[Innockcroff]

http://www.southcentralfarmers.com/
First off, as a disclaimer, this is not meant to be a political thread, however, there are politics involved in this, so if the mods feel it is inappropriate, feel free to lock it.
That said, after the 1992 Rodney King riots a lot of property and businesses in South Central (in LA) were destroyed. To help many of the poor people in South Central, the city allotted a plot of land dubbed the South Central Farm for the people to grow crops on. It is the largest urban farm in the United States, and for about 350 families in the South Central neighborhood, it is the primary source of food. It has been maintained by the residents for the residents for the past 13 years at no cost to the city other than the land it is on. However, a commercial developer bought the plot of land for well below market value ($5 million) in 2003 and this weekend is going to have the Sheriff forcibly remove anyone and anything on the land to make way for a warehouse store. He has offered to sell back 10 of the 14 acres for market value ($16 million). I'm not asking anyone to write in or contribute to the cause, but things like this really make me frustrated with society sometimes.

[pimbertiemoft]

Poor people in South Central destroy their own community. Poor people in South Central given handouts. South Central does not improve. Developer buys land that belongs to the city anyway. Might as well let capitalism take its course. Maybe it will be a shopping center, or somewhere for these people to get actual jobs.

[RerRibreLok]

I think this is horrible. These people, I'm sure, have worked hard.
And for that developer for sell back some of the land at retail price when he bought it for so significantly under retail is just morally wrong, especially when he's offering to sell it back to the city at such a price. It pisses me off.

[Oberjej]

Quote, originally posted by DoMiNo »Poor people in South Central destroy their own community. Poor people in South Central given handouts. South Central does not improve. Developer buys land that belongs to the city anyway. Might as well let capitalism take its course. Maybe it will be a shopping center, or somewhere for these people to get actual jobs.
You hit the nail on the head. Although what the developer did was disgraceful, a lot of these problems were brought on by the people themselves.

[Smeaphvalialm]

Sorry I work in commercial Real estate and there is no such thing as secrets when it comes to pricing or the title of land. If the city allowed the garden to exist on it's land I would be truly surprised to hear that it was not made abundantly clear that the property remained city land and could be turned reclaimed at any point by the city. This has happened in NYC numerous times with so called community gardens.
Second, for the city to sell the land at a discount is often done in order to entice a developer to do something with the land in an area which would normally not attract the type of investment the city seeks. This is done in differnet ways. one of the most popular is tax abatements. outright deductions in market price are not as popular, but are still done.
To say that 14 acres of land produced enough seasonal crops to be the MAIN source of food for 350 families is ludicrous. assuming that a family consists of at least 2 people that means that 14 acres had to provide the principal dietary needs of at least 700 people year round. That means that at a minimum 0.02 acres (approx. 871 SF) would have to yield enough grains and vegetable of various kinds to supply the dietary needs of each individual for a year. Sounds like BS to me. IMHO, it would be more reasonable to expect such a garden to supplement the community's dietary needs than to be a major contributor to them.
while I do agree that comunities are well served by open communal spaces, I disagree that the original intent of the land use and the land sale was violated in any way.
The comunity might not like it, but they never had a legal right to the land to begin with, and a commercial development is likely to have a greater long term financial impact on the comunity than the social impact provided by the garden.
It would be interesting to see if the people of the neighborhood can organize to have the city allow them to turn sections of the parks currentl infested by drug gangs, turned into communal gardens. IMHO tha would help rehabilitate existing public space and decreas gang activity currently entrenched there.

[pimbertiemoft]

Well said Santeno; to say nothing of the fact that the "farm" is currently an economic drain on the community... a commercial development would bring much needed initial investment as well as long-term jobs and tax money which would benefit the community in many more ways than a few crappy tomatoes and some green beans. Who wants to eat veggies grown in L.A., anyway? Acid rain, anyone?

[Innockcroff]

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.

[Oberjej]

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.