to make that clear but I guess I missed my mark.
Well TBH, I didn't read the post you quoted. No worries.

It was just so ... absolute which just smacks of a discontinuity of the real world

I know, I know. It didn't read like a legal contract, so it didn't seem real.

Where's the offer from the 'urban farmers' to buy the land? Why should the rightful owner be coerced into allowing them to continue farming? What is the 'better outcome' hoped for by the Mayor?
The urban farmers should buy the land, but since this land is rather productive thanks to these 350 people, it should not be just turned into a warehouse.

He legally owned it until he was forced off it. EM laws in many cases don't include whether it's currently occupied. Your home could be condemned, be taken from you and sold to a private enterprise and you wouldn't get a cent in return.Yes, I don't particularly agree with that aspect of eminent domain laws, I believe that such laws should only be employed if it's for a public use, and with compensation.

He legally owned it. It could have been developed (as he's planning). He wasn't paying taxes on it after the EM but he is now even while the squatters are using it. They don't own the land. They never did. He lost money on future developments based on the justification of a failed public project.Oh, I agree that he is within his legal rights to do what he did, but I don't have to agree with what the law says, just as I disagree with what the eminent domain laws are.

*is waiting for Jello Biafra to start a thread on the issue of private property*I suppose I will, but I can't today, as I have to go very soon. :( sorry.

The urban farmers should buy the land, but since this land is rather productive thanks to these 350 people, it should not be just turned into a warehouse.
It is arguable that a warehouse will produce more money and jobs than 350 people using it as their private garden.

and you wonder why people think gun owners are gun nuts. :rolleyes: . You only use guns as a form of protection. At least I do. In this case, having the LAPD come out in full riot gear is good enough.

Yeah, shooting them would be a pretty assanine way to solve this problem.

Can we say Limosine Liberals. They just need thier names in the papers again.
Well, to be fair, how the hell else is Darryl Hannah supposed to get her name in the paper?

Exactly! This is exactly the stance that aboriginal people take in regards to land that was seized without treaty. I'm glad you support us.
My view on this is that the victor owns the spoils. If the aboriginal people were on the losing side of an invasion, then they lost their soveriegn status. The land they occupied prior is no longer subject to their desires.

The urban farmers should buy the land, but since this land is rather productive thanks to these 350 people, it should not be just turned into a warehouse.

He offered to sell the land to them but they couldn't come up w/ the money even though there are numerous celebrities supporting them.

He offered to sell the land to them but they couldn't come up w/ the money even though there are numerous celebrities supporting them.
That seems odd to me. I mean, you'd think that if they offered a good price the dude would be willing to sell. And you can't tell me that celebrities are unable to raise money for things. So why not just buy the land?

He offered to sell the land to them but they couldn't come up w/ the money even though there are numerous celebrities supporting them.
Silly, celebrities don't pay for things. They sleep on their money.

Well, to be fair, how the hell else is Darryl Hannah supposed to get her name in the paper?

She's still pretty hot. She could do some T&A flicks.

The urban farmers should buy the land, but since this land is rather productive thanks to these 350 people, it should not be just turned into a warehouse.
That's a value judgement that's not yours, nor mine, to make. It's solely up to the property owner to decide how his property is used.

My view on this is that the victor owns the spoils. If the aboriginal people were on the losing side of an invasion, then they lost their soveriegn status. The land they occupied prior is no longer subject to their desires. I won't hijack this thread too much, but I will point out to you that the areas now known as the USA and Canada were not taken by invasion, but were in fact colonised with the HELP of the aboriginal peoples, and the treaties were not surrenders, but in fact transference of aboriginal title in return for certain rights. No invasion, no loss of sovereign status. Sorry.

Silly, celebrities don't pay for things. They sleep on their money.
Or purchase another ivory back-scratcher. Let's not forget about the back-scratchers.

That's a value judgement that's not yours, nor mine, to make. It's solely up to the property owner to decide how his property is used.
Legally, yes, but IMO land should be used productively regardless of ownership.

It is arguable that a warehouse will produce more money and jobs than 350 people using it as their private garden.
It's possible I suppose.

