Talk about total bureaucratic BS!!!

[SassyLady]

I guess idiot city dwellers don't understand that vegetables are "suitable live plant material"....it's things like this that make my blood boil.


Michigan Resident Faces 93 Days in Jail For Vegetable Garden
Published July 08, 2011

A Michigan resident is facing up to 93 days in jail for planting a vegetable garden in her front yard, MyFoxDetroit.com reports.
Julie Bass, of Oak Park, Michigan was first given a warning followed by a ticket and now she is being charged with a misdemeanor for her simple front-yard garden.
"I think it's sad that the City of Oak Park that's already strapped for cash is paying a lot of money to have a prosecutor bothering us," Bass told FOX 2's Alexis Wiley.
The city is claiming that the garden violates a city code which states that front yards must consist of suitable, live plant material to which Bass responds, "We think it's suitable."
"They say, 'Why should you grow things in the front?' Well, why shouldn't I? They're fine. They're pretty. They're well maintained," Bass told the station.
"I could sell out and save my own self and just not have them bother me anymore, but then there's no telling what they're going to harass the next person about," continued Bass.
A pretrial is scheduled for July 26 and a jury trial could be next.
Click here for more on this story from MyFoxDetroit.com


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/08/michigan-resident-faces-3-days-in-jail-for-vegetable-garden/#ixzz1RaLpAeBl

[Kathianne]

I can't believe we're going to disagree on this, but I do. After reading the article and seeing the picture, the land use is totally suburban. They obviously have a back yard and side yard, the front should conform to neighborhood standards. Herbs and such could certainly be planted near the house in the front, but not pumpkins, peppers, corn or wheat. While it might look acceptable at certain times-spring and early summer, once fully ripened and harvest time is over, very unlike the surroundings. That's not fair to everyone else.

[darin]

For a HOA, sure - that's fine Kath. But this isn't an HOA - it's the City regulating - or attempting to - subjectively regulating legal use of a homeowner's land. It's pure bullshit.

[Kathianne]

For a HOA, sure - that's fine Kath. But this isn't an HOA - it's the City regulating - or attempting to - subjectively regulating legal use of a homeowner's land. It's pure bullshit.

Again, disagree. There are 'community standareds' in most communities. Now if this were semi-rural even, without zoning rules for the most part, I'd agree. Take a look at the picture in the article, the homes are very close together, certainly not even 1/5 acre, not close.

Back yard, side yard? Sure, then they'd have cause to beef. Front yard with cracker box houses, one becoming a teeny farm? Not fair to the others.

Now this particular suburb seems not to have an ordinance to address it, so they may pull it off, but then they are just bad neighbors. It's the same reason most towns won't allow trailers or cars to be parked in front yard if there isn't a driveway.

[Abbey Marie]

I looked at the picture, and it decided it for me- the owners planted very neat, contained gardens. If these were flowers, there would be no problem, right? I really don't think it is fair to harass these people for this.

Also, perhaps I missed reference to it, but it is very possible their backyards may not have enough sun for a garden.

[Kathianne]

I looked at the picture, and it decided it for me- the owners planted very neat, contained gardens. If these were flowers, there would be no problem, right? I really don't think it is fair to harass these people for this.

Also, perhaps I missed reference to it, but it is very possible their backyards may not have enough sun for a garden.

Well you agree with everyone else. What if they were growing corn? That would be ok too? Why not a horse or cow to provide fertilizer? :laugh2:

[SassyLady]

With the state of the economy that may be what everyone has to resort to....growing their own food.

Also, I can also guarantee you that if those boxes were planted with roses, or anything else considered to be ornamental landscaping there wouldn't be a problem. And, not all ornamental plants stay green or flower all year long.

[Dilloduck]

The city prosecutor is running low on things to satiate his/her power trip. Maybe a good clear cut case of jaywalking will come along and distract him/her.

[Missileman]

I can't believe we're going to disagree on this, but I do. After reading the article and seeing the picture, the land use is totally suburban. They obviously have a back yard and side yard, the front should conform to neighborhood standards. Herbs and such could certainly be planted near the house in the front, but not pumpkins, peppers, corn or wheat. While it might look acceptable at certain times-spring and early summer, once fully ripened and harvest time is over, very unlike the surroundings. That's not fair to everyone else.

If those boxes were full of flowers, I doubt anyone would say anything which tells me the type of plant is irrelevant. It is neatly maintained, I predict the city loses this one.

[Kathianne]

I disagree with all of you about those boxes being on the front lawn, whether flowers or something else. Landscaping boxes close to the house, as a ground holding device? Yes. In the middle of yard? No.

Boxes close to a sidewalk? Nope. A retaining wall, whether wood or brick? Yes.

