Plurk FaceBook Twitter 收進你的MyShare個人書籤 MyShare
  顯示內嵌語法

教育專題 ◎ 2006-06-23
══════════════════【立報】═══════════════════
教 育 專 題 深 入 報 導《2006-06-23》

本期內容
  ◎國際專題:爭取最後淨土 洛杉磯官民過招 
  ◎中南區農地的尾聲 
  ◎吾思吾師 找回教師熱情與尊嚴徵文比賽 



國際專題:爭取最後淨土 洛杉磯官民過招
  策劃、編譯■唐澄暐、侯美如
街景繁榮的美國洛杉磯,在41街與阿拉米達街(Alameda Streets)叉口處卻有一座佔地14英畝的中南區農地(South Central Farm),這塊都市內的農田號稱「洛杉磯最後的綠地」,仰賴其維生的幾乎都是自給自足的清貧戶。近年因洛杉磯市府未經告知便變賣田地一事,官民雙方起了衝突。

這塊地本來在80年後期被政府從9位地主手中徵收。其中最大的地主「阿拉米達」(全名「阿拉米達—芭芭拉投資公司」Alameda-Bar-bara Investment Company)擁有80%的地權,當時該公司合夥人為拉夫‧何洛威茲(Ralph Horowitz)與雅各‧李鮑(Jacob Libaw)。原先政府打算將該地改建為垃圾焚化區,在當地民眾群起反對之下只好作罷。在接下來一連串的政府徵用權訴訟官司中,洛市政府同意,阿拉米達公司原屬地在10年內都將作為公有綠地之用、不挪作政府私用,並同意若政府有意違反承諾,阿拉米達有權第一個站出來反對。

而在民眾對於垃圾焚化區規劃的抗議之下,中央終於在1992年釋出這塊14畝的大農田作為公用農耕地,並劃分為360個小區塊,一時間中南區農地被譽為全國最大的都市綠地。2年後,中南區農地依法被歸到港務部名下,這個新頭家並與洛杉磯地方食物銀行(Food-bank)合作,繼續以「公用綠地」為方針經營該地。至今食物銀行仍是中南區農地的經營者。

然而到了1995年,政府卻有大動作:它與阿拉米達的後繼公司「李鮑—何洛威茲投資公司」(Libaw-Horowitz Investment Company,LHIC)協商,打算將14畝的綠地全數售出。雖然LHIC簽下政府的購買合約,並於隔年10月送還審核,洛杉磯市議會卻遲遲不通過該筆交易。為數522萬7,200美元的合約就這樣擱置。

不滿政府反覆作風的LHIC並於2002年提出告訴,要求政府履行合約。對LHIC怨言考慮再三的洛市最後終於同意以505萬美元與LHIC達成協議;次年8月13日市議會也在祕密集會之下通過該筆交易,洛杉磯的最後一塊綠地繞了一大圈又回到何洛威茲氏等人的手中。

而食物銀行在同年9月23日接到政府公文後,隨即寄發通知信函給將近350個家庭;那些收信人都是靠這塊田地過活的低收入戶,他們靠著自耕或與以物易物的方式,彼此相安過著自給自足的生活,並偶爾為社會大眾舉辦有吃有看又有逛的農夫市場、慶典等文化活動。得知賴以維生的土地將要落到私人地主的手上,當地農人們馬上集結力量組織成自助團體「South Central Farmers Feeding Families」,試圖挽回土地使用權轉移的局面,並求助於市議會,要求勿通過該筆土地交易。然而,年底12月11日時,14畝的土地所有權還是全部轉移到拉夫‧何洛威茲及其家族信託、李鮑家族企業(Libaw Family LP),以及艾森沙格漢保全(Timothy M. Ison and Shaghan Securities)、LLC等公司行號的名下。

何洛威茲馬上在隔年(2004)1月8日,對所有農地使用者提出撤離通知,要求他們在2月底之前搬出,South Central Farmers Feeding Families只好也訴諸法律途徑,一狀告上法院,試圖證明市政府和何洛威茲之間的交易是無效的。洛杉磯最高法院在聽證會後暫時核發臨時禁止令、隨後又提出初步禁制令,裁決在最後判決結果出爐前,何洛威茲不得在土地上進行任何開發。對於這個判決,洛杉磯政府和何洛威茲也都表示同意。

然而,2005年6月30日時上訴法院卻撤銷高等法院先前的判決。於是,若原告們不在40天內向加州最高法院直接訴請重審上訴法院的判決,這塊洛杉磯最後的公有綠地將會在3個月內成為歷史。洛杉磯城市憲章明定,政府可自由賣出被標示為「無使用需要」的任何不動產,但在售出之前,政府必須遵守多道程序,以確保資源不被浪費;這條規章的本意在於確保政府只轉賣無官方利用價值的資源,以免都市資源都被變賣成金錢放進政府口袋,也避免無謂的資源浪費,高等法院便是依據此規章,裁定市政府該筆土地產權的轉賣無效。然而,上訴法院卻表示,由於政府尚未將中南部農地標為不再使用的土地,該地的買賣並不受城市憲章規範。

也就是說,只要政府不為某些不動產蓋標記,那些資源的買賣都可以不受前述城市憲章的監督。上訴法院提出的新詮釋觀點完全推翻城市憲章制定的用意,更未考慮到政府或是市民的真正需求,反而賦予政府濫用資源的權利,眼看洛杉磯最後一塊淨土就要受怪手包圍襲擊,裡頭居民今後該何去何從,又是另一個社會問題。

(資料來源/http://sf.indymedia.org/news/ 2006/06/1729691.php)

Since 1992, the 14 acres of property located at 41st and Alameda Streets in Los Angeles have been used as a community garden or farm. The land has been divided into 360 plots and is believed to be one of the largest urban gardens in the country.

The City of Los Angeles acquired the 14-acre property by eminent domain in the late 1980s, tak-ing it from nine private landowners. The largest of these owners, Alameda-Barbara Investment Company ("Alameda"), owned approximately 80 percent of the site. The partners of Alameda were Ralph Horowitz and Jacob Libaw. The City origi-nally intended to use the property for a trash incin-erator, but abandoned that plan in the face of public protest organized by the community.

As part of the eminent domain proceedings, the City granted Alameda a right of first refusal if, within 10 years, the City determined that the parcel formerly owned by Alameda was no longer re-quired for public use.

Following the uprising in 1992, the City set aside the 14-acre site for use as a community garden. In 1994, the City transferred title to the property by ordinance to its Harbor Department. When it re-ceived title to the property, the Harbor Department contracted with the Los Angeles Regional Food-bank to operate the property as a community gar-den; the Foodbank has been operating it as such since then.

In 1995, the City began negotiating with Libaw-Horowitz Investment Company ("LHIC"), the successor company to Alameda, to sell it the entire 14-acre property. The City's negotiators sent LHIC a purchase agreement, and LHIC exe-cuted the agreement and returned it to the City in October 1996. The terms of the agreement ex-pressly made it contingent on City Council ap-proval. The City Council never approved the a-greement, and the sale was not completed. The proposed agreement fixed the sale amount at $5,227,200.

In 2002, LHIC filed suit against the City for not executing the purchase agreement. The City suc-cessfully demurred three times to LHIC's com-plaint, but then agreed to sell the 14-acre property to Ralph Horowitz and his business partners for $5,050,000. On August 13, 2003, the City Council discussed and approved the terms of the settlement in closed session, and then passed a motion to ap-prove the settlement.

On September 23, 2003, the City sent the Foodbank a letter notifying it of the sale. The Foodbank, in turn, distributed the letter to the ap-proximately 350 families that were using plots at the garden to grow their own food. The families using the plots are low income and depend heavily upon the food they grow to feed themselves. In addition to growing food for themselves, the people in-volved with the community garden hold Farmers' Markets, festivals and other cultural events for the public at large.

