The Eminent Domain Story With A Twist
Those in the politically active circles and news junkies (like the kind of people who read blogs) have doubtless heard about the story slowly coming to a close after several years of court battles, the "urban farm" reclamation of a 14 acre plot in Los Angeles.
The fight became a celebrity cause, not surprisingly, drawing out the usual environmental types like Daryl Hannah, Martin Sheen and Joan Baez. It centered around a plot of land that had been claimed by Los Angeles through eminent domain. The owner was at the time paid for the land by Los Angeles in the understanding that they had plans for the parcel. Those plans fell through, though and the land was turned over to a group that allowed locals to farm small plots for their personal use.
An important note to consider here is, the land was not at any time turned over to these people, but most began exclusively cultivating small parcels, most about the size of a typical backyard garden, as their very own. There was no rotation or transfer of plots to make it truly "community". There was simply a small group of people who used it for their own ends free of charge.
Well, apparently the property reverted back to its owner, Ralph Horowitz, in 2003, as LA couldn't seem to get their act together regarding it. This is fairly typical in slack eminent domain cases such as this. The owner requested that the "urban gardens" be vacated, as he wanted to develop the land. The locals who had taken over parts of it asked for time to harvest their crops, but actually spent it shopping for a lawyer to sue him for the right to the land. Yes, they sued him for his own land, on the assumption that they worked it, therefore they owned it. How very Marxist.
Apparently, the legal defense of the owner's property has cost him over $1 million, but it appears to be finally over and despite the best efforts of the Hollywood Left, the protestors of the hour, and a band of squatters, he has his land back.
The amusing note to this is, he offered to sell the land if the community and its non-profit organization wanted to purchase it. The tag was a hefty $16 million, but LA land isn't cheap, especially 14 acres in a warehouse district. For all the celebrities they were able to collect, none I imagine were quite willing to put up the scratch necessary to complete the purchase. Most opted out, because of course, they're not going to spend THEIR money on such a project. The only proper source for such funding in the minds of such individuals is you and me, the average taxpayer. That or they assume the greedy corporatists should just donate the land, as was apparently the assumption in this case.
Although in the interview I heard, Horowitz indicated they never reached a purchase price, the net articles seem to indicate he wouldn't sell because of anti-semitic remarks and other acts of "civil disobedience" (like putting a rattle snake in his yard) were conducted against him. In the interview, he said he was willing to forgive such acts, but I think at this point he just wanted to develop the land.
Call him heartless or cruel, it was his land and he had a right to do with it what he wanted. Had he been negotiated with civilly, who knows? He may have sold. But everyone has limits and I think I can understand his, especially the way he was demonized through this campaign.
The story provides an interesting lesson in the feelings of the Left regarding eminent domain. To the majority of the Left, apparently, it is perfectly acceptable for land to be "taken away" from the rightful owners if the proletariat finds a better use for the land, especially if immigrants (who I'm sure are all here legally) make it their own through such quaint uses as an urban farm.
Don't get me wrong. I'm glad that something was able to be done with the land that made it productive, but I don't think a select few, who treated the property as their OWN land and not some commune to be used by anyone who wanted and who would have bankrupted the average owner with such a legal stunt should be able to simply take away someone else's land because they farmed it. If that's the case, there's this sweet little plot that's being turned into a subdivision not far from here. Perhaps if I can get a few rows of corn and tomato plants in, I'll have a case.
Sounds about as moronic as what was done in LA, but I suppose it isn't fair to break down the weak argument of the neighborhood and celeb types so simply and so easily discredit their case, or perhaps it is. Sometimes issues like this aren't as complicated as we would be led to believe. Sometimes simple crime is just crime and everytime a person's property is THEIR property, regardless of which side you perceive is "good" and "just" and which side is "greedy" and "evil".
Those in the politically active circles and news junkies (like the kind of people who read blogs) have doubtless heard about the story slowly coming to a close after several years of court battles, the "urban farm" reclamation of a 14 acre plot in Los Angeles.
The fight became a celebrity cause, not surprisingly, drawing out the usual environmental types like Daryl Hannah, Martin Sheen and Joan Baez. It centered around a plot of land that had been claimed by Los Angeles through eminent domain. The owner was at the time paid for the land by Los Angeles in the understanding that they had plans for the parcel. Those plans fell through, though and the land was turned over to a group that allowed locals to farm small plots for their personal use.
An important note to consider here is, the land was not at any time turned over to these people, but most began exclusively cultivating small parcels, most about the size of a typical backyard garden, as their very own. There was no rotation or transfer of plots to make it truly "community". There was simply a small group of people who used it for their own ends free of charge.
Well, apparently the property reverted back to its owner, Ralph Horowitz, in 2003, as LA couldn't seem to get their act together regarding it. This is fairly typical in slack eminent domain cases such as this. The owner requested that the "urban gardens" be vacated, as he wanted to develop the land. The locals who had taken over parts of it asked for time to harvest their crops, but actually spent it shopping for a lawyer to sue him for the right to the land. Yes, they sued him for his own land, on the assumption that they worked it, therefore they owned it. How very Marxist.
Apparently, the legal defense of the owner's property has cost him over $1 million, but it appears to be finally over and despite the best efforts of the Hollywood Left, the protestors of the hour, and a band of squatters, he has his land back.
The amusing note to this is, he offered to sell the land if the community and its non-profit organization wanted to purchase it. The tag was a hefty $16 million, but LA land isn't cheap, especially 14 acres in a warehouse district. For all the celebrities they were able to collect, none I imagine were quite willing to put up the scratch necessary to complete the purchase. Most opted out, because of course, they're not going to spend THEIR money on such a project. The only proper source for such funding in the minds of such individuals is you and me, the average taxpayer. That or they assume the greedy corporatists should just donate the land, as was apparently the assumption in this case.
Although in the interview I heard, Horowitz indicated they never reached a purchase price, the net articles seem to indicate he wouldn't sell because of anti-semitic remarks and other acts of "civil disobedience" (like putting a rattle snake in his yard) were conducted against him. In the interview, he said he was willing to forgive such acts, but I think at this point he just wanted to develop the land.
Call him heartless or cruel, it was his land and he had a right to do with it what he wanted. Had he been negotiated with civilly, who knows? He may have sold. But everyone has limits and I think I can understand his, especially the way he was demonized through this campaign.
The story provides an interesting lesson in the feelings of the Left regarding eminent domain. To the majority of the Left, apparently, it is perfectly acceptable for land to be "taken away" from the rightful owners if the proletariat finds a better use for the land, especially if immigrants (who I'm sure are all here legally) make it their own through such quaint uses as an urban farm.
Don't get me wrong. I'm glad that something was able to be done with the land that made it productive, but I don't think a select few, who treated the property as their OWN land and not some commune to be used by anyone who wanted and who would have bankrupted the average owner with such a legal stunt should be able to simply take away someone else's land because they farmed it. If that's the case, there's this sweet little plot that's being turned into a subdivision not far from here. Perhaps if I can get a few rows of corn and tomato plants in, I'll have a case.
Sounds about as moronic as what was done in LA, but I suppose it isn't fair to break down the weak argument of the neighborhood and celeb types so simply and so easily discredit their case, or perhaps it is. Sometimes issues like this aren't as complicated as we would be led to believe. Sometimes simple crime is just crime and everytime a person's property is THEIR property, regardless of which side you perceive is "good" and "just" and which side is "greedy" and "evil".
posted by Rob Beck | 7:31 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home