Ben Harper at the South Central Farm

On May 24th, Ben Harper attended a South Central Farmers press conference with his family. Here, he speaks with a few representatives from the media and makes his plea to save the farm.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• ben
• harper
• south
• central
• farmers
• race
• poverty
• environment
• justice

[OfficialFrizzo]

Understand, when these people rallied to keep the land, they were rallying for the government's ability to take away private property and dispurse it in a communist manner. They can easily have their new farm in Bakersfield taken away by the government under eminent domain and then given to the community. Where would their argument be then? They would be in Horowitz's shoes at that point.

[sebbeto]

i recognize that the land was forcibly taken under eminent domain. But one question that i have - and maybe you know the answer - is who it was taken from. was it Horowitz the private citizen or was it a corporation or LLC that owned it at that point? I think that influences the debate.

[sebbeto]

It did not seem to me that the protest was so much against Horowitz (while he was an easy to vilify) but against Jan Perry and the City Council. The process they underwent to resell the land was not public and it's troublesome to determine the fate of public property in a closed process not subject to scrutiny.

The protest was not for or against private property, but a check of the democratic process.

[OfficialFrizzo]

It was Horowitz's, a private citizen. Whether it was under his LLC, Sole Proprietorship's name or any other business entity he owned it under It was and IS his land.

[sebbeto]

My understanding is that there is a difference. If purchased under the auspices of a corporation then that property belongs to the corporation, not the owner of the corp. That is where the protection of one's private assets comes from. You can't have both the protection of a corp and the flexibility of individual ownership.

The property is his now because a judge said it was. Prior to 2006 that determination had not been made.

[OfficialFrizzo]

Right, and then prior to 1986 it was Horowitz's before the city took it away under eminent domain and it was never used for the purpose they took it away for and he battled them for over a decade to get his land back.

[OfficialFrizzo]

I know about Judge Yaffee and his ignorant decision regarding the injunction. It's really not that difficult to understand that Horowitz had his land forcibly taken from him for governmental use that never occured and he fought for years to get his land back and that the community held no title to the land. It's a great idea to have community gardens but these people made it their way of life in a city and expected it to always be there when they didn't own it. That's short sightedness.

[sebbeto]

And industry at all costs is not desireable either. Would the jobs created be union, have living wages or room for advancement? those questions were never answered. Jobs that only continue cycles of poverty are beneficial in a capitalist system because they reduce costs. but is that just?

There is plenty of wealth in their native countries, and plenty of raw materials. the blend of capitalism and socialism is less to blame than the corruption that can hide behind any system.

[sebbeto]

In this case it's not that they wanted to necessarily recreate their impoverished homeland as much as their were questions about who the rightful owner of this property was. at least one judge believed that it belonged to the City and did not have to be resold to Ralph Horowitz. it was the City council at the behest of Jan Perry who made that decision for undisclosed reasons.