South Central Farmers Update: Buyout turned down.

Everyone heard that the South Central Farmers were evicted yesterday, and some people were vocal about how the city should have stepped up to cover the $16.3 Million asking price for the land to preserve the farm. However, in an LA Times story about the evictions today, it sounds like buyout offers were turned down and the price raised at the last minute. Check this bit:

“During an afternoon press conference, a visibly annoyed Villaraigosa said the city made a last-ditch effort to preserve the land, offering landowner Ralph Horowitz the price he had sought, raised through a variety of nonprofit groups.

But the mayor said Horowitz then said he thought the land was worth an additional $3 million and also said he was sick of the protesters, some of whom he said had made anti-Semitic slurs against him.”

Tony weighs in on this as well, but it sounds more and more like Horowitz was just kicking the farmers off the land for the sake of kicking them off the land, which is pretty lame if you ask me.

13 thoughts on “South Central Farmers Update: Buyout turned down.”

  1. Horowitz sounds like a bitter jackass. I’m not a big fan of the tree hugger mentality, either, especially the types who absent mindedly throw out racial slurs (eg anti-semitic names) or those that don’t chide their fellow hippies when they decide to use such childish tactics.
    However, it also amazes me that eminent domain can be used around LA, especially Hollywood, in the name of economic development, but it can’t be used for the sake of public good, as in the case of the Farm.
    Regardless, I’m officially on the side of the farmers. Horowitz put a sticker price on the Farm, the community raised the cash, and now he’s backing off on the deal. I’d call it bad faith. And I hope that if he doesn’t change his mind, The City of LA vs. Horowitz will.

  2. From what I understand, Horowitz has raised the price over and over again. Keep in mind he reportedly bought the property (back) from the City of L.A. in 2003 for $5 million. So he’s asking for more than triple the price after just a couple of years. From everything I hear, he’s a real piece of work.

    If he does indeed build a warehouse on the property, I wonder who would move in, given the history. And if anybody does move in, I bet the insurance against vandalism will be enormous.

    Finally, Daniel Hernandez at the L.A. Weekly has been covering the story. It seems the farm has become more of a political platform than a farm. That’s sad if true. It’s one thing to support the farmers in their protests. It’s quite another thing when the protest itself becomes more important to organizers than the thing (and people) being protected.

  3. I don’t know if harrassing his office will change his mind, but if its all about venting your frustrations and anger instead of resolving the problem…

  4. First off, it’s the city that sold the land to Horowitz in the first place, so anyone “upset” that the city didn’t do its so-called part to keep the farmers there should understand that the city is ultimately to blame for what happened yesterday. Did Horowitz have an opportunity to make things right? Sure he did. But waaay before that back in 2003 the city had the opportunity to protect that sacred land and the city didn’t.

    Horowitz was sick and tired of spending money on legal proceedings and fielding insults and threats and taunts from the farmers and their frontmen living on his property. Villaraigosa can position Horowitz as being the bad guy and mope about him refusing the $16 million but like Horowitz was quoted: it wasn’t about the money anymore. It became personal.

    Shame on him? Maybe. Shame on the city? Absofuckinglutely.

  5. Thanks, Will, I totally agree. I am astonished by the celebrities who supported the farmers without seeming to have all the facts. If Joan Baez, Darryl et. al. or so upset, why don’t they invite the farmers to farm on their land for no cost as Horowitz did for many years. He may be the jerk of the world but no one deserves to be called names like that. Anyway, there are much more serious issues out there.

  6. I’m siding with Will on this one. This whole situation has been the city’s fuck up since day one. This is typical for the City of Los Angeles, where they grant access/use of one of their sites to a group under terms that are vague and open ended and the group ends up being screwed in the end.

  7. Horowitz is the scum of the earth. Anything he attempts to build on the site should be summarily torched, preferably with him inside.

  8. Hey, Poopymouth. You’re a profound fucking bummer. And annonymous shit talker to boot. Figures. Hate the man for his actions, if you choose, but not his heritage. Is there a moderator in the house?

  9. is an open discussion, so we don’t moderate comments (unless they are racist or extremely offensive)

    That said, I weighed in with my opinion over at LAist. I believe that there was a tremendous opportunity for vision here and for an example to be set for future generations of sustainability, and that Horowitz should have seen the big picture rather than being petty about it. However, he went the selfish gutter route. Maybe he’d feel better if he got a punching bag and left the Farm alone.

  10. I don’t understand the idea of cutting Horowitz a break here… He’s an example of an unbelievably despicable person — someone in a position of power who is intentionally vindictive and counterproductive towards those with much less power. That’s pretty much my definition of evil.

    The city definitely failed in its role early on, then the farmers screwed up (name-calling and infighting). But then they somehow managed to get it together and find the money. Everything was going to be okay… Then Horowitz had to bring it back to the lowest common denominator. That sucks.

    “Getting someone back” this way is an example of the kind of playground ethics that are ruining our whole country. I hope he has a change of heart.

Comments are closed.