So a couple days ago the SF bay guardian ran a story about a vacant lot in the city that people in the neighborhood had turned into a garden. The newspaper expresses bafflement that the property owner, upon visiting from out of town, demanded that the garden be removed and refused to discuss leasing the land. Though the article wasn’t clear on whether there was any offer to lease the land at fair market value.

It is easy to see why someone might be offended to find people using their land without even asking permission, especially if they demanded you let them continue instead of apologizing. However, what reason, other than pure indignation, might the property owner have to reject the lease? After all she isn’t using the land so even a below-market lease would benefit her and the gardeners would benefit as well?

Well perhaps the incident at the South Central Farm in LA provides an explanation. Now whatever you feel about the ultimate decisions of the landowner in that case and the ill-will that built up between the protesters and the landowner it is clear that having community gardens on his property cost him a great deal of money. While UC Berkeley’s status as a semi-public entity makes the situation a bit different you can see the same effect at people’s park. The longer a community, at least in places like SF and Berkeley, uses your land the more expensive it is to use your own property.

If the problem is vacant lots get a law passed about upkeeping them. If community gardens and other public spaces are really that important raise taxes and have the city buy the land. Also the more one demands that property owners let you garden their land the more incentive you give them to turn you down. The very fact that a petition was signed to continue this garden shows the landowner that in ten years when people have grown attached to that garden it will be very expensive to kick them out.