|
|
Post by Gingerbread Man on Nov 27, 2013 17:46:55 GMT
shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/family-forced-dig-vegetable-garden-face-fines-172600905.htmlFamily Forced to Dig Up Vegetable Garden or Face Fines Heather Nea The one thing I really wanted when I lived in my post-college two-bedroom apartment was a place to grow vegetables. The thought of being able to walk outside and grab something for dinner was all too appealing for a newly minted dietitian. Much to my husband's chagrin, the first thing I made him do when we moved into our house (after painting) was build two raised-bed vegetable gardens. I immediately packed them with seeds: spinach, romaine, red peppers, green peppers, onions, carrots, broccoli. You name it, I planted it. And then it all died. Not only do I have the complete opposite of a green thumb, but our backyard also doesn't get the amount of sun required to sustain the growth of such veggies. Our front yard, on the other hand, is drenched in beautiful, bright afternoon sun. It would have been the perfect place to put our vegetable garden, had the thought even crossed our mind. But perhaps it's a good thing we didn't. A Miami Shores couple was recently told by city ordinance officials that they had to dig up their 17-year-old vegetable garden, which supplied 80% of their family's food, or pay $50 a day in fines. Having been rejected in appeals twice, the couple ultimately was forced to destroy their garden in order to avoid paying $1,500 a month to keep it - that's way more than the cost of groceries. Related: 10 life lessons for kids from the garden As ridiculous and shocking as this case sounds, especially in Miami where fruit trees and plastic pink flamingos are in abundance, this isn't an isolated case. It took me about two and half seconds to find six other families that had also been fined or ordered to remove a food-supplying vegetable garden. A woman in Michigan faced up to 93 days in jail for not wanting to dig up her front yard raised vegetable beds (that incidentally she planted because the city dug up her front yard for maintenance without reseeding). A teacher who used his garden to teach kids about compost, biodiesel, and solar power was given a citation in Tennessee. A woman in Oklahoma had her garden bulldozed by the city for having plants that were "too tall," even though the ordinance stated you could have plants over a foot tall if they were meant for human consumption. A couple who wanted to grow tomatoes for their neighbors and local food bank in Massachusetts faced a $300 a day fine if they didn't remove the plants. Yet another couple in Florida was threatened with a daily fine of $500 if they didn't remove their vegetable garden because it had an "unfinished appearance." I found it hilarious one of these articles mentioned that particular city's fine for growing marijuana was a one-time fee of $500. The argument is usually that these vegetable gardens are unsightly or not aesthetically pleasing, but I've seen some gorgeous vegetable gardens, and I've seen some horrendous flower gardens (although I'm aware MY garden would never be called beautiful). But what's more important: a nice-looking neighborhood or well-fed residents? There are a thousand reasons to grow your own food at home, among them the suffering economy, lack of access to organic produce, teaching your kids where food comes from, the desire to eat healthy, and more. Why does a city or homeowner's association have the right to prohibit these things? I would love the opportunity to teach my son where his food comes from and how plants grow, and I sure as heck hope my city wouldn't try to stop me. He already loves to play in the dirt while I try to make things grow. Of course, for that lesson to happen, I may need to bring in some help for my black thumb, although I'm sure there's a lesson in there somewhere about not succeeding at everything you try. What would you do if you were faced with this decision: Dig up the garden or pay the fine?
