United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Couple sues after town bans front-yard gardens
Source:
Yahoo
URL Source: https://www.yahoo.com/news/couple-s ... nt-yard-gardens-181405934.html
Published: Jun 8, 2016
Author: Curt Anderson
Post Date: 2016-06-09 11:11:07 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 13792
Comments: 66
MIAMI (AP) — For 17 years, a South Florida couple grew vegetables in a front-yard garden until a new town ordinance was passed limiting such gardens to backyards. Now, the couple is asking a judge to uproot the ban they claim violates their constitutional rights. Tom Carroll and Hermine Ricketts say they dug up the garden in front of their Miami Shores home in August 2013 when town officials threatened to fine them $50 a day if they didn't. The threatened fine came a few months after the Miami Shores Village Council adopted a new zoning plan for the town of about 10,500 north of Miami. The couple sued, and at a hearing Wednesday their attorney said the ban violates the Florida Constitution in several ways, including improper limits on their private property rights and violation of the equal protection clause by singling out vegetables over other plants. "We're not saying you can do anything you want on your property," attorney Ari Bargil told Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Monica Gordo. "We are simply saying you can grow vegetables on your property and that is protected by the Constitution." Richard Sarafan, attorney for Miami Shores, said the new zoning rule was not irrational and treated all homeowners the same: their front yards should be covered with grass, sod or a "living ground cover" not further defined. It's no problem, he said, to have a vegetable garden in the backyard. "There certainly is not fundamental right to grow vegetables in your front yard," Sarafan said. "Aesthetics and uniformity are legitimate government purposes. Not every property can lawfully be used for every purpose." Carroll, who attended the hearing, said the couple sought to grow produce using organic practices, such as no use of pesticides. He said he had never gotten a complaint from a neighbor in all the years he tended the garden, which grew some 75 varieties of vegetables. "It's important that we have the right to do something on our own property," Carroll said. "We're just trying to grow vegetables." The couple is being represented by lawyers from the Arlington, Virginia-based Institute for Justice, which describes itself as a Libertarian nonprofit organization that focuses on issues such as private property rights, school choice and free speech. Gordo did not immediately rule. Both sides said the judge could decide the matter without a trial, but either way the case is likely to be appealed, attorneys said. ******* "Aesthetics and uniformity are legitimate government purposes..." 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-18) not displayed.
.
.
.
#19. To: Pinguinite (#16)
(Edited)
I believe in the idea that the basic foundation that has continued to separate America from essentially every other nation founded throughout history is the concept of America being a nation of laws and not a nation of men. It has long been established that under our nation of laws, laws rule and everyone is to be governed equally by the same laws. No one can ever be allowed to be above the law. There can be no better way for America to deal with people that to treat all of them equally under the law. When there are disputes, the most familiar way for parties to engage in a dispute resolution process is the civil justice system where litigation and a trail by a judge or jury to decide who/what is right or wrong. That is the place to decide where someone wins and someone loses. The is not to say that negotiation, mediation and arbitration do not fit in as alternative solutions to dispute resolution. So, I do believe in freedom. But a gaggle of anarchists, libertarians and Paultards on LF are not going to tell me to comply with their version of freedom and try to force their ideas on me or tell me what to believe.
I sure don't want my neighbors planning a food garden on their front lawn. I am in a townhouse so it would look pretty bad. Back yard is fine.
This today: Leads to this tomorrow: And this "Green Acres" next week:
I was gonna applaud you for not posting a Paultatd yella article... and then at the bottom of the decently written article, you had to post your favorite anarchist art. My wife and I grow our vegetables on the side and back of the house. We leave the front for Aesthetics. Because my neighbors have just as much rights as I have. Then again, normal people are more concerned with ANOTHERS RIGHTS... and a Paultard is only concerned about their own rights. A Paultards definition of constitutional rights are having more rights than the next guy. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Vegetable Pests: Garden Nazis Seriously? And what "anarchist art" would that be? Playing stupid only works for your Paultard fan base. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Playing stupid I posted a picture of the couple's well-tended garden that apparently none of the neighbors ever complained about. Gosh - I didn't realize that growing your own food was something only "anarchists" do. Great image - seems we have quite a few of the Nazis here. Sie werden nicht Nahrung in Ihrem eigenen Garten wachsen. No, of course you won't. Instead you'll let Republicans and Democrats tell you to comply with their version of freedom because R&D freedom is sooooooo much better than libertarian freedom.
