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: 13794
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 (1-25) not displayed.
.
.
.
#26. To: GrandIsland (#25)
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!
I had to live with terms that were contracted prior to my employment. When I started there was several things that sucked. I knew it going in... and so did this homeowner. People today don't want to take responsibility for their actions. They bought the house with certain local ordinances or HOA rules. They are put in place for a reason. If they want a 10 foot tall corn field in their front yard they can buy a home out in the sticks.... or they can run for local office and try and change the rules... but we both know the others won't pass front lawn gardens. It's a common ordnance no-no. In fact, so common, this is always the same bullshit Puktard always posts... front lawn garden ordinance articles... and then he wants to make you think it's Nazi Germany. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
I've never seen a Union contract good for more than 5 years, then it has to be renegotiated. Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
We did our every four years... but that was no guarantee I was going to get what I wanted. The union vote was a pure democracy and even if we all agreed, that didn't mean the municipality was going to give us what we wanted. When I got hired in 94, the department I signed on with DIDNT HAVE A 20 YEAR PENSION. Just one example of the dice I rolled when I agreed to leave a higher paying retail sales job as a manager... and go to the police academy. I took what I got... and luckily, within my 6th year on the job, we bartered for 20 year retirement. We have to give up pay raises for 8 years, longevity pay and shift deferential... but we got it. My monthly checks I get say it was worth it. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Wrong as usual. Did you even bother to read the article? 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. Whatever you say Archie.
Ghetto groundcover.
Maybe that's what your garden looks like. Others, not so much.
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?
#60. To: CZ82 (#59)
(Edited)
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?
#61. To: GrandIsland (#60)
I had to live with terms that were contracted prior to my employment.
#62. To: CZ82 (#61)
I've never seen a Union contract good for more than 5 years, then it has to be renegotiated.
#63. To: GrandIsland (#60)
When I started there was several things that sucked. I knew it going in... and so did this homeowner.
“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."
#64. To: misterwhite (#54)
neighbors getting together and deciding to have a nice-looking neighborhood?
#65. To: VxH (#64)
"Whatever you say Archie."
#66. To: misterwhite (#65)
(Edited)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]