DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Oberjej** · 06-01-2006, 02:46 AM

Quote, originally posted by Nodnarb »Alright, it may be a little biased, but the FAQ section of the site addresses some of those points.
http://www.southcentralfarmers...id=25
It gives the history of the garden and why there is outcry in the first place. It wasn't that the land wasn't the cities to take back in the first place, but the fact that propper procedures weren't followed in the selling. If the city determines they no longer need the property, then they can sell it, per the city charter. The city, however, did not assess whether they needed the land, but simply sold it. It isn't a "drain" on the city, as it is self-sufficient. The only thing the city provides is the land.
"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."
"Because of the farm and it's persistent presence of farmers with their vested interest in the community not just in the farm but the surrounding area, crime in the area has been reduced by over 50 percent in the past 5 years as recorded by the local Newton Street Police Station."
The arguement can be made that it has indeed helped the community rather than destroy it and not improve it.

See but you just proved WHY the city has the right to sell the land. They don't see a need for the farm anymore, and obviously have weighed the benefits and costs associated with it. From that, they have obviously concluded that developing the area will provide greater benefits than keeping the farm.

06-01-2006, 02:46 AM	#8
Oberjej Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 603 Senior Member	Quote, originally posted by Nodnarb* »*Alright, it may be a little biased, but the FAQ section of the site addresses some of those points. http://www.southcentralfarmers...id=25 It gives the history of the garden and why there is outcry in the first place. It wasn't that the land wasn't the cities to take back in the first place, but the fact that propper procedures weren't followed in the selling. If the city determines they no longer need the property, then they can sell it, per the city charter. The city, however, did not assess whether they needed the land, but simply sold it. It isn't a "drain" on the city, as it is self-sufficient. The only thing the city provides is the land. "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." "Because of the farm and it's persistent presence of farmers with their vested interest in the community not just in the farm but the surrounding area, crime in the area has been reduced by over 50 percent in the past 5 years as recorded by the local Newton Street Police Station." The arguement can be made that it has indeed helped the community rather than destroy it and not improve it. See but you just proved WHY the city has the right to sell the land. They don't see a need for the farm anymore, and obviously have weighed the benefits and costs associated with it. From that, they have obviously concluded that developing the area will provide greater benefits than keeping the farm.
	Quote