That seems odd to me. I mean, you'd think that if they offered a good price the dude would be willing to sell. And you can't tell me that celebrities are unable to raise money for things. So why not just buy the land?
Not odd at all. The offer was made by the seller and the LA 350 wouldn't buy. They're in it for the free part, not the ownership part. I guess we need to get Bono down there and promote a benefit concert.

Or purchase another ivory back-scratcher. Let's not forget about the back-scratchers.
The thought of being without an ivory back-scratcher, dear god. Worst disaster possible.

I won't hijack this thread too much, but I will point out to you that the areas now known as the USA and Canada were not taken by invasion, but were in fact colonised with the HELP of the aboriginal peoples, and the treaties were not surrenders, but in fact transference of aboriginal title in return for certain rights. No invasion, no loss of sovereign status. Sorry.
But the colonization was an invasion. Much like the one that the United States is suffering on our southern border. Not an armed invasion, but every bit as determined to occupy foreign soil.

Horowitz owned it. The city took it from him under imminent domain laws about 15 years ago. When the city decided they couldn't do anything with the land they decided to sell it. Horowitz went to court and said taht since they had taken the land from him in the first place that he should get to buy it back. The court agreed and Horowitz paid $5 million to get his land back that the city had taken from him for nothing. As part of the deal the city said he had to let inner city victims of the riots, mostly lower class African Americans, farm the land as part of a community center for a decade. Instead, Illegal aliens moved in and squatted the land. Horowaitz paid $5,000/month mortgage on the land since he got it back a few years ago. During that time the squatters have tried to take it from him again in court and have picketed his house, filed lawsuits and even harrassed his family. It's now been a decade and a half and he's tired of paying for these people to be on his land. He finally kicked them off of it yesterday after he got a court order. Good for him.
That's the problem, right there.

Who's to say those "squatters" are not part of those Horowitz have to let farm. As far as I know, he still has to let some kind of farming go on that land even if he wants to sell a part for something else. I'm all for removing squatters, but you have to determine that they are indeed squatters.

Also of note, I read that he's been paying taxes for the land since he bought it back, not since he was served with eminent domain. There seem to have been some confusion in the thread.

And the ditzball celebs that need thier names in the paper again.

He offered to sell the land to them but they couldn't come up w/ the money even though there are numerous celebrities supporting them.

That's the stupidest thing about all this. If the celebs really wanted to support the squatters, they could have bought him out. But no, they want to steal it.

Yes. I believe land rights should be based upon occupancy and use.

So if you're using your land, but I can force you out of your house at gun point and occupy and use it, it becomes mine? That's in essence what happened here. Remember it was the government that took his land land - and supporting the klepto-government is not what I expect from you, my friend...

To me the most telling thing is that the California Supreme Court did not see enough merit in the farmers/squatters appeal of lower courts decisions to hear it. This pretty much means that the squatters have exhausted all legal means to claim the property and must resort to illegal means. Which they did. And they were arrested for it. Sore losers but losers nonetheless. Its simple.

That's the problem, right there.

Who's to say those "squatters" are not part of those Horowitz have to let farm. As far as I know, he still has to let some kind of farming go on that land even if he wants to sell a part for something else. I'm all for removing squatters, but you have to determine that they are indeed squatters.

Also of note, I read that he's been paying taxes for the land since he bought it back, not since he was served with eminent domain. There seem to have been some confusion in the thread.
He had to let them farm for a decade. That was 15 years ago. Now it's a non-issue. They're all squatters now.

It's also noted in several articles that the city has provided other areas to garden to the people who were using it. These 350 refused for one reason or another..

He had to let them farm for a decade. That was 15 years ago. Now it's a non-issue. They're all squatters now.
Didn't he bought the land in 2003? Wasn't in this legal recourse that he had to let people farm? If so, that brings us to 2013.

That's what I gathered from PsichoticDan's summary.

Didn't he bought the land in 2003? Wasn't in this legal recourse that he had to let people farm? If so, that brings us to 2013.

That's what I gathered from PsichoticDan's summary.
He bought it BACK in 2003.

