Confusion about Property Rights...

[zeb1094]

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.

Because, you see, it doesn't matter to the farmers that are trespassing nor certain politicians or members of the media who owns the land. To them, they should be allowed to run their gardens as long as they want. Like a lot of liberals, the silly notion of private property rights doesn't matter. So all of this came to a head yesterday in a confrontation on the land, when authorities went to remove all of the protesters.

Enter Hollywood actress Daryl Hannah. Apparently seeing an opportunity for a little publicity, Hannah decided to climb up in a tree and protest. It wasn't until officials started cutting away the branches and sent up a fire truck lift that she decided to end her protest. Now, keep in mind that this guy owned the land fair and square...and it was zoned for warehouses and factories. Look at some of these quotes, first from Daryl Hannah: "I'm very confident this is the morally right thing to do, to take a principled stand in solidarity with the farmers." Morally right? How? Can we just come over to her house and plant our garden?

But even more ridiculous is the response from L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who said the evictions of the farmers was "unfortunate and disheartening." How? Why? Again, can we all come to Mayor Villaraigosa's house and plant our garden? How would he like it if people didn't respect his land?

Once again, when it comes to government, the mainstream media and the Hollywood left, private property rights don't mean anything. It's all about the "right thing to do," whatever that means.

 

[matriarch]

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.

Because, you see, it doesn't matter to the farmers that are trespassing nor certain politicians or members of the media who owns the land. To them, they should be allowed to run their gardens as long as they want. Like a lot of liberals, the silly notion of private property rights doesn't matter. So all of this came to a head yesterday in a confrontation on the land, when authorities went to remove all of the protesters.

Enter Hollywood actress Daryl Hannah. Apparently seeing an opportunity for a little publicity, Hannah decided to climb up in a tree and protest. It wasn't until officials started cutting away the branches and sent up a fire truck lift that she decided to end her protest. Now, keep in mind that this guy owned the land fair and square...and it was zoned for warehouses and factories. Look at some of these quotes, first from Daryl Hannah: "I'm very confident this is the morally right thing to do, to take a principled stand in solidarity with the farmers." Morally right? How? Can we just come over to her house and plant our garden?

But even more ridiculous is the response from L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who said the evictions of the farmers was "unfortunate and disheartening." How? Why? Again, can we all come to Mayor Villaraigosa's house and plant our garden? How would he like it if people didn't respect his land?

Once again, when it comes to government, the mainstream media and the Hollywood left, private property rights don't mean anything. It's all about the "right thing to do," whatever that means.

The link doesn't work, it takes me to a registration page for the Chicago Tribune.

 

[matriarch]

South Central Farmers Say: We've Raised the Money to Buy the Land
Annenberg Foundation Offers To Purchase Property for Farmers

LOS ANGELES, June 7, 2006 – The Annenberg Foundation made a surprise announcement today that they have delivered a proposal to developer Ralph Horowitz to buy the land on behalf of the farmers.

Sooooooooo...........they weren't expecting to be given the land.

 

[matriarch]

Horowitz Unleashes Sheriff
by francisco mendez Tuesday, Jun. 13, 2006 at 6:23 PM
spalacran@excite.com 323/257-4902

South Central Farmers learn bittler lesson of the role of the courts and politicians.

This morning at approximately five a.m., Sheriff’s deputies invaded the largest urban farm in the country, paving the way for developer Ralph Horowitz to destroy it and build a warehouse. Though the Annenberg Foundation announced last week that it had become directly involved in negotiations to buy the land and save the farm, apparently Ralph Horowitz couldn’t wait.
It is a sad day because the Farmers placed their hopes on the courts and seemingly friendly politicians and both institutions failed them. They showed that ultimately the courts serve the wealthy and the politicians serve those that provide them with reelection funds.

Ralph Horowitz’ attitude during this whole affair has been deplorable. He bought the land from the City for five million dollars and three years later demanded 16.3 million dollars for it. There are those that would justify this gross inflation in price on “the market,” but the ‘invisible hand’ of City officials was clearly behind it. Was it not developer-friendly Rockard Delgadillo who advised the Council to sell the land back to Horowitz below its true market value?