|
|
|
|
Post by nxp on Nov 27, 2013 18:31:12 GMT
This can be an interesting discussion. Ultimately the city and neighborhood associations will have precedence over how the property is to be maintained and presented. This is done for a number of reasons, and ulimately helps other homeowners in the area. I know that we had to put pressure on a certain home that felt that mowing the lawn and maintaining the yard wasn't a priority, and the HOA helped correct that. So, from that perspective, I can understand why these rules are in place. From the homeowner side, as well as a gardener, I can't stand that someone would want to shut down what I choose to do with my property. I'm paying the taxes on it, I'm responsible for it, hell I have to maintain city owned and placed sidewalks and firehydrants when it's -15F out with a foot of snow on it (if I don't, they charge me $150 an occurance for them to do it). We can't have chickens either - or any livestock - but there's a Starbucks down the road. Oh the joys of being in "civilization". Locally, there was a big hubbubb about a homeowner that chose to dig up his entire yard and make it into a garden - a well kept, and maintained garden - but also chose to plant on the median instead of leaving the grass as the city wanted. There was some back and forth, and I think the city ended up winning due to some obscure ruling about having produce close to the roadway without a sellers permit. I think the HO said F-it, and planted wheat.  As a gardener, I think it's very reasonable with some careful planning and some effort to treat your garden as a piece of your landscaping. If plants are arranged, and ultimately MAINTAINED, no one would be the wiser. Stagger large plants, limit ground cover plants to areas that aren't in full view (eg, the front yard doesn't need pumpkins sprawling around it), and where applicable use bush varieties over vine. This year we had an outstanding garden around our deck that looked like it was meant to be there, and all it took was a day of planning and a few overhead shots from Google Earth. We got so many compliments, we're going to begin removing some of the ugly as sin pine/cedar/bush/whatevers and move to produce. I don't expect anyone to be the wiser, unless they're actively picking the food from it. So - in essesance, I would re-evaluate how my garden was arranged and maintained in regards to the original question. But there'd still be a garden. |
|
|
|
Post by shiddymunkie on Nov 28, 2013 3:37:12 GMT
...I think it's very reasonable with some careful planning and some effort to treat your garden as a piece of your landscaping. If plants are arranged, and ultimately MAINTAINED, no one would be the wiser." ^ This. Every problem is an opportunity for creative solutions, and for preppers, having a garden that doesn't necessarily look like a garden could be a fantastic resource. Of course, it's better if you had a choice in the matter, but at least some good could come from this if the choice is out of your hands. This reminds me of an episode of Doomsday Castle (which is a pretty corny show, btw) where they had a survivalist gardener come by and teach them a little bit about making their garden blend in with the surroundings. channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/doomsday-castle/galleries/secret-survival-garden/at/secret-garden1-2054688/channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/doomsday-castle/videos/building-a-doomsday-garden/The actual techniques might vary since you'll need yours to look like normal landscaping (and not wild foliage) but the philosophy is the same. Work with fruit trees, root veggies, and other edible flora that doesn't necessarily look like food on the surface. |
|
|
|
Post by Browning35 on Dec 1, 2013 13:45:04 GMT
To tell the truth I can kinda see both sides of this. What I mean is if you're in a neighborhood you don't exactly want to see this...(or at least I don't)...  Most people would rather see this...  Then again it's their property. They bought it. So I feel like they should be able to do whatever they want with it. So for me at least I'm a bit torn. How far does this extend though? If someone wanted to paint their house neon purple and cover it in graffiti is that okay too? What about the neighbors who have to look at something like that? I dunno, leads to some interesting questions regarding the rights of the individual vs. that of the community. Seems like the issue is that it's in the front yard. Maybe the answer is to move out to the country where there aren't any local ordinances regarding this stuff and your nearest neighbor is a half mile down the road. |
|
|
|
Post by NamelessStain on Dec 1, 2013 18:00:28 GMT
Fruit and nut trees are easily doable and 99% of the HOAs would have no clue or care. Also as a security measure, planting thorny plants below main floor windows adds security, which no HOA would argue the safety of their members, just drop in some raspberry, blackberry, or blueberry plants. Make sure you get the thorny variety since there are some with and without thorns. Also planting herbs is a decent idea since many herbs have home remedy values. Just don't plant catnip or expect to draw a crowd of feline visitors. Herbs can also be done in window boxes or hung off a deck banister.
