Ungrateful Bastards And The Celebrities Who Love Them

[WildCat]

40 arrested in urban garden eviction (http://my.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20060613/448e3840_3421_1334520060613698713088):

LOS ANGELES - Sheriff's deputies evicted people from an urban community garden to make room for a warehouse Tuesday, touching off a furious protest in which actress Daryl Hannah and others climbed into a walnut tree or chained themselves to concrete-filled barrels. More than 40 people were arrested.

...Dozens of protesters chanted, "We're here and we're not going to leave!" in Spanish, blew whistles and blocked traffic in the surrounding streets. Protesters linked arms and sat on the tracks. Officers dragged some protesters away.

...Horowitz accused the farmers of ingratitude, saying they had sued him and their supporters had picketed his home and office.

"I feel that the gardeners have been on the land for 14 years, almost 15 years for free. After 15 years, you say thank you," he said.
So why doesn't Daryl Hannah, Willie Nelson, and the other celebrities donate some land for the "farmers"? Guess it's cheaper to let them squat on someone else's land. :rolleyes:

[Just thinking]

Isn't it private proeprty?

Isn't this a sort of eminent domain for the proptesters? (The protesters issuing their eminent domain to the rightful owner.)

I would just love to see how DH would react if the local governments felt they needed her land and she had no say in it. Me thinks her political reasoning would take a rapid 180 turn of opinion.

[WildCat]

You know, Willie Nelson has quite a large ranch near Austin, TX. Surely he wouldn't mind if a few hundred gardeners started using it for their own purposes? I mean, he supported them using someone else's property.

I seriously would pay money to see all those yahoos bussed to Willie's ranch and told to start plowing.

[drkitten]

Isn't it private proeprty?

Isn't this a sort of eminent domain for the proptesters?

How does California law handle the idea of "prescriptive easement"?

This case may not be as clear-cut as simply chanting "private property."

From Wikipedia:


Easements by prescription, also called prescriptive easements, are implied easements that give the easement holder a right to use another person's property for the purpose the easement holder has used the property for a certain number of years, which varies from state to state. Prescriptive easement doctrine is not the same as adverse possession doctrine, which allows someone to acquire ownership of the title to a property by asserting possession of the property for the legally required period; in some states, additional requirements apply. For example, in California, the adverse possession statute requires the "adverse possessor" to assert possession of the property AND pay all property taxes for at least five years. Prescriptive easements are a type of implied easement, in that they arise even though they are not expressly created or recorded. Unlike other implied easements, however, prescriptive easements are hostile (i.e., without the consent of the true property owner). Prescriptive easements do not convey the title to the property in question, only the right to utilize the property for a particular purpose. They often require less strict requirements of proof than fee simple adverse possession.

Once they become legally binding, easements by prescription hold the same legal weight as written or implied easements. Before they become binding, they hold no legal weight and are broken if the true property owner acts to defend his ownership rights. Easement by prescription is typically found in legal systems based on common law, although other legal systems may also allow easement by prescription.

If the squatters had been paying the property taxes on this lot for the past five years, then under California law, they could claim not only the right to farm it, but outright ownership through the doctrine of "adverse possession."

My understanding is that to merely claim an "easement," e.g., the right to farm on this land, they don't need to have paid the taxes, merely to have used the property for that purpose for that same period.

If the farmers have been using the land for the past five years, then they've got a very good case that they've established the legal right to continue to farm that land, with or without the owner's consent.



I would just love to see how DH would react if the local governments felt they needed her land and she had no say in it.

Not quite fair. The property owner has had say in it. He's had fourteen years of say, by his own admission, and hasn't objected yet. At some point, his failure to object becomes legally established as permission.....

[Metullus]

Before they become binding, they hold no legal weight and are broken if the true property owner acts to defend his ownership rights.At a guess I would say that since the property owner is now acting to defend his ownership the easement is not enforceable.



Also - From Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Abridged Edition:

"Prescriptive Easement.

A right to use another's property which is not inconsistent with the owner's rights and which is acquired by a use, open and notorious, adverse and continious for the statutory period (e.g. twenty years)." *snip*

Lawyers out there - what is meant by "which is not inconsistent with the owner's rights"?


Emphasis mine

[WildCat]

Not quite fair. The property owner has had say in it. He's had fourteen years of say, by his own admission, and hasn't objected yet. At some point, his failure to object becomes legally established as permission.....
If you'd bothered to read the article you would have seen this:
The landowner said in a telephone interview that he was paying $25,000 to $30,000 a month in mortgage and other land costs.
He allowed them to garden there for 15 years on his dime, now he has decided to use the land for the purpose it is zoned for and this is what he gets.

Ungrateful bastards is exactly what they are.

[kittynh]

yeah, though there was a movement in the US for community gardens on old lots. The book, "Seed Folk" is a wonderful fictional account of such a garden. The thinking was to bring the neighborhood "up" by making a dirty lot "pretty". But it was all very informal.

