i got it, 350 families have come to depend on these plots for some level of their sustinance. An incenerator seems like a stupid idea, and I don't have any data to support my oppnion. Having said that -- there are millions of people in LA that have paid tax money to improve infrastructure of the city -part of which seems to have gone to have this land be some vital part of the planning.

I am for culture. I am for the poor having a fair shake -- and in this case, it seems that the fair thing for most of the people of LA would be to find the urban farmers a new area to farm.

Incinerators are a solution only to the end-problem, to the symptom of the 'illness' that is a constant supply of garbage. By creating a solution at the beginning of the problem, not only will it be cheaper in the long-run, but it will most likely also decrease short-term monetary issues.

How much does it cost to build an incinerator? I don't know the costs, but I would assume hundreds of millions of dollars. By creating an educational/community agriculture, the knowledge potential will be mostly on a voluntary basis with very few tax dollars going into it. Why not create a similar project in any of LAs numerous parks? That would make just as much sense, but it would never happen, because those are community recreation areas. There is no difference between the two types, it's just that in this case underpriviliged families are benefitting.

On the flipside, I don't see why the guy is still paying $30,000 a month in mortgage, when he could sell it and purchase a less controversial plot. Also, I was under the impression that LA's infrastructure does not suffer from a lack of 'build-up' and quite the opposite it may be suffering from similar myopia that underlies the incinerator v. community garden conflict. Such as: let's build a bigger highway since there's always traffic. But bigger highways have more people driving on them, thereby having... wait for it... more traffic, and a lack of relief.

Why not create a similar project in any of LAs numerous parks?

I meant an incinerator when saying similar project.

why not negotiate with the property owner/developer to include a green roof on top of whatever building is developed on the land?  The farm lives on, the property owner cashes in.

And while they're at it, how about running the new development off the grid on solar.  There's an opportunity for a big story on how economic growth and sustainability don't have to come at the expense of the other.  It's a new world, let's start thinking that way.

We are facing a reality, running out of room.  More people means more development, more consumption of land, water and energy and other natural resources and a loss of habitat.

If this 14 acres is not converted for development, it will just happen somewhere else.  As long as population continues to explode, so will 'progress'.  People need room to live, work and factories need room to provide goods.

The best practical solution to allow room for everyone to live in harmony with nature is family planning.  I have no children, plan on having one one, and adopting a needy child.  Julia "Butterfly" Hill answered a personal question of mine that she is only interested in men who cannot have children.  

First, a couple of offhand comments:

it seems that the fair thing for most of the people of LA would be to find the urban farmers a new area to farm.

Think about what kind of time and what sort of resources would be necessary to re-establish a farm ecosystem in another urban area.  Then think again.

On the flipside, I don't see why the guy is still paying $30,000 a month in mortgage, when he could sell it and purchase a less controversial plot.

Because he's getting a sweet deal on equity perhaps?  Now to the most substantive of comments:

We are facing a reality, running out of room.  More people means more development, more consumption of land, water and energy and other natural resources and a loss of habitat.

If this 14 acres is not converted for development, it will just happen somewhere else.  As long as population continues to explode, so will 'progress'.  People need room to live, work and factories need room to provide goods. This is a lot closer to the real issue than what many on Gristmill dare to venture.  I don't see how "as long as population continues to explode, so will 'progress'" when about half of human "population" (a derogatory term, though I'm not sure you're aware of it) lives on less than $2/ day.  Are those the people who "need room to provide goods"?  I don't think so.  It's not just "population"; the more egregious sin is that we are birthing consumers out of our wombs.  We need to think, systematically, and somehow, about a capitalist system that has sprouted a consumer society that has sprouted an ecological crisis.

OK, LSam.  Uprooting consumerism is a tough row to hoe, but it will be a very worthwhile effort.

It strikes me as very odd that the status of the South Central Farm should remain so controversial among Grist readers.  Not long ago, many of us were eulogizing the late Jane Jacobs, praising her vision of urban neighborhoods at their best, which includes diversity of people both resident and transient, diversity of the appearance of the cityscape segment by segment, diversity of functions among the elements of the cityscape, and many kinds of forums in which residents and transients meet and interact.  And then, one of Grist's Friday Interactivists was a 6th-grade girl in Philadelphia, who told us that she became an environmentalist through her volunteering at a thriving community garden in her inner-city neighborhood.

Are we now to believe that the hopes of Jane Jacobs and of the young Philadelphian, as well as of the defenders of the South Central farm, are irresponsible and quixotic?

The definition of "development" is a bit vague, and relative, meaning different things to different observers.  It seems to me that, given the kind of society we are, with de-facto generational segregation, even if the population  remains numerically stable, with new births and immigration balancing deaths, and even if it remains geographically stable, the will for freedom and "empowerment" of the younger generations will probably always produce some demand for new housing and for new kinds of employment.  But I do not see at all why such development should ever be disruptive of established neighborhoods.  Certainly there is no reason at all why it should destroy what is good in those neighborhoods.

Inasmuch as decisions regarding the disposition of any piece of urban real estate are made solely with regard to profitability, whether to private investors or to unaccountable government agencies, that kind of decision-making process is always potentially abusive of the real interests of the affected community.  And recent American history can no doubt provide us with countless illustrations.

LSam, I would be very interested to know why "population" is a derogatory term.  I think I understand -- or rather, I can see how it is derogatory, according to the ethical anthropological humanist values that are characteristic of the way I think about life, the universe and everything.  But my guess is, you are coming at this from a rather different perspective.

LSam, I would be very interested to know why "population" is a derogatory term.  I think I understand -- or rather, I can see how it is derogatory, according to the ethical anthropological humanist values that are characteristic of the way I think about life, the universe and everything.  But my guess is, you are coming at this from a rather different perspective.  I guess I see it this way: "population" is composed of individual living, breathing, thinking people who form communities (and social classes) with cultures of their own.  Treating them as "population" is like giving each of them a number -- "you're number seven billion on this planet, and nothing more."

When we think of "reducing (human) population," we think of getting rid of other people -- we certainly don't view ourselves as "population," nor do we take things into our own hands and "reduce population" by killing ourselves.  "Population" can thus easily be a code for "those dirty smelly masses" as opposed to "us clean intelligent elites."

Well, that's how I see it.