There's a world of difference between a HOA that specifies types of grass or height of grass, with penalties to follow and what is the problem here. If one looks at the picture you can observe that the neighbor's driveway doesn't have 4" to the nearest box.

I'd certainly think differently if the area was semi-rural or the yards were at least 1/2 acre, but they are not.

My guess is the city will lose this one if the article is correct regarding ordinances available. But new ones will be written to prevent the same in the future.

[darin]

The law in that city is vague enough - this is a clear cut "City Over-stepping" their bounds.

[logroller]

This is a clear cut example of good intentions gone awry. Speaking as a former landacape contractor, I can speak to the wastefulness of grass lawns. Where I'm at we grow mostly bermuda hybrids, requiring about 8 ft of water per year, offset by ~6-8" of natural rainfall. Yet another example of the idiocy of suburbia.

[Kathianne]

This is a clear cut example of good intentions gone awry. Speaking as a former landacape contractor, I can speak to the wastefulness of grass lawns. Where I'm at we grow mostly bermuda hybrids, requiring about 8 ft of water per year, offset by ~6-8" of natural rainfall. Yet another example of the idiocy of suburbia.

bully for you both.

[LuvRPgrl]

I guess idiot city dwellers don't understand that vegetables are "suitable live plant material"....it's things like this that make my blood boil.

Go ask the lady for some of her tomatoes and carrots, they help lower blood pressure. :laugh:

Ya know, if you took todays laws, and went back in time to circa 1776, I think all the Founding Fathers would be breaking the law, in fact, probably every American would be breaking the law.

[Abbey Marie]

Well you agree with everyone else. What if they were growing corn? That would be ok too? Why not a horse or cow to provide fertilizer? :laugh2:

Animals are a completely different thing, and far messier and nosier and smellier. Corn in those small containers is ok IMO.

[LuvRPgrl]

I can't believe we're going to disagree on this, but I do. After reading the article and seeing the picture, the land use is totally suburban. They obviously have a back yard and side yard, the front should conform to neighborhood standards. Herbs and such could certainly be planted near the house in the front, but not pumpkins, peppers, corn or wheat. While it might look acceptable at certain times-spring and early summer, once fully ripened and harvest time is over, very unlike the surroundings. That's not fair to everyone else.

I have two volunteers in my front yard, a tomato and pumpkin plants. SHould I be fined?

Instead of spending the money on legal bills if they really think it doesnt look good, they could have simply planted a hedge along the front sidewalk, it is city property. Then you wouldnt be able to see the veggies. Or build a white picket fence.

[fj1200]

For a HOA, sure - that's fine Kath. But this isn't an HOA - it's the City regulating - or attempting to - subjectively regulating legal use of a homeowner's land. It's pure bullshit.

The "City" is laws passed by representatives of its citizens, subjective can be determined by the jury.

[LuvRPgrl]

The "City" is laws passed by representatives of its citizens, subjective can be determined by the jury.

Still doesnt mean the city can pass any restrictive law they want. Dont forget, the percentage of people who voted them in could be only 51% or even less if there is a three way race. That woiuld leave a lot of disengranchised people if city hall just ignores them.

And the city shouldnt ignore them. Thats not how its suppose to work, thats why the founding fathers gave two senators to each state, so even those with a much smaller population will have a say so in how they are governed.

And I'm sure even the 51% or more would want city hall to at least consider the desires of the minority.

[logroller]

bully for you both.

Huh? :confused:

[logroller]

The "City" is laws passed by representatives of its citizens, subjective can be determined by the jury.*


A valid statement, but begs the question; what objective role do the People have in regulating the personal lives of it's citizens in this scenario? (Hint: It's NOT housing price stability) And more importantly, have they been successful at acheiving their objective?

[fj1200]

Still doesnt mean the city can pass any restrictive law they want. Dont forget, the percentage of people who voted them in could be only 51% or even less if there is a three way race. That woiuld leave a lot of disengranchised people if city hall just ignores them.

And the city shouldnt ignore them. Thats not how its suppose to work, thats why the founding fathers gave two senators to each state, so even those with a much smaller population will have a say so in how they are governed.

And I'm sure even the 51% or more would want city hall to at least consider the desires of the minority.

We're talking about a city here, not the Federal government; government being pushed closer to the people that we can agree is good right? It also doesn't matter what the turnout was, they were elected by whatever rules on the books. In my city I get cited if my "grass," read weeds :laugh:, is longer than 6". I'm not sure what the repercussions are but that is what's on the books.

[fj1200]

A valid statement, but begs the question; what objective role do the People have in regulating the personal lives of it's citizens in this scenario? (Hint: It's NOT housing price stability) And more importantly, have they been successful at acheiving their objective?

We're talking about grass here, not "grass." ;)

[logroller]

We're talking about grass here, not "grass." ;)

So the objective may be fire control ; either way really. :laugh: