Cunning Runt Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) Ahhh yes, because money is far more important that living well, in tune with nature and the land. Got it. What any one individual deems important should not take precedence over respecting what other's deem important and the law, whether you personally disagree with it or not. Edited July 13, 2011 by Cunning Runt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) wow, I actually imagined this looking much worse....this was done very sensibly.... can someone tell me what is wrong with this picture because I see nothing wrong with this It breaks the law. Sure it looks great and this particular person did a great job with it. But it is the precedent it sets. You cant allow certain people to do something against an ordinance and not others and base your decision on how well they maintain it. The law and execution of the law needs to be consistent. Edited July 13, 2011 by whomper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rattsass Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Yeah, the law wasn't enacted for gardens that look like that, