Daryl Hannah is a tree hugger...literally

[echo_bravo]

Daryl Hannah Arrested for Farm Protest

Actress Daryl Hannah has been arrested while protesting the closure of a Los Angeles community garden. The Splash star, a fervent environmentalist, was charged with trespassing after climbing a tree on the 14-acre garden and refusing to come down as officials attempted to clear the site of activists. Police staged a dawn raid yesterday in an effort to catch protestors like Hannah and singer Joan Baez unaware, and firefighters then used a cherry-picking crane to bring Hannah, farmers and activists down from their perch in a walnut tree. The defiant actress, who became a regular protestor on the site three weeks ago, says, "This is the largest urban farm in the nation. It doesn't cost the city a dime and we'd like to save this farm." The farmland, where some 350 urban farmers grow vegetables and flowers, is to be turned into warehouses and factories. Other celebrities who have offered their support to the farmers include Martin Sheen, Willie Nelson and Lethal Weapon star Danny Glover.

www.imdb.com
__________________________________________________ ____

These celebrities sure didnt have a problem bulldozing over trees to build their mansions, but now they are up in arms over this?!

Fucking self-righteous assholes. Turning that "garden" into a factory or warehouse will do much more good for the community. If they ever stopped and think about how many new jobs it will create for South Central LA.

[ElderPredator]

Wow, good for them though. That does sound like a huge mess. It's ridiculous that a beautiful and profitable farmland should have to be replaced by warehouses but things change.

[Mentiroso]

I love how illegals not only come in illegally but how they also try and take land that is not theirs. Good Job!

Fuck em. The land is not theirs and they should all be arrested and deported (including Hannah for being a dumb twat).

[RustyRazor]

Darryl, Darryl, Darryl...

Protesting the cutting down of our nation's trees...
No, wait...A Los Angeles community garden...

So her and the rest of her "Clan of the Cave Bear" rolled up twenty deep and said "Hell no, we won't go!" and they "Splash" ed her down into an L.A. County jail cell.

Is she a full time activist or is this just a "cause between movie roles"?
Not being mean, just wanna know.

Oh well...
See what happens when Pai Mei rips one of your eyes out for being insolent.....?

[Scarfather]

She breaks the law because they're taking away a veggefarm? Fuck her. Death penalty, please.

[AWP82]

Jesus Christ! Aren't you guys overreacting a little bit? It's not like they're bombing buildings or dealing imported narcotics to our children. They're just protesting. Chill out. The article didn't sound that major. And where did it say anything about "illegals"? Did I miss something? :confused:

[screamer581]

The posts in this thread make me sad.

[echo_bravo]

They're just protesting.

Yeah but you obviously didnt see what the police departmant had to do in order to arrest that cunt. She was so far up in this tall tree that the police departmant had to call in the LA fire departmant and get a latter to get her down. As she was being lowered from the fire department's latter, she was waving her fist in the air like she was fucking Che Guevara. It was all over MSNBC all day yesterday.

Plus as Mentiroso stated, it wasnt their land. The owner could do whatever the fuck he wants to do with it. It will be for the better too.

[echo_bravo]

The posts in this thread make me sad.

Need a tissue?:D

[Mentiroso]

Originally posted by screamer581
The posts in this thread make me sad.

You make Baby Jesus cry. (and that is Jesus, not heyzeus)

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by echo_bravo
Plus as Mentiroso stated, it wasnt their land. The owner could do whatever the fuck he wants to do with it. It will be for the better too.

Who owns the land?

According to the article, some 350 urban farmers grow vegetables and flowers. But who owns it?

City Of Los Angeles?

The article said that "Other celebrities who have offered their support to the farmers", which means that the farmers themselves dont' want to build warehouses in there.

Do they own the land, or does someone else own it?

Or is the city of L.A *forcing* people to sell their land for warehouses? That kind of shit happens every once in a while. If that is the case, I don't see why people would have a problem with this protesting.

[Mentiroso]

Nope, some guy owns it. Said he would be willing to sell it to them for $16 million. I am sure there is no way the illegals could round that up and I guess asking the celebs to chip in from their fortunes would be ridiculous. These celebs do not give a shit about these people or their cause, they just want their name in the paper and in the news. Making it look like they give a shit. If they did care, they would get togehter and pony up the money to help out the mexicans. As you can see, they have not chipped in a dime.

CBS news story explaining who owns it (http://cbs2.com/topstories/local_story_164092146.html)

[Tuukka]

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/05/24/18251311.php

...That article gives a different perspective on things.

And to claim that people have no right to protest against the actions of the CITY OF L.A is ridicilous. Do you remember who pays the the bills? The TAXPAYERS. Yes - People like Daryl Hannah. People like the 350 low-income families who use the area to grow food for themselves.

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by Mentiroso
Nope, some guy owns it. Said he would be willing to sell it to them for $16 million. I am sure there is no way the illegals could round that up and I guess asking the celebs to chip in from their fortunes would be ridiculous. These celebs do not give a shit about these people or their cause, they just want their name in the paper and in the news. Making it look like they give a shit. If they did care, they would get togehter and pony up the money to help out the mexicans. As you can see, they have not chipped in a dime.

CBS news story explaining who owns it (http://cbs2.com/topstories/local_story_164092146.html)

Of course they are not buing the property, because that would be a message to city of L.A and that private owner that "Thank you for fucking us in the ass, we pay you gladly for that".

The article you posted forgot to mention that the area was for public use. Then, AGAINST the wishes of taxpayers City of L.A sold the area to a private owner, betraying the people who use the area - the TAXPAYERS who use the area.

It's not any different than selling your towns central park to a private owner, who decides to stop the park activity and use the area for factories instead.

And then he says that yeah, of course he can sell it back - To private taxpayers who use the park, except that they have to pay OVER THREE TIMES as much money as he paid for it two years earlier.

Now, I'm not sayint that the city of L.A shouldn't act the way it acted. Money is money. I like money myself. The city of L.A displayed their priorities.

But to claim that the farmers and their supporters have no right to act the way they do, is ridicilous. As taxpayers and citizens of L.A they have every right to protest the decisions of their home city.

"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 determines 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 property 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 required 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 provisions 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 determining 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. "

...It's good that people are willing to fight for their rights. Props for them.

[Mentiroso]

bblah blah blah. These people (the legal ones anyway) voted for the officials who run the city. If they govt they voted for did this, well it is their fault. Why should the guy who owns the land get fucked because of it? Not his problem. And of course he will double or triple his money when selling. That is what the real estate game is about. Do not make him seem like a bad guy because if real estate was your gaem, you would do the same.

I do admit it sux that they will lose such a cool thing as a garden that big in the middle of a city, but hey, life goes on.

[AWP82]

EDIT: Nevermind. I'm in too much of a good mood to waste my breath on this debate. Carry on...

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by Mentiroso
bblah blah blah. These people (the legal ones anyway) voted for the officials who run the city. If they govt they voted for did this, well it is their fault. Why should the guy who owns the land get fucked because of it? Not his problem. And of course he will double or triple his money when selling. That is what the real estate game is about. Do not make him seem like a bad guy because if real estate was your gaem, you would do the same.

I do admit it sux that they will lose such a cool thing as a garden that big in the middle of a city, but hey, life goes on.

Why do you keep on insisting that the people in the area are illegals? Can you back that up?

Anyway,

If a part of population votes for an official, it doesn't mean that the decisions of that official can't be critizised. That's like saying that the action of Bush can't be critizised because he was voted into the office. Or Clinton couldn't have been critizised when he was the president.

The ability to critizise the democratically selected officials is an important part of democracy. Even civil disobedience is an important part of democracy, because it allows the people to fight against establishment which has broken it's promises.

Anyway, I'm not sure you read the article I posted.

According to it, the problem is not that the private owner want's to build factories. The problem is that the farmers claim city ILLEGALLY sold city's property to the private owner, and in process broke the charter law. The city found a loophole in the law, and abused it. What the farmers and their supporters are trying to is to remove that loophole, because it essentially makes the charter law useless.

And why does the charter law exist, if it is useless and can be ignored thanks to a loophole in the law?

If the decisions would have been made in court, that the city indeed broke the law, then the deal would have been deemed illegal, and the property would have been returned to city, the money to the buyer, and the farmers could have kept the land.

This is what they are aiming for.

I'm not an expert in law, but that's what I got out of the article. Is the article biased? Sure it is, since it's written by a party who has personal interest in the matter. But they seemed to make a reasonable, intelligent point.

I'm not familiar with gardens.

But I'm familiar with youth culture, and places for youth culture. Every skate park, every music house for young people, etc, have to fight for their existence. These places are commonly owned by the city, and often the city is not interested in serving the young people, if they can make money by destroying these places and selling them to private owners.

So in my home town I have often seen young people to stand up for their rights. Sometimes they have been forced to civil disobedience, because it was the ONLY way they had left.

And you know what? It often paid off.

They managed to keep those places. And if not, the city was forced to give them a new one, because the public pressure was too big.

Cities are supposed to serve the taxpayers, not vice versa. And if the taxpayers feel that their city is not taking their interests into account, they have the moral right to protest.

Sometimes they lose, sometimes the win. But it's always a battle worth fighting for, because it always sets an example for others to follow.

To me it seems pretty fucked up that people in here are condemning normal folks who have been building a popular and succesful gardening community close to 15 years now, and then the city betrays them through a loophole in the law and fucks them in the ass.

Maybe you think that interests and opinions of 350 families (which translates to well over 1000 people) and all the people who support them (which is with no doubt a remarkably bigger amount of L.A taxpayers) don't matter, that's fine. If you think it was worth 5 million for the city to not to listen their needs, that's fine. It's a question of prioritites, and people have different priorities.

But to say that the farmers and their supporters didn't have a moral right to protest, is just plain silly.

[Mentiroso]

Well I never said they did not have a right to protest. Once all is said and done though, they should be charged for the time of the police and the firemen used to control the crowd. That is only fair.

I keep saying illegal because several of the articles I read before posting here mentioned that the farm has many illegal workers on it. I just assumed they were there protesting along with everyone else.

Yes I did read your article.

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by Mentiroso
Well I never said they did not have a right to protest. Once all is said and done though, they should be charged for the time of the police and the firemen used to control the crowd. That is only fair.


It seemed to me that a lot of people threw hateful remarks towards the farmers, with a general attitude of what the fuck they are complaining, fuck them, throw them to jail, etc.

And that didn't seem quite fair, since the farmers did have a solid reasoning for their protestion, regardless of whether one agrees with their stand or not.

I can see what you're saying about forcing the farmers to pay the bills for the police and firemen, but I dunno... Thing about civil disobedience is, that it's typically the last resort for civilians to stand up for their rights.

And I think it's an important part of democratic system. I DON'T think that people should need to pay money to protect their rights. For example when a bunch of kids are taken into custody because they do civil obedience in order to save their skate park - I don't think they should pay for the police interference.

Because if they do need to pay for it, it sends a message that you can't do civil disobedience. Because if you do, you need to pay for it, and usually people who do it can't afford to pay for it.

Sure, if some people are protesting about an issue I don't agree with, it annoys me that my tax money is used to put down civil disobedience. But I don't complain about it, because it's something a democratic society has to afford - Some day it might be ME who is fighting for what I consider important. And I don't want anyone telling me that if I protest, I have to pay a big chunk of money for it.

Because when that happens, we are taking one step away from democracy, and towards totalitarism. And that ain't cool.

If somebody is causing trouble just for the heck of it, I'm comfortable if they have to pay for it. But not when they have a moral right to protest.

[echo_bravo]

do admit it sux that they will lose such a cool thing as a garden that big in the middle of a city, but hey, life goes on.

Amen to that.

Nevermind. I'm in too much of a good mood to waste my breath on this debate. Carry on...

Oh thank you all mighty one for not wasting your breath on me. I am very grateful.:rolleyes:

[AWP82]

Originally posted by echo_bravo
Oh thank you all mighty one for not wasting your breath on me. I am very grateful.:rolleyes:

Ooooh....the famous eye-roll! How fucking original. Is that your trademark?

What the hell is your problem anyway? Do you always have to be so antagonistic? Not once have I disrespected you but you act like you're LOOKING for some kind of fight. That post I erased wasn't even directed at you, so get over yourself.

[Mentiroso]

Originally posted by AWP82
Ooooh....the famous eye-roll! How fucking original. Is that your trademark?

What the hell is your problem anyway? Do you always have to be so antagonistic? Not once have I disrespected you but you act like you're LOOKING for some kind of fight. That post I erased wasn't even directed at you, so get over yourself.


Oh chill out. If you want to contribute to the thread, you should repost your original statement/comment and not a smart ass remark :p

This conversation is not going in a bad direction so lets keep it that way. :p

Since you dont like the rolly eyes, I gave you the tongue twice! :D

[AWP82]

Originally posted by Mentiroso
Oh chill out. If you want to contribute to the thread, you should repost your original statement/comment and not a smart ass remark :p

This conversation is not going in a bad direction so lets keep it that way. :p

Well, tell that to Echo Bravo. He made the first "witty" remark. But yeah, sorry about that. I didn't mean for things to get bad either, but the guy acts so snide sometimes it's ridiculous. There was no need for it.

Oh yeah, and the original comment was aimed at you actually. But don't worry. It wasn't mean or anything. I forgot what it was though. Sorry.

Since you dont like the rolly eyes, I gave you the tongue twice! :D

Well, thanks. I appreciate the courtesy. Yes, I fucking hate that thing. It's ugly. It brings out the inner demons in me.

[Scarfather]

These people can go buy their veggies at the Wal-Mart Superceneter for all I care, it doesn't matter what the owner of the land is doing because it's his land, case closed, good night.

[echo_bravo]

Ooooh....the famous eye-roll! How fucking original. Is that your trademark? What the hell is your problem anyway? Do you always have to be so antagonistic? Not once have I disrespected you but you act like you're LOOKING for some kind of fight. That post I erased wasn't even directed at you, so get over yourself.

Damn homie!!! I am only half kidding most of the time. I dont think my posts really translate over too well on the net. And how can you not like the eye roll guy? He's so cute with his little smirk and big eyes.

But seriously, fuck Daryl Hannah

[AWP82]

Originally posted by echo_bravo
Damn homie!!! I am only half kidding most of the time. I dont think my posts really translate over too well on the net. And how can you not like the eye roll guy? He's so cute with his little smirk and big eyes.

But seriously, fuck Daryl Hannah

:o

Phew.....OK. I fucked up. My bad. I'll go sit in a corner now.

PS. About the eye roll guy, let's just say I've had some "childhood trauma" involving that sick bastard that I've not yet gotten over. He scarred me for life. He....he....oh god! *holds back tears* I can't talk about this. :(