After receiving the notice from the City inform-ing them that the garden property was being sold to a private developer, the farmers formed an organi-zation-South Central Farmers Feeding Fami-lies-and began organizing to retain their right to use the property. South Central Farmers Feeding Families appealed to the City Council to prevent the sale from going through. On December 11, 2003, however, the City transferred title to the property to Ralph Horowitz and the Horowitz Family Trust, The Libaw Family LP, Timothy M. Ison and Shaghan Securities, LLC.

On January 8, 2004, Ralph Horowitz issued a notice setting February 29, 2004, as the termination date for the community garden. In the meantime before February 29, members of the South Central Farmers Feeding Families obtained legal counsel (Hadsell & Stormer, Inc., and Kaye, Mclane & Bednarski LLP) and filed a lawsuit seeking to inval-idate the sale of the property. The Los Angeles County Superior Court issued a temporary re-straining order and later a preliminary injunction halting development of the property during the pendency of the lawsuit. Both the City and the Horowitz defendants appealed the Superior Court's order granting the preliminary injunction.

On June 30, 2005, the Court of Appeal reversed the Superior Court's order granting the preliminary injunction. The South Central Farmers Feeding Families have 40 days from June 30 to petition the California Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeal's ruling. If the Supreme Court declines to hear the case, the urban garden will be demolished in about three months.

The Court of Appeal ignored the law and sound public policy in overturning the injunction that was in place on the property. The Los Angeles City Charter allows the City to sell real property it de-termines that it no longer needs. Before selling property it no longer needs, the City must comply with various procedures designed to ensure that the City does not squander resources by selling prop-erty it needs. The intent of the Charter is that the City sell only property it no longer needs. The City's sale of the garden property to the Horowitz interests did not comply with the procedures re-quired for sale of property no longer needed by the City. The Court of Appeal held, nevertheless, that the City did not have to comply with these provi-sions because it had not determined that it no longer needed the garden property.

In other words, the Court of Appeal ruled that the City can avoid its own charter's procedure for selling property simply by stopping short of deter-mining whether the property it intends to sell is no longer needed by the City. By keeping the property it intends to sell designated as property it needs, the City can go ahead and sell it without having to comply with the charter provision for the sale of real property. The new procedure being approved by the Court of Appeal defeats the very purpose of the charter provision applying to the sale of real property. It encourages the type of abuse the charter provision applying to the sale of real property was meant to curtail.
(回目錄)



中南區農地的尾聲
   
法律訴訟、民謠歌手的懇求,甚至連最後注入的1千萬美金都救不了中南區農地。

週二黎明前,警長的副手就已經進駐,以驅逐這塊14英畝土地上的農民,這塊位在林蔭散步街和長堤大道之間,整篇工業帶中罕見的一塊綠地。為了延長多年的土地抗爭,抗議者把自己鎖在裡面的導管上。

女演員達利兒‧漢娜(《追殺比爾》中的獨眼護士)和環保人士約翰‧奎格雷,以及少數示威者呼喊口號,揮動旗幟,同時攜帶棍棒和散彈槍的郡警部和洛杉磯警察局警官,包圍著抗議者逮人。

「朋友們,這就是尾聲了。」農民代表人之一鐵澤索墨克引用歌手Jim Morrison的話。「但我們還不知道。這只是另一個章節。」

抗爭的章節可以回溯到90年代中期,關於知名人物的參予和社區運動者,以及政治壓力和複雜的土地交易。開發者拉夫‧何洛威茲在20年前買下這塊地,但因政府的徵用而失去了地權,後來又根據政府的價格把地買回去。在這段過渡期間,這一大片土地被350多個家庭使用,種植胡椒、胡安葉、南瓜和當地草藥。

但就在何洛威茲收回財產,準備轉型成為商業用地之後,農民坐在貧瘠的土地上。他們提出61次的所有權要求以阻擋開發,但都被法院退回,而他們要求的暫時延緩命令,也被拒絕了。

他們向知名人物尋求支援,例如漢娜、民謠歌手瓊‧貝茲、音樂家班‧哈波和妻子,女演員羅拉‧鄧。

他們還遊說市長Antonio Villaraigosa,以他的影響力來維持這塊土地的開放。經過許多不同的管道,市長辦公室得以爭取6百萬的捐贈,但遠少於何洛威茲最初要求賣地的1,630萬美金。

上周,安能堡基金會發布驚人之舉,提供了1千萬現金,還同意籌措剩下的6百萬。

但據聞何洛威茲對於被農場支持者視為惡棍感到非常憤怒,因而拒絕了議價並要求農民搬走。上個週二早晨5點,在洛杉磯警察和消防局的協助下,洛杉磯治安局65名戴頭盔的警力進駐。

警力穿過農場邊緣鐵鍊連成的圍籬,擺脫了把自己鎖在農場裡的示威者。接著,推土機前來為消防車開路。在中午之後,消防車駛進並伸出雲梯,終於把剩下的抗議者從樹上抓下。

洛杉磯警局逮捕了27名有拒絕驅散嫌疑的人,治安局逮捕了包括漢娜在內的17人,這群人疑似違反法庭指令,妨礙警官。

整個場面一片混亂,但大部分都很和平。示威者指責警方分裂社區。然後又有反對示威者控訴農民分裂社區,接著吉他手、鼓手也陸續前來。

裝備著刺耳的口哨,拿石頭猛敲一只瓶子,農民安德烈‧羅德里茲憤怒地保護他倚賴的地方。

「我們想要回到母親的土地上,為我們的家人獲得營養。」她用西班牙文說。「我們會繼續奮鬥。我們不會走。我們都是一起的,都不會離開。我們只是農民,也沒有錢,但我們依舊很重要。」

直接到辦公室找何洛威茲的持續企圖都沒有成功,儘管他告訴美聯社說農民忘恩負義。儘管農民的委任律師丹‧史托姆表示,7月仍有一次上法庭的日子可以爭取土地權,何洛威茲卻已經表示,他絕不會把土地賣給農民或贊助者。

就在驅逐之後的幾個小時,市長與何洛威茲通電話,並重申支持安能堡基金會的1千6百萬元付款。

但市長後來告訴記者,何洛威茲表示,這塊地的地價不只這些錢。何洛威茲也告訴市長,他覺得個人遭到農民的誹謗,所以除非把土地上的每個人都趕走,否則他不打算賣地。

「我告訴他從我的有利位置來看,這遠超過公平出價,這是一個讓大家在市區有一塊花園的機會,讓我們成為美國最富綠意的城市的機會。」市長表示。「但他(何洛威茲)說,這很好,但他不想接受。」

市長保證會拯救農場,並指派副市長賴瑞‧法蘭克尋求私人捐助來幫農民從何洛威茲手中買下土地。

但價格也是不一定的,市長表示,估計從6百萬到1千萬到1千2百萬,直到最後的標價1千6百萬。

由於許多捐助者認為這塊地根本不值這個價錢,使得市長等人的購地計劃極為困難。

「我了解生意人的投資營利需要。我也尊重並願意維護所有權。」市長表示,「但我也相信我們因為受到一種社區意識和市民的責任的召喚,才會來這邊做正義與正確的事情。我希望地主能注意到這樣的呼喚。」

(資料來源:http://dailynews.com/news/ci_3933788)
(回目錄)



吾思吾師 找回教師熱情與尊嚴徵文比賽
   

送舊迎新囉!迎接新的一年,讓我們滿懷感恩的心,感謝過去教導我們、使我們智慧增長的師長,用一千字以內的短文與大家分享溫馨感人的真人實事。全教會贊助入選者稿酬每字2元,來稿請以電子檔寄young@lihpao.co-m﹐附真實姓名﹑身份字號﹑銀行帳號。本報有權刪修來稿﹐來稿者視為同意本報集結出書時﹐不另支稿酬。

(回目錄)



參觀立報:
http://www.lihpao.com
寫信給小編e-mail:
fiveguys@ms19.hinet.net
立報地址:
台北縣新店市光復路43號
  欲詳完整內容請訂閱立報
電話:02-86676655
傳真:02-82191213
訂報:02-86676655轉214
地址:台北縣新店市復興路43號1樓
每週一至週六出報,每份10元