It is a sad day for the Council of our City, whose members have mostly sat on their hands while this injustice was unfolding. Some have voiced support at times, while others have hidden behind the courts and acted as apologists for the entire sordid affair.

But most heinous has been the attitude of Jan Perry, supposed representative of Council District Nine where both the farm and the towering skyscrapers of downtown LA are located. Perry has done the bidding for Horowitz within the Council and has worked tirelessly to destroy the resolve of the farmers. She has paraded before the Council former farmers who gave up the struggle and accepted plots in other cities or in other Council Districts, among them some awaiting trial for assault on their former leaders. She has demonized the Farmers’ leadership before City Council and has unleashed her lackeys to attack them in the media.

Though the eastern portion of Council District 9 is one of the most polluted parts of the City, Perry has done nothing to save this green lung. She never even visited it, despite countless invitations by the Farmers. Her role has a sad aspect to it, but for the most part it has been divisive, polarizing and hostile.

Though some members of the Council have expressed a passion for wanting to represent the ‘others’ in this ‘tale of two cities’ that is today’s LA, for the most part what we have seen is politicians primarily motivated by the need to be reelected. Since elections have become mere commodities to be bought and sold, who can blame the mediocre and weak among you from doing the bidding of wealthy contributors or potential contributors while turning your backs on those of humble means.

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/06/164143.php

 

[zeb1094]

Sorry about the link but it works fine for me!

So he may have gotten the land via a shady deal, does that still give those that are trespassing the right to be there? I think not.

As I said in my initial post, can the farmers go over the Mayor's house, or Ms. Hannahs house to grow their veggies?

If the City Council screwed up, make them accountable.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

"They paved paradise and put up a parking lot......"

I can understand that it would be disheartening... and sad... yet another warehouse instead of vegetable gardens??? no contest...

yeah, it's his land, he can do what he wants with it... they have no legal right to be there...

still sad. *shrug*

 

[zeb1094]

"They paved paradise and put up a parking lot......"

I can understand that it would be disheartening... and sad... yet another warehouse instead of vegetable gardens??? no contest...

yeah, it's his land, he can do what he wants with it... they have no legal right to be there...

still sad. *shrug*

Admittedly sad, but the fascist elements of our government are seeing their work come to fruition.

 

[Stella_Omega]

He had a selling price- six million, as I recall. The farmers raised that money.

Then he told them that he wanted fifteen million.
The Annenberg Foundation offered the rest of the money.

The other thing about the land is that it was taken away from him by Eminent Domain, because it had been layoing open and undeveloped, and was dangerous. In a backroom deal, he bouth it back for five million dollars- the sale process was kept secret, which is against City rules. It should have been put up for public auction.

There is a court date set, for early in July, to hear the farmers and his sides. But he obviously feels that if he pows the crops under today- the legal proceedings in three weeks will be rendered moot.

There is a parallell case here- Saint Joseph Pediatric, one of the top children's hospitals in the nation, has been ousted. The landowners decided to sell the property. The docotrs formed a consortium and met the asking price. Then the price was raised. They met that. Then they were notified that Hilton Hotels had bought the land.

Oh, well... We need luxury hotels and warehouses, desperately. Who needs health care or fresh veggies?

 

[zeb1094]

He had a selling price- six million, as I recall. The farmers raised that money.

Then he told them that he wanted fifteen million.
The Annenberg Foundation offered the rest of the money.

The other thing about the land is that it was taken away from him by Eminent Domain, because it had been layoing open and undeveloped, and was dangerous. In a backroom deal, he bouth it back for five million dollars- the sale process was kept secret, which is against City rules. It should have been put up for public auction.

There is a court date set, for early in July, to hear the farmers and his sides. But he obviously feels that if he pows the crops under today- the legal proceedings in three weeks will be rendered moot.

There is a parallell case here- Saint Joseph Pediatric, one of the top children's hospitals in the nation, has been ousted. The landowners decided to sell the property. The docotrs formed a consortium and met the asking price. Then the price was raised. They met that. Then they were notified that Hilton Hotels had bought the land.

Oh, well... We need luxury hotels and warehouses, desperately. Who needs health care or fresh veggies?

Sure this is a few places that have been dealt a bad hand. But it is their land to do with as they see fit. In the first case it was obtained under shady circumstances, the second...well the Hiltons out bid the Hospital (that sucks but he does have the choice to sell to whom he wants).

Once individual property rights are done away with, socialism is not far behind. The Supreme Court last year made the step toward socialism that much easier to achieve when they allowed local governments to steal land out from under the rightful owners just because they have a developer who wants to build a strip mall on it that will generate more tax revenue.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Admittedly sad, but the fascist elements of our government are seeing their work come to fruition.

By "fascist" you mean... what, exactly?
(edited to say) the Eminent Domain thing- it doesn't seem to be working the OTHER way, does it? At least not here in Lods Angeles. Two institutions that were productive and helpful and GOOD- gone. Ement Domain could have saved both of them.

Nope, strip malls are us!

 

[Selena_Kitt]

He had a selling price- six million, as I recall. The farmers raised that money.

Then he told them that he wanted fifteen million.
The Annenberg Foundation offered the rest of the money.

The other thing about the land is that it was taken away from him by Eminent Domain, because it had been layoing open and undeveloped, and was dangerous. In a backroom deal, he bouth it back for five million dollars- the sale process was kept secret, which is against City rules. It should have been put up for public auction.

There is a court date set, for early in July, to hear the farmers and his sides. But he obviously feels that if he pows the crops under today- the legal proceedings in three weeks will be rendered moot.

There is a parallell case here- Saint Joseph Pediatric, one of the top children's hospitals in the nation, has been ousted. The landowners decided to sell the property. The docotrs formed a consortium and met the asking price. Then the price was raised. They met that. Then they were notified that Hilton Hotels had bought the land.

Oh, well... We need luxury hotels and warehouses, desperately. Who needs health care or fresh veggies?

wow. Good information...

welcome back, Stella

 

[zeb1094]

By "fascist" you mean... what, exactly?

The bolded portion...

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

When Government allows you to own the business, property, etc. but turns around and tells you what you can and can not do with it.

 

[Stella_Omega]

The bolded portion...


When Government allows you to own the business, property, etc. but turns around and tells you what you can and can not do with it.

Well, that's not quite the case here.
In tboth of these cases, government did NOT step in and tell either of these owners what they could or could not do with their land.

 

[zeb1094]

Well, that's not quite the case here.
In tboth of these cases, government did NOT step in and tell either of these owners what they could or could not do with their land.

True, but the non-owners thought they had a 'right' to the property even after they made an offer to the owner.

 

[Stella_Omega]

True, but the non-owners thought they had a 'right' to the property even after they made an offer to the owner.

Yes, they thought they had a right to meet the asking price and make the purchase. What's fascistic about that, Zeb?

 

[zeb1094]

Yes, they thought they had a right to meet the asking price and make the purchase. What's fascistic about that, Zeb?

That they thought he/they had to sell it to them just because they met the price.

I as a land/property owner I can choose who I sell too. As long as I don't discriminate because of race, color, creed, religion, etc., my choice, not theirs.

 

[cantdog]

Zeb isn't actually thinking, stella. It is noble to try to persuade him, but you may be beating a dead horse, here.

 

[zeb1094]

Zeb isn't actually thinking, stella. It is noble to try to persuade him, but you may be beating a dead horse, here.

Thinking! Sure I am, just not on your side of thing, me thinks.

I think about things all the time, individualism being beat out of the American people by their government, property rights behing taken away, money being forcibly taken out of my pocket by the govenment.

 

[cantdog]

One method of fishing involves a moving boat. It goes like this. You drag baited hooks or other lures through the water, and wait for it to come to the fish's attention. Once they've bit you reel 'em in.

They call it trolling.

This is a lot like what zeb has been doing in several threads. He doesn't defend his posts, because they do not count as posts, really; they are bait.

You are biting the troll's bait.

The only way to discourage this is to stop biting.


I'll let you fill in the conclusion of the sorites for yourself, but I advise just ignoring the bait. Seriously.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Zeb isn't actually thinking, stella. It is noble to try to persuade him, but you may be beating a dead horse, here.

You're right, cant- there's only one horse around here worth beating, and he/she is certainly not a dead one!