Not odd at all. The offer was made by the seller and the LA 350 wouldn't buy. They're in it for the free part, not the ownership part. I guess we need to get Bono down there and promote a benefit concert.
See, now that just cheese me off.

If the dude was flat-out refusing to sell, I might have a little sympathy. I might even suggest that maybe somebody intervene and try to find a better resolution than just bulldozing the place over the objections of the farmers. But they aren't even TRYING to be fair about this. That's bullshit.

Didn't he bought the land in 2003? Wasn't in this legal recourse that he had to let people farm? If so, that brings us to 2013.

That's what I gathered from PsichoticDan's summary.
2003 is when he bought the land back from the government.

I have to feel the real victim here is the land owner. I imagine he can afford a certain amount of money wastage, but he's been hemorrhaging money over this for years; and now that he's finally decided to deal with the situation, the media's going to crucify him.

As to the villains of the piece - the LA local government would appear to be that.

See, now that just cheese me off.

If the dude was flat-out refusing to sell, I might have a little sympathy. I might even suggest that maybe somebody intervene and try to find a better resolution than just bulldozing the place over the objections of the farmers. But they aren't even TRYING to be fair about this. That's bullshit.
Well he did charge them pretty highly. He had to pay $5 million to get the land back, he wanted $16.3 million from the squatters. But I do agree, the squatters need to stfu and get off his land.

Didn't he bought the land in 2003? Wasn't in this legal recourse that he had to let people farm? If so, that brings us to 2013.

That's what I gathered from PsichoticDan's summary.
Problem is that PsychoDan is the only one talking about that 10 year moratorium. I don't see it in any press on the subject.

Well he did charge them pretty highly. He had to pay $5 million to get the land back, he wanted $16.3 million from the squatters. But I do agree, the squatters need to stfu and get off his land.

He paid what he was given. If you think of the money lost over the years from it not being developed, it's realistic.

I have to feel the real victim here is the land owner. I imagine he can afford a certain amount of money wastage, but he's been hemorrhaging money over this for years; and now that he's finally decided to deal with the situation, the media's going to crucify him.

As to the villains of the piece - the LA local government would appear to be that.

If I was Horowitz, I would play the "anti-Semitic" card.

If it's ok for other people to play their "race" cards, and are being this stupid, I would definitely play it.

If I had any relatives who were Holocaust survivors, I would trot them out.

If I was Horowitz, I would play the "anti-Semitic" card.

If it's ok for other people to play their "race" cards, and are being this stupid, I would definitely play it.

If I had any relatives who were Holocaust survivors, I would trot them out.
Where does it say he's a jew?

Where does it say he's a jew?
Check his last name.

Problem is that PsychoDan is the only one talking about that 10 year moratorium. I don't see it in any press on the subject.
Actually, ifreann was the one who pointed the 10 year moratorium to me, but you're right. PsychoDan might not have all the facts.

But I'm having less and less sympathies for the squatters.

Where does it say he's a jew?

According to some of the articles, he's been accused of being part of a "Jewish Mafia" that controls the city by pundits.

Didn't he bought the land in 2003? Wasn't in this legal recourse that he had to let people farm? If so, that brings us to 2013.

That's what I gathered from PsichoticDan's summary.
Sorry I should have been more clear.

They took the land ifrom him in the late 80's to build what would have been a great idea, a trash incinerator that turned waste into energy. The community did't want it and sued in court to get it scraped.

The riots happened. The city then said they would turn the land into community property to be used by the inner city African American community to promote community togetherness and other fuzzy stuff that makes us all say, "awwwww." They were to use it for a decade. Instead, it was squatted by illegal immigrants.

In 2003 thecity decided to selll the land for whatever reasons. Horowitz sued to get exclusive rights to buyback because it was taken from himoriginally and because he had been fighting to get it back the whole time.

The result was that he bought it back in 2003 for $5 million. The decade was up by thetime he got it back.

Check his last name.
Horowitz is a jewish name?:confused:












There are jewish names?:confused:

According to some of the articles, he's been accused of being part of a "Jewish Mafia" that controls the city by pundits.
I have good odds that they're in cahoots with the Freemasons, 3:1?