I have planting pots from agardenpatch.com which aren't permanent so the HOA doesn't consider them landscaping.
|
|
|
|
Post by shiddymunkie on Dec 4, 2013 1:32:47 GMT
Then again it's their property. They bought it. So I feel like they should be able to do whatever they want with it. So for me at least I'm a bit torn. How far does this extend though? If someone wanted to paint their house neon purple and cover it in graffiti is that okay too? What about the neighbors who have to look at something like that? I dunno, leads to some interesting questions regarding the rights of the individual vs. that of the community. Seems like the issue is that it's in the front yard. I've given this issue a lot of thought having recently purchased an HOA home myself, especially after growing up in house without an HOA. On one hand, since I own the property, I feel I should be able to do whatever I want with it. However, looking at it from the other POV, my neighbors actions with their own property can significantly impact the value of MY property... and so to some extent there is a mutual/shared responsibility of the neighborhood despite individual ownership of the houses. HOA's just make that mutual/shared responsibility legal, which brings me to my next point. If you purchase a home managed by an HOA, you were likely required to sign a document that essentially says you understand and agree to the terms of the HOA that the house is managed by -- thus, despite the fact that you own the property, the ownership came with terms. It's not all bad though, I've had plenty of neighbors who's houses were falling apart, yards were overgrown, etc...and there is nothing more frustrating than having to live next to that and have zero say in the matter. As such, so long as you live in any sort of "neighborhood", I think HOA's are generally good things. Plus, what they don't know doesn't hurt them... Ninja garden ftw. |
|
|
|
Post by Gundogs on Jan 15, 2014 16:24:08 GMT
I cannot imagine living in a home governed by a HOA. But,if one signs agreements,then one should abide by them.
I won't have local gov telling me I can't grow my own food. In WW2 we were all encouraged to grow food---everywhere
& anywhere was fine because it supported the war effort. It allowed gov to spend more on war. Now the "war",for some,
is only against hunger,taxes & unhealthy food. I grow food to save a few bucks,eat healthier & to prep for future problems.
It seems it's better to give out food stamps,welfare. Gov is too big & seeks more control every day.
Wonder if the drones have enabled my gardens to be plotted on some map. Yes,they operate here---one crashed into Lake Ontario recently.
We can all find fault with how a neighbor lives,but feel growing food should be overlooked if it offends you
|
|
|
|
Post by LowKey on Jan 15, 2014 22:04:23 GMT
I'll echo Gundogs.
If you purchased property with covenants (or other restrictions attached to the title) or a HOA you need to abide by the terms to which you agreed. If those terms preclude you growing a vegetable garden then no vegetable garden for you! If you didn't read the contract- Shame, shame, shame on you. Cavet Emptor.
As far as neighbors who worry about what I do with my property impacting their property value- Tough luck, unless I get to make calls about how you, your wife, and your family dress...after all, the appearance of people in the neighborhood can also effect curb appeal. Maybe I get a say in what you drive as well....no old cars should be cluttering up the neighborhood, that lowers the values as well. BTW, by old I mean more than 2 years.
Seriously folks, can anybody pinpoint the time in our history where we as a population shifted to this sick idea that we have any right to dictate to others what they should be able to do with their own property*?
*Absent demonstrable physical harm to others.
