The first link says the same thing as the original article, that the garden was decommissioned just before Christmas.
It goes on to say that even a sculpture was destroyed.
The new site, is smaller, is 5 blocks away which may cause hardship for many, as the site served some older gardeners. The article says the alternate site is known as 'surfside garden" indicating that it is already up and going-being used by another group of people in other words.
The second link explains that the city has previously (1997) taken back land set aside as a community garden, so this isn't the first time the city has reneged on it's commitments. Sounds like the city allows folks to start a community garden in a spot as long as no one has a commercial interest in it and then tosses them out when the money shows up. Very sad. There needs to be a piece of land devoted permanently for the community garden. As robertduval14 pointed out, after all who gets to use land for free, right? A community garden is not like that at all. It is more akin to a public park, a public memorial or a city square. Public land that is available for the public to use. Taxes have paid for more frivolous ventures. The bottom line is still greed. How many theaters does anyone nee?, you can't eat pavement...