Horowitz is a jewish name?:confused:

There are jewish names?:confused:

Generally speaking, yes.

If you're a real estate developer in the US, and your last name is Horowitz, I'd bet my car that you're Jewish.

Horowitz is a jewish name?:confused:












There are jewish names?:confused:

There is a better than average chance that someone with the name Horowitz is jewish. There is a better than average chance that someone whose last name ends in "ski" has Polish heritage. Theres a better than average chance that someone whose last name starts with "Mb" is black. It happens.

Ah, yes...I forgot we were talking about the land where property rights trump every other right.


Yeah, and I'll continue to fight for those rights at every opportunity. There is no issue here...the squatters need to go. Their "rights" are imaginary in this case.:headbang:

Generally speaking, yes.

If you're a real estate developer in the US, and your last name is Horowitz, I'd bet my car that you're Jewish.
How very odd. Makes sense I guess.

Horowitz is a jewish name?:confused:

There are jewish names?:confused:

:confused: How did you make it this far in life without realising that certain ethnic populations have certain common names? If I told you my last name is McIntyre, would you not associate that with Scot-Irish ethnicity or would you somehow make the leap of logic to think it was likely I was a Croatian McIntyre?

:confused: How did you make it this far in life without realising that certain ethnic populations have certain common names? If I told you my last name is McIntyre, would you not associate that with Scot-Irish ethnicity or would you somehow make the leap of logic to think it was likely I was a Croatian McIntyre?
It's just not something I spent a lot of time thinking about.

How about charging this lot for the back rent?

When we rent out our unused land to farmers we get paid to let them farm on it - so where is his money? Theyve been farming his land, they should pay him the back rent for the last 3 years - not to mention he should try to get court costs out of them.

How about charging this lot for the back rent?

When we rent out our unused land to farmers we get paid to let them farm on it - so where is his money? Theyve been farming his land, they should pay him the back rent for the last 3 years - not to mention he should try to get court costs out of them.

They occupied the land while it was being held by the city under eminent domain. It was a freebie.

They occupied the land while it was being held by the city under eminent domain. It was a freebie.
It's been his since '03.

It's been his since '03.
Then he should be able to get a reasonable backpayment.

Of course, they started this whole thing by making him look like a dick before he even got started, so they're probably expecting that.

How about charging this lot for the back rent?

When we rent out our unused land to farmers we get paid to let them farm on it - so where is his money? Theyve been farming his land, they should pay him the back rent for the last 3 years - not to mention he should try to get court costs out of them.


The problem here is he would have to counter-sue the squatters, and sueing the poor is an exercise in futility. Even if he were to win, they have nothing to pay him with.

It is simple, The squatters are there illegaly and should be removed, and any found to be in the USA illegally should be deported.

It's just not something I spent a lot of time thinking about.

Fair enough. (I'd say that was obvious, as well. ;))
How about charging this lot for the back rent?

When we rent out our unused land to farmers we get paid to let them farm on it - so where is his money? Theyve been farming his land, they should pay him the back rent for the last 3 years - not to mention he should try to get court costs out of them.


The problem here is he would have to counter-sue the squatters, and sueing the poor is an exercise in futility. Even if he were to win, they have nothing to pay him with.

It is simple, The squatters are there illegaly and should be removed, and any found to be in the USA illegally should be deported.

How about suing the Hollywood-critters? They want to support theft, they ought to pay...

Fair enough. (I'd say that was obvious, as well. ;))


How about suing the Hollywood-critters? They want to support theft, they ought to pay...

Sueing the rich is also an exercise in futility. The only people that can be successfully sued are those with enough money to make it worthwhile, but not enough to pay for a team of high-priced lawyers: I.E. the middle class.

That's the one where Darryl Hannah was up the tree, that twat has money, why didn't she buy it?


Why they need a fire truck to get that bint down is beyond me, I coulda done it with a chain saw.

I'm occupying and using my home, sorry.
Not any more! [ shoots Jello Biafra and takes his home ] :D

That's the one where Darryl Hannah was up the tree, that twat has money, why didn't she buy it?