|
|
|
|
Post by Browning35 on Jan 15, 2014 23:05:26 GMT
As far as neighbors who worry about what I do with my property impacting their property value- Tough luck, unless I get to make calls about how you, your wife, and your family dress...after all, the appearance of people in the neighborhood can also effect curb appeal. Maybe I get a say in what you drive as well....no old cars should be cluttering up the neighborhood, that lowers the values as well. BTW, by old I mean more than 2 years. Generally in HOA's everyone has a say in how the properties look. I only care because we're trying to sell our house. People don't generally want to live next door to slobs and they're hesitant to buy. What a house looks like effects everyone. If my wife or I dress like shit it doesn't really effect anyone except us. I'm not one to try and tell people what to do or how to live their lives. Not my place. I just don't want to live with the negative effects of other people's choices because they can't take care of their stuff or care how it looks. |
|
|
|
Post by LowKey on Jan 16, 2014 3:12:43 GMT
As far as neighbors who worry about what I do with my property impacting their property value- Tough luck, unless I get to make calls about how you, your wife, and your family dress...after all, the appearance of people in the neighborhood can also effect curb appeal. Maybe I get a say in what you drive as well....no old cars should be cluttering up the neighborhood, that lowers the values as well. BTW, by old I mean more than 2 years. Generally in HOA's everyone has a say in how the properties look. I only care because we're trying to sell our house. People don't generally want to live next door to slobs and they're hesitant to buy. What a house looks like effects everyone. If my wife or I dress like shit it doesn't really effect anyone except us. I'm not one to try and tell people what to do or how to live their lives. Not my place. I just don't want to live with the negative effects of other people's choices because they can't take care of their stuff or care how it looks. I'd agree in the case of an HOA. You agree to abide by the HOA's rules when you buy in such communities. It's when one is not living in a covenanted community that my "tough luck" statement is applicable. My wanting to sell my home at a better (higher) price doesn't take precedence over your right to decorate and/or maintain (to include not-maintaining) your property as you see fit. Until you are causing physical harm or damage beyond your property lines it's no one else's business. That's not to say that I'm not sympathetic to neighbors of persons who think Sanford & Son are good guidelines for landscaping and home decor. Requiring someone to alter their home to please prospective/potential buyers of a neighbors home is ridiculous, unfair, and completely contrary to property rights. I'll make some exagerated suggestions to illustrate the point (please don't take these seriously)  - Should we have them paint their home a color more pleasing to a prospective buyer of the house next door? Also, let's force them to send their children off to live with the grandparents...lot's of prospective buyers don't want kids in the neighborhood due to noise. They certainly must be made to buy new hybrid cars. Those gas guzzling SUV's are going to be totally unacceptable to most of the prospective buyers. When did respect (no matter how grudging) of others rights, including their property rights, evaporate? |
|
|
|
Post by shiddymunkie on Jan 16, 2014 4:59:28 GMT
I think HOAs are being a little misunderstood. An HOA is just a community of people with mutually agreed upon rules (usually because those rules are mutually beneficial). These rules vary from community to community, from being almost non-existent to being quite dictatorial. But wherever your personal preferences fall on that scale, it's an agreement a person chooses to make with a particular community so that they can benefit from what that particular community has to offer. In this sense, it's the price one pays for certain assurances and benefits, which might include things like a well-kept neighborhood, recreational centers, community pools and parks, highly-rated schools, local conveniences, etc.
But here's the key -- if you don't agree with the rules that afford you those things, or if don't think the benefits being offered are worth the "price" being asked, then you don't have to buy. It's your choice, and many people choose to pay, because when you buy a home you also buy the area it's in. It understandable that people would like some degree of quality control of the area they/their family lives in, and because many share this same desire, an HOA a collaborative way to make that happen. Case in point, policies can be changed via voting; either directly by the residents or by the officials those residents elect to represent them. With that being considered, living in an HOA is not all the different than living in, say, a county, city, or state...it's just on a smaller scale.