 

[cantdog]

Now the thing gets in the right groove.

 

[zeb1094]

One method of fishing involves a moving boat. It goes like this. You drag baited hooks or other lures through the water, and wait for it to come to the fish's attention. Once they've bit you reel 'em in.

They call it trolling.

This is a lot like what zeb has been doing in several threads. He doesn't defend his posts, because they do not count as posts, really; they are bait.

You are biting the troll's bait.

The only way to discourage this is to stop biting.


I'll let you fill in the conclusion of the sorites for yourself, but I advise just ignoring the bait. Seriously.

What position would you like me to defend? The rights of the property owner. I believe the law, until eminate domain is invoked, does that for me. And if the city, in both cases wants the property so bad they could do just that, steal it from the owners, the Supreme Courts says they can.

So what would you have me say to support my position? Should I talk about fishing and bait? Should I use metaphores so obtuse that only you will understand them?

Where is you support on your position? Do you have information that would make what I say wrong? Incorrect?

No you come in here and talk about fishing.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Just one cotton pickin' moment here! Zeb has produced an interesting case. He has stated a principle, which is that an indivudual should be able to do what he wants with his or her own property, subject to reasonable regulations prohibiting him from doing things that create a nuisance or impose costs on others. Among other reasons the case is interesting because bubblehead Hollywood actors who think with their gonads instead of their brains have stepped in and made fools of themselves, as usual. The principle being defended is one that confers great benefits on individuals and on society in general. It's about a right that is under particular threat since the Kelo ruling last summer.

No reason or evidence has been presented as to why this right should be infringed in this case, just some emotional outbursts about how the "urban gardens" of sqautters are more aesthetically pleasing than a warehouse. Which is irrelevent. Warehouses are useful too. If you enjoy the material benefits of living in an industrial civilization - and you do or you wouldn't be reading these words on a nifty computer screen - you need warehouses. But that's irrelevent too, because it's none of your or my business - it's not our property.

If you put your house on the market for $100,000 and I make you an offer of $100,000, do you have to sell your house to me? (You haven't accepted my offer, mind you - we have no contract.) Can you change your mind, decide you don't want to sell? The answer is yes, and there is no dispute about it. So what's the big deal? That's essentially what happened here.

So the issue is really a no-brainer. Zeb has presented a case and stated a principled position. Is it trolling because you happen to prefer a different outcome in this case? Because no argument has been presented to challenge Zeb's principled position. Only emotional outbursts about not getting your preferred aesthetic outcome.

 

[R. Richard]

I don't have time to do the research here, but the "tresspassing" gardners may actually have rights here. The legal theory is called prescriptive easement.

 

[imalickin]

What she said...

Just one cotton pickin' moment here! Zeb has produced an interesting case. He has stated a principle, which is that an indivudual should be able to do what he wants with his or her own property, subject to reasonable regulations prohibiting him from doing things that create a nuisance or impose costs on others. Among other reasons the case is interesting because bubblehead Hollywood actors who think with their gonads instead of their brains have stepped in and made fools of themselves, as usual. The principle being defended is one that confers great benefits on individuals and on society in general. It's about a right that is under particular threat since the Kelo ruling last summer.

No reason or evidence has been presented as to why this right should be infringed in this case, just some emotional outbursts about how the "urban gardens" of sqautters are more aesthetically pleasing than a warehouse. Which is irrelevent. Warehouses are useful too. If you enjoy the material benefits of living in an industrial civilization - and you do or you wouldn't be reading these words on a nifty computer screen - you need warehouses. But that's irrelevent too, because it's none of your or my business - it's not our property.

If you put your house on the market for $100,000 and I make you an offer of $100,000, do you have to sell your house to me? (You haven't accepted my offer, mind you - we have no contract.) Can you change your mind, decide you don't want to sell? The answer is yes, and there is no dispute about it. So what's the big deal? That's essentially what happened here.

So the issue is really a no-brainer. Zeb has presented a case and stated a principled position. Is it trolling because you happen to prefer a different outcome in this case? Because no argument has been presented to challenge Zeb's principled position. Only emotional outbursts about not getting your preferred aesthetic outcome.