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: 13731
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
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 56.
#47. To: Deckard (#0)
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.
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."
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.
There are no replies to Comment # 56. End Trace Mode for Comment # 56.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latesttheir 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)
#53. To: Titorite2 (#49)
By ... the illogic of the ordinance lettuce, carrots, squash, trimmed jalapenos plants , all of that and more would be fine.
#56. To: Gatlin (#53)
"I guess there could be trouble in getting an agreement on the definition of "complete."
Replies to Comment # 56.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]