But just like anything there are tradeoffs, and that's just as true for the HOA dwellers as it is for those who opt out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Browning35 on Jan 16, 2014 13:59:41 GMT
When did respect (no matter how grudging) of others rights, including their property rights, evaporate? I think evaporate might be the wrong word. IMO it's more a case of accepting some limits on self expression for the collective good. The history of HOA's can be found here. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeowner_associationphoenix.about.com/cs/real/a/HOA01.htmI know that was more of a rhetorical question, but it's kind of important to note when and that was in the late 40's and 50's when much of the nations population moved into suburbs. In the 1800's and early 1900's people built their own houses and usually lived in rural locations. It didn't matter much what someone did because it didn't effect anyone else as people weren't living right on top of each other. When it starts to effect other people then those people have an interest in what those people can and cannot do. Like anything else that type of thing can go too far as well. I mean when a homeowner can't even fly the US flag (you know, the fucking country we live in) there's a problem. Most HOA's just make sure that lawns are kept up, that people can't paint their houses jarring colors and where they can't turn their lawn into a used car lot complete with old washers and dryers, a toilet and a old jacked up couch where a cat gave birth to a litter of kittens. Before you sign on the dotted line just read everything and know what you're getting into. There are some communities that I wouldn't live in either precisely because they're too restrictive. |
|
|
|
Post by LowKey on Jan 18, 2014 19:46:14 GMT
When did respect (no matter how grudging) of others rights, including their property rights, evaporate? I think evaporate might be the wrong word. IMO it's more a case of accepting some limits on self expression for the collective good. The history of HOA's can be found here. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeowner_associationphoenix.about.com/cs/real/a/HOA01.htmI know that was more of a rhetorical question, but it's kind of important to note when and that was in the late 40's and 50's when much of the nations population moved into suburbs. In the 1800's and early 1900's people built their own houses and usually lived in rural locations. It didn't matter much what someone did because it didn't effect anyone else as people weren't living right on top of each other. When it starts to effect other people then those people have an interest in what those people can and cannot do. Like anything else that type of thing can go too far as well. I mean when a homeowner can't even fly the US flag (you know, the fucking country we live in) there's a problem. Most HOA's just make sure that lawns are kept up, that people can't paint their houses jarring colors and where they can't turn their lawn into a used car lot complete with old washers and dryers, a toilet and a old jacked up couch where a cat gave birth to a litter of kittens. Before you sign on the dotted line just read everything and know what you're getting into. There are some communities that I wouldn't live in either precisely because they're too restrictive. I'm not really referring to situations involving a HOA (my view towards HOA's are that if you chose to buy property governed by a HOA then you need to abide by the contractual agreements you entered). My viewpoint/stance is for non-HOA properties and those without other covenants attached to the title. What business is it of anyone else what you or I do with or on our own property (that stays within the confines of our property)? As far as the argument of, "for the collective good"....bollocks. The recent legislation requiring you to buy health care is "for the collective good", as well as many other horrific insults to our individual liberty. Any attempt to justify persons (singly or collectively) laying claim to a pseudo-right of control over another persons property had better be able to demonstrate where factual, verifiable, harm is being caused by the property owners actions or inaction. If preventing the lowering of neighborhood property values were really a sufficient moral and ethical justification to force a property owner to do the bidding of the neighborhood in regard to his property then surely it would be morally and ethically justified to for the property owner to make improvements that the neighbors collectively believe will increase property values.  Much as you or I would like to do everything possible to ensure we get top dollar if and when we sell our properties, we have no moral or ethical right to infringe on another persons rights to do so. That such coercive infringement of property rights may have become normal and routine, and in some cases codified in law, doesn't make such infringements right....no even if you and I might be the beneficiaries. |
|
|
|
Post by Browning35 on Jan 18, 2014 20:20:34 GMT
See... That's the thing, I was only talking about HOA's. Full stop.
If someone hasn't agreed to set rules regarding what they're able to do with the property then they're free to do whatever they like.
I wasn't saying any different either.
Some cities make residents conform to certain behavior. Like I remember one time we went on a trip and our grass got long and they sent us a letter basically "cut your grass or we'll send someone to do it for you and we'll charge you an arm and a leg". They've also sent my neighbor letters about leaving his trashcans in the alleyway. So I'm pretty sure they'd do something if people started parking their cars on the lawn, painted it a jarring color or something of that nature. Not my concern and I'm neither defending it or speaking against it.
My point was merely to abide by what you agreed to.
|
|
- 