I'm sure it has since gone where people say stuff like "This is MY garden" or "you can't have any of MY cucumbers" like most socialist idealistic plans.

[NoZed Avenger]

If the farmers have been using the land for the past five years, then they've got a very good case that they've established the legal right to continue to farm that land, with or without the owner's consent.

Not quite fair. The property owner has had say in it. He's had fourteen years of say, by his own admission, and hasn't objected yet. At some point, his failure to object becomes legally established as permission.....

If he gave permission during this time period, however, there is no adverse possession to begin with, as their use of the land is not adverse at all.

[SezMe]

I don't have a cite (heard it on the radio) but I did hear that some rich foundation has made a full-value offer to buy the land so it can remain a garden.

[Skeptic]

The celebrities don't love the ungrateful bastards; the celebrities love themselves. The point is, as Tom Lehrer put it, for the celebrity to proclaim that "I hate poverty, war, and injustice--unlike you squares!"

[David Swidler]

The celebrities don't love the ungrateful bastards; the celebrities love themselves. The point is, as Tom Lehrer put it, for the celebrity to proclaim that "I hate poverty, war, and injustice--unlike you squares!"

[Tom Lehrer]
"We are the Folk Song Army
Every one of us cares
We all hate poverty, war and injustice-
Unlike the rest of you squares.

There are innocuous folk songs, yeah,
But we regard 'em with scorn
The folks who sing them have no social conscience-
Why, they don't even care if Jimmy crack corn.

The tune don't have to be clever
And it doesn't matter if you put a couple of extra syllables in to a line
It sounds more ethnic if it ain't good English
And it don't even gotta rhyme
(Excuse me; "rhyne").

Remember the war against Franco
The kind where each of us belongs
Though he may have won all the battles,
We had all the good songs!

So, join the Folk Song Army
Guitars are the weapons we bring
In the fight against poverty, war and injustice
Ready
Aim
Sing!
[/Tom Lehrer]

[Just thinking]

... He allowed them to garden there for 15 years on his dime, now he has decided to use the land for the purpose it is zoned for and this is what he gets.

Ungrateful bastards is exactly what they are.

Exactly -- they are basically proclaiming that they know what's better for this land than the owner does. How is this any different (for the rightful owner) than some form of eminent domain imposed by a local government?

[Just thinking]

The celebrities don't love the ungrateful bastards; the celebrities love themselves.

This is something new? ;)

[WildCat]

Exactly -- they are basically proclaiming that they know what's better for this land than the owner does. How is this any different (for the rightful owner) than some form of eminent domain imposed by a local government?
At least the gov't pays for the land in eminent domain cases. These yahoos want it for free, and they also want the owner to keep paying the bills on it.

Perhaps "ungrateful bastards" is too nice of a term, but you know w/ the infamous "rule 8" and all...

[drkitten]

At a guess I would say that since the property owner is now acting to defend his ownership the easement is not enforceable.

Not quite. The easement becomes "enforceable" when the necessary period of time has passed (which in California is five years); if the other conditions are met, then the owner has basically lost his chance to defend his ownership through five years of inaction.

Of course, if the owner had given permission, then it's not "adverse possession" (as NZA pointed out) and the question of easement doesn't arise.

But contra Wildcat:

He allowed them to garden there for 15 years on his dime, now he has decided to use the land for the purpose it is zoned for and this is what he gets.

.... the whole point of an easement -- and it's enshrined into common law -- is that after enough time passes, the "customary rights" of the people trump the owners' wishes.

(Oh, and the primary difference between an easement and eminent domain, in this instance, is that an easement is the recognition of a customary right that has demonstrably already existed for some time, while eminent domain is the taking of property for a new use. Basically -- if using the land for farming were a hardship for the property owner, he should have taken action ten years ago....)

[WildCat]

Not quite. The easement becomes "enforceable" when the necessary period of time has passed (which in California is five years); if the other conditions are met, then the owner has basically lost his chance to defend his ownership through five years of inaction.
I was mistaken that Horowitz had the land for 15 years. He actually bought it in 2003, w/ no such easement attached. Which is why a judge ordered the Sheriffs to run the freeloading gardeners and the B-list celebrities desperately trying to get their names in the news off of the land.

Horowitz did offer to sell the land to the "farmers", for $16 million. Not surprisingly, they wanted to get it for free instead.

Now they won't even get a flower pot outside the entrance of the new warehouse being built there. Easement, schmeasement.

eta: Source (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2030497&page=1).

[Metullus]

Not quite. The easement becomes "enforceable" when the necessary period of time has passed (which in California is five years); if the other conditions are met, then the owner has basically lost his chance to defend his ownership through five years of inaction.
If, however, the present owner has owned the property for fewer than the statutory 5 years, and no easement was attached at the time of purchase, then his action to defend his ownership will, in fact, prevent the establishment of an easement.


ETA: Wildcat beat me to the facts.