MIAMI In a blow to freedom and property rights, a Florida judge has ruled that residents of Miami Shores do not have a fundamental right to grow vegetables in their front yard, even if they dont have a backyard or their backyard is deficient for growing plants.
Miami Shores officials say the ordinance benefits neighborhood aesthetics.
The ruling by Circuit Court Judge Monica Gordo is a blow to the well-publicized case of Hermine Ricketts and Tom Carroll, a married couple who say their backyard is too shady to grow a garden.
The couple grew vegetables in the front yard for 17 years for health and financial reasons until the Miami Shores village government passed an ordinance banning front yard vegetable growing. Ricketts and Carroll were facing a $50-a-day fine.
This Court is not convinced that the prohibition of front-yard vegetable gardens impairs any fundamental right Gordo wrote in her Aug. 25 opinion. The Court finds that the prohibition of vegetable gardens except in back yards is rationally related to Miami Shores legitimate interest in promoting and maintaining aesthetics.
She added that protecting aesthetics is a legitimate government purpose.
The couple was represented by the Institute for Justice, which offered experts who argued that vegetables do not have an intrinsically good or bad visual quality and are not aesthetically degrading, but Gordo wrote that the citys law was a value judgement that she would not second guess.
The Institute for Justice said it will appeal the ruling.
Todays ruling affects every homeowner in Miami Shores who wants to grow a garden in their front yard, said Institute for Justice attorney Ari Bargil. The court agreed that Miami Shores never explained how banning front-yard vegetable gardens promotes its claimed interest in aesthetics, but the court nevertheless ruled that the village has the power to ban these gardens anyway.
Their garden was known as one of the more attractive ones in the area.
I am disappointed by todays ruling, Ricketts said. My garden not only provided us with food, but it was also beautiful and added character to the community. I look forward to continuing this fight and ultimately winning so I can once again use my property productively instead of being forced to have a useless lawn.
Bargil noted that if Ricketts and Carroll wanted to grow fruit or flowers or display pink flamingos, the town would have been fine with it.
They should be equally free to grow food for their own consumption, which they did for 17 years before the village forced them to uproot the very source of their sustenance, he added.
Hermine Ricketts and Tom Carroll should sell their property there in Miami Shores. Then buy a piece of property in the county that is in an unincorporated location. And pick one that is not in danger of being annexed.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't
Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
if you look around, we have gone so far down the the rat hole, the almighty is going to have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah, if we don't have a judgement come down on us.
President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. --Clint Eastwood
"I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
The Court finds that the prohibition of vegetable gardens except in back yards is rationally related to Miami Shores legitimate interest in promoting and maintaining aesthetics.
She added that protecting aesthetics is a legitimate government purpose.
[...] Gordo wrote that the citys law was a value judgement that she would not second guess.
Sound judicial reasoning.
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
The judge didn't thus reason, the village government did. Whether their reasoning was sound is a completely different question.
OK, but it seems to me that having no problems for 17 some years would at least allow the family to be "grandfathered" in and be allowed to keep the garden until they sold the house.
It's the fact that the ruling was arbitrary and directed solely at them.
Personally, if I was their neighbor, I wouldn't have a problem.
If their yard was littered with pink flamingos, I'd find that more of a nuisance.
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."
Todays ruling affects every homeowner in Miami Shores who wants to grow a garden in their front yard, said Institute for Justice attorney Ari Bargil.
That's what the ordinance does.
Vegetable gardens are permitted in rear yards only
The ordinance says rear yards only.
A sign in the yard says, "ALL PLANTS ARE VEGETABLES."
The ordinance only speaks to vegetables. Despite the yard sign, tomatoes are fruit, not vegetables. Tomatoes might work until the ordinance is amended to include tomatoes.
The Court could always hold that tomatoes are vegetables for purposes of the ordinance, despite the fact that they are not vegetables. Cite Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893). "Tomatoes are 'vegetables,' and not 'fruit,' within the meaning of the Tariff Act of March 3, 1883."