If you were my neighbor and your ignorant ways devalued my home, id invite you over for a BBQ... about 2 months after you noticed your family dog went missing.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
No, I will not allow that either, but the Republicans and Democrats make more sense since they possess far greater intelligence than the grotesquely ignorant and dim-witted anarchists, libertarians and Paultards who continually display their extremely slow mental development while trying to promote themselves as experts on everything.
A sure sign a poster is a mentally ill dimwitted retard .... This is a scientific fact. It has been proven 100% accurate. People who do this are officially categorized as mentally ill dimwitted retards. What is it? It's posting an idiotic picture in a post without anything supporting or illuminating the poster's position. A variation on this deranged type of posting are posts that contain nothing but personal attacks and name calling, lacking any substance and failing to actually promote critical thinking or to promote or defend a sensible and sane position. Mentally ill retards use this technique because they became exhausted trying to write something sane and sensible, or they were so proud of having finally written something that wasn't totally retarded they find themselves compelled to keep reposting it. Why, you might ask, is this a sure sign of mentally ill retards? Because these people don't have the mental horsepower to articulate a cogent statement. They have to rely on pictures to do their speaking. Because they're mentally ill retards. 97% of mental health experts agree. Strange but true.........
If a government has a Constitutional authorization to prohibit homeowners/renters from planting a garden in their front yards, that same government can also ban gardens in back yards. The bottom line is this... Either a person owns property or he does not. If he does, he has a right use his property as he wishes (within reason). If he does not have that right, he does not fully own the property in question. If he does fully own the property, he has no mandated duty to base his use of his land on whether or not it might affect the value of property belonging to others. If a person believes a neighbor's use of his property devalues his own property; or, dislikes how said neighbor uses his property for whatever reason, THAT person has the option of moving into a neighborhood with a homeowner's association which has use of property restrictions already set up and agreed on by the homeowners living there. "Within reason" means things other than those that are against the law for ANY citizen to do ANYwhere or that might reasonably be believed to be a clear and present danger to others living in close proximity to where certain things might be occurring. On the other hand, any property owner who wishes to be a "good neighbor" by using his property only for things his neighbors approve of can certainly do so; but, that is HIS choice.
Who gets to decide what is “within reason?”
In the following order... 1. The property owner. If a dispute arises, then;
I'll buy that.
I never thought otherwise.
They should be able to do plant whatever they want to in their front yard. It is their property not their neighbors. If you do something on your property that someone thinks brings makes their property worth less then move. It is their property not yours. If you put in new windows i will sue you because you could have gotten better windows so that affects my property. If you plant blue grass i will sue you because hou should have planted fescue. If you park a ford in your driveway i will sue you because you should have bought a porsche. If you put vinyl siding on your house ill sue you because you should have used redwood. If you hace kids ill sue you because they make noise.
It's called "common courtesy" and "being a good neighbor". When you participate in society by buying a home, you take your neighbor's feelings into consideration when you make decisions, realizing that not only do you have rights, so do they. 50 years ago we didn't need 90% of the laws we have today. People took care not to offend other people, especially their neighbors. Today, it's me, me, me. My rights. My life. My choices. Fuck everyone else. So we write laws to control this rude, impolite, and selfish behavior. You reap what you sow.
Carroll, who attended the hearing, said the couple sought to grow produce using organic practices, such as no use of pesticides. He said he had never gotten a complaint from a neighbor in all the years he tended the garden, which grew some 75 varieties of vegetables. Great! Do it in the back yard. "He said he had never gotten a complaint from a neighbor in all the years he tended the garden" HE said that, huh? Makes you wonder why the ordinance was passed. Did his neighbors come to his defense, supporting his decision to keep that eyesore in front of his house?
A mystery for the ages.
Night soil?
It's their garden. Shut up.
Which in some "communities" gets perverted into whatever Bullshyte the Politically Correct herd decides to pull out of their collectivized arse. Flamingo hater.
If they're in the majority, maybe you're the one who's perverted. But I guess you're saying the majority shouldn't have their way if it's contrary to what you want.
Not too up on De Tocqueville are ya super genius?
Not further defined. So that includes vegetables and their is no reason to single that particular kind of plant out for special treatment. Of course if we are singleing edible plants then anyone with dandelions needs to get fined. More plants are edible than the common person realizes. It is an irrational city ordinance that will more than likely be struck down because of the stupidity of it. It's on par with illegal collection of rain water.
Not further defined. So that includes vegetables and their is no reason to single that particular kind of plant out for special treatment. Of course if we are singleing edible plants then anyone with dandelions needs to get fined. More plants are edible than the common person realizes. It is an irrational city ordinance that will more than likely be struck down because of the stupidity of it. It's on par with illegal collection of rain water. The landscaping ordinance is very specific and states the area “... shall be planted with grass, sod or living ground cover and a minimum of two trees. ...” The ordinance goes on to specifically define “ground cover.” Sec. 5386. landscaping descriptions and definitions. […] Ground cover. A planting of living low growing plants which reach a maximum height of not more than eighteen (18) inches upon maturity that provide a complete cover over an area in one growing season and including the area of lawful mulch around the plant […] The phrase “not further defined” does not appear in the “ground cover” section. This is not "ground cover" as defined in the ordinance:
No you're making stuff up as you go along just for the sake of arguing. By your logic and the illogic of the ordinance lettuce, carrots, squash, trimmed jalapenos plants , all of that and more would be fine.
Nice looking yard.
It is a very nice looking garden.
I am making nothing up since I merely sourced the ordinance for you and quoted the definition of “ground cover” contained therein. In doing so, I offered no logic. If I were to offer logic, I would say the proper source upon which to base a comment for critical analysis is the ordinance and not some journalist’s interpretation. Perhaps Tom and Hermine should plant Pueraria Lobata which thrives well in the Southeast US. The leaves, vine tips, flowers, and roots are edible; the vines are not. The leaves can be used like spinach and eaten raw, chopped up and baked in quiches, cooked like collards, or deep fried. Young kudzu shoots are tender and taste similar to snow peas. The kudzu plant also produces fragrant, purple blossoms which you can make into jelly, syrup and candy. The flowers which bloom in late summer have a very pleasant fragrance. Check the house in the left background. Kudzu offers excellent insulation qualities.
The ordinance could be interpreted that way, if the plants "provide a complete cover over an area." I guess there could be trouble in getting an agreement on the definition of "complete."
So you define "tyranny" as neighbors getting together and deciding to have a nice-looking neighborhood? Wow! Let them get away with that and next thing you know they'll ban junkers up on blocks in the driveway.
It's the ugliest "garden" I've ever seen. It looks like Hiroshima after the bomb. It looks like a commercial showing the results of using Round- Up. I wouldn't have that in my back yard.
I'm sure that any landscape architect will tell you that if you plant them really close together, lettuce, carrots, squash and jalapenos plants would be ground cover. Weeds are ground cover. As is concrete. Lots of garbage. Old cars.
Ahh yes more rules drawn up by 5 people and nobody else gets to say/vote if they like the changes or not...
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
Didn't "they get their say" when those 5 people were voted it... or doesn't that count? Don't they get their say again when those same 5 people are up for reelection... or doesn't that count? Let's not paint a perfectly well written article yella. lol I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Don't they get their say again when those same 5 people are up for reelection... or doesn't that count? So it's cool with you if someone doesn't get the right to vote when they should be afforded one? So what if your Union leadership didn't allow you to vote on the terms of your contracts before they submitted them, you saying you wouldn't have had a schitt fit? Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
Comments (60 - 66) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Somehow, the idea of freedom being a central facet of living in America seems quite foreign to you.
No, but the notion that someone can IDIVIDUALLY decide what freedom is, what is unconstitutional, and selectively decide which laws they will obey is. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other. So said John Adams in the year 1870.
#20. To: Gatlin, Deckard (#13)
#21. To: Deckard (#12)
#22. To: Deckard (#0)
(Edited)
#23. To: Gatlin, Deckard (#21)
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#24. To: GrandIsland (#22)
.....and then at the bottom of the decently written article, you had to post your favorite anarchist art.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#25. To: Deckard (#24)
And what "anarchist art" would that be?
#26. To: GrandIsland (#25)
And what "anarchist art" would that be?
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#27. To: hondo68 (#23)
Vegetable Pests: Garden Nazis
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#28. To: Gatlin (#19)
But a gaggle of anarchists, libertarians and Paultards on LF are not going to tell me to comply with their version of freedom and try to force their ideas on me or tell me what to believe.
#29. To: Deckard (#26)
(Edited)
#30. To: Pinguinite (#28)
No, of course you won't. Instead you'll let Republicans and Democrats tell you to comply with their version of freedom because R&D freedom is sooooooo much better than libertarian freedom.
#31. To: hondo68 (#23)
#32. To: Deckard, Gatlin, misterwhite, ConservingFreedom, hondo68, TrappedInMd, VxH, Pinguinite, BorisY, GrandIsland (#0)
#33. To: packrat1145, misterwhite, ConservingFreedom, hondo68, TrappedInMd, VxH, Pinguinite, BorisY, GrandIsland (#32)
If [a person owns the property], he has a right use his property as he wishes (within reason).
#34. To: Gatlin (#33)
Who gets to decide what is “within reason?”
2. The local authorities. If their decision is disputed, then;
3. The court system.
#35. To: packrat1145 (#34)
#36. To: Gatlin (#35)
I'll buy that.
#37. To: misterwhite (#1)
#38. To: A K A Stone (#37)
#39. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#38)
When you participate in society by buying a home, you take your neighbor's feelings into consideration when you make decisions, realizing that not only do you have rights, so do they.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#40. To: Deckard (#39)
"Carroll, who attended the hearing, said the couple sought to grow produce using organic practices, such as no use of pesticides."
#41. To: misterwhite (#40)
Makes you wonder why the ordinance was passed.
#42. To: Deckard (#39)
the couple sought to grow produce using organic practices
#43. To: Roscoe (#42)
"Night soil?"
#44. To: misterwhite (#38)
(Edited)
It's called "common courtesy" and "being a good neighbor".
#45. To: VxH (#44)
"Which in some "communities" gets perverted into whatever Bullshyte the Politically Correct herd decides to pull out of their collectivized arse."
#46. To: misterwhite (#45)
But I guess you're saying the majority shouldn't have their way
#47. To: Deckard (#0)
their front yards should be covered with grass, sod or a "living ground cover" not further defined.
#48. To: Titorite2m Decjard (#47)
(Edited)
their front yards should be covered with grass, sod or a "living ground cover" not further defined.
DIVISION 17. – LANDSCAPING
#49. To: Gatlin (#48)
#50. To: Gatlin (#48)
#51. To: A K A Stone (#50)
Nice looking yard.
#52. To: Titorite2 (#49)
#53. To: Titorite2 (#49)
By ... the illogic of the ordinance lettuce, carrots, squash, trimmed jalapenos plants , all of that and more would be fine.
#54. To: VxH (#46)
"Not too up on De Tocqueville are ya super genius?"
#55. To: Gatlin (#51)
"It is a very nice looking garden."
#56. To: Gatlin (#53)
"I guess there could be trouble in getting an agreement on the definition of "complete."
#57. To: Deckard (#0)
#58. To: CZ82 (#57)
(Edited)
Ahh yes more rules drawn up by 5 people and nobody else gets to say/vote if they like the changes or not...
#59. To: GrandIsland (#58)
Didn't "they get their say" when those 5 people were voted it... or doesn't that count?
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]