Why they need a fire truck to get that bint down is beyond me, I coulda done it with a chain saw.

And enough people would pay to see that, you could use the proceeds to buy the damn farm, thereby eliminating the entire problem.

Not any more! [ shoots Jello Biafra and takes his home ] :D
Mwahahaha *takes Eut's home while he's off shooting JB*

Fuck Darryl Hannah....

oh wait, that sounds like a good idea...

And enough people would pay to see that, you could use the proceeds to buy the damn farm, thereby eliminating the entire problem.

I don't see why it was such an issue when that twat tied herself to the tree. Start the chain saw, start cuttin, either she'll come down immediately, or in about 5 minutes when you're done. Possibly sooner depending on how big the tree is.

I don't see why it was such an issue when that twat tied herself to the tree. Start the chain saw, start cuttin, either she'll come down immediately, or in about 5 minutes when you're done. Possibly sooner depending on how big the tree is.

Did you ever see thos Foster beer comercials; Australian for....?

*in a poor imitation Aussie accent*
Fertilizer
:D

And enough people would pay to see that, you could use the proceeds to buy the damn farm, thereby eliminating the entire problem.

Unlikely. By the time they had treed Ms Hannah, Mr Horowitz had become so frustrated with the squatters BS and legal and media tactics that he said at that point wouldnt sell it to them if they suddenly came up with 50 million bucks.

Their fight shouldn't be with this Ralph person. He seems to have been fairly reasonable about the whole thing.

Really, these people should be fighting with the city about the decision to sell it back. Such a fight wouldn't even need to be a legal one, but rather a media-based fight to convince the politicians that if they proceeded, they'll need to be looking for another job come elections.

Their fight shouldn't be with this Ralph person. He seems to have been fairly reasonable about the whole thing.

Really, these people should be fighting with the city about the decision to sell it back. Such a fight wouldn't even need to be a legal one, but rather a media-based fight to convince the politicians that if they proceeded, they'll need to be looking for another job come elections.
Can you egister as a voter without an address? Cos considering these people were squatting I doubt they have one.

Can you egister as a voter without an address? Cos considering these people were squatting I doubt they have one.
A single vote means nothing on its own. Even 350 votes mean very little.

But that's why I said make it a media based fight against the politicians. If these people had instead worked on convincing the public that the city was selling their only livelihood and shelter out from under them, I think they would have had much better success. People like hating politicians, after all, and the news loves reporting on politicians doing heartless things.

The place for this fight was in city hall and the news studios.

A single vote means nothing on its own. Even 350 votes mean very little.

But that's why I said make it a media based fight against the politicians. If these people had instead worked on convincing the public that the city was selling their only livelihood and shelter out from under them, I think they would have had much better success. People like hating politicians, after all, and the news loves reporting on politicians doing heartless things.

The place for this fight was in city hall and the news studios.
They did fight to keep the city from selling the land to him but the court said that since the city forced him to sell the land to the city in the first place and since the city didn't do with it what they said they were going to that he should get to buy it back.

The place for this fight was in city hall and the news studios.

Thats how they prevented the incinerator from being built.

If they didnt want an incinerator they shouldnt have taken his land. Thats fair.
The right thing finally happened.

So if you're using your land, but I can force you out of your house at gun point and occupy and use it, it becomes mine?If that were the case, it wouldn't be a right based upon occupancy and use, it would simply be me exercising my ability to occupy and use land, and you exercising your ability to take it from me.

That's in essence what happened here. Remember it was the government that took his land land - and supporting the klepto-government is not what I expect from you, my friend...I am not opposed to eminent domain when it is done to serve the public (building schools, etc.), but in the original use of eminent domain it was to sell it to a private developer, which I am against, so on that I agree with you. With that said, however, I'm not certain that he was occupying and using the land at the time of the original claim of eminent domain. In addition, he does have the legal right to do what he did, so I can't think of a legal issue to have with it except possibly for the squatters to perhaps try harder to have eminent domain invoked in their favor...which is unlikely.

*looks at title of thread*

Idn't life a biatch?

If you don't like it, the City of LA bids you a nice day -
somewhere else!