Re: Urban Garden
In the past day I have posted articles related to the Closing of the LA Urban Garden issue. I have had to revise my opinion at least once on the issue and have thought a lot about the Urban Garden and would like to officially way in on the issue since I am more informed than before.
First of all this issue is not a racist issue as some of the activists would like to call it. As a a stretch it could be a racist issue based on the fact that with urban development of lofts, old buildings, and the general trend of society it would seem that an Urban Garden would be a desirable asset for most neighborhoods in an urban area, the failure to see the potential of the urban garden to society and overall significance and positive impact on the neighborhood it serves might be a racist issue. I know that plenty of urban dwellers probably all over the city would welcome the chance to have a plot of land for their very own garden. I don't know what the criteria is but I'm sure the city could make space available on fourteen acres of land for anyone who wished to have a garden.
In any case the failure to see the positive impact for the community and the city as well as the international model that could be established for an urban garden within a major technological and entertainment analytic zone could be viewed as racist and classist but the bottom line is this the land was taken from the original owner. It was land that he did not want to give up so he deserved it back and whatever he wants to do with it is his right to do. However if the city were thinking forward they would go ahead and purchase the land from the original owner for a negotiated price and use the garden as an international model, chamber of commerce attraction, and as a starting point for developing the surrounding areas which I have know clue as to the status of it now but if the original owner wants to build a warehouse on the land, and the city wanted to build an incinerator on the land, I can only assume from my urban studies training that the area would have to be bordered by an impoverished area or neighborhood that could truly benefit from a city garden that could potentially be opened to all residents all over the city.
Anyway an update has come up regarding the issue, the links is LA Times and I do like to keep my writings so I'm not going to delete the above paragraphs. Apparently the Trust for Public Land and Annenburg Foundation have offered the owner 16 million dollars for the property and he has refused it because of antisemetic remarks made towards him and his family by the gardeners in front of his house. Due to the long history of antisemitism and the world and the actions taken because of it this is perfectly understandable. Personally I think one concession that could be offered is to name the garden after the owner as well as to open the garden to the whole city not just poor residents, this might a go a long way towards closing the deal. Personally I am going to call the LA mayors office and make the above suggestions.
First of all this issue is not a racist issue as some of the activists would like to call it. As a a stretch it could be a racist issue based on the fact that with urban development of lofts, old buildings, and the general trend of society it would seem that an Urban Garden would be a desirable asset for most neighborhoods in an urban area, the failure to see the potential of the urban garden to society and overall significance and positive impact on the neighborhood it serves might be a racist issue. I know that plenty of urban dwellers probably all over the city would welcome the chance to have a plot of land for their very own garden. I don't know what the criteria is but I'm sure the city could make space available on fourteen acres of land for anyone who wished to have a garden.
In any case the failure to see the positive impact for the community and the city as well as the international model that could be established for an urban garden within a major technological and entertainment analytic zone could be viewed as racist and classist but the bottom line is this the land was taken from the original owner. It was land that he did not want to give up so he deserved it back and whatever he wants to do with it is his right to do. However if the city were thinking forward they would go ahead and purchase the land from the original owner for a negotiated price and use the garden as an international model, chamber of commerce attraction, and as a starting point for developing the surrounding areas which I have know clue as to the status of it now but if the original owner wants to build a warehouse on the land, and the city wanted to build an incinerator on the land, I can only assume from my urban studies training that the area would have to be bordered by an impoverished area or neighborhood that could truly benefit from a city garden that could potentially be opened to all residents all over the city.
Anyway an update has come up regarding the issue, the links is LA Times and I do like to keep my writings so I'm not going to delete the above paragraphs. Apparently the Trust for Public Land and Annenburg Foundation have offered the owner 16 million dollars for the property and he has refused it because of antisemetic remarks made towards him and his family by the gardeners in front of his house. Due to the long history of antisemitism and the world and the actions taken because of it this is perfectly understandable. Personally I think one concession that could be offered is to name the garden after the owner as well as to open the garden to the whole city not just poor residents, this might a go a long way towards closing the deal. Personally I am going to call the LA mayors office and make the above suggestions.
posted by blackhippychick @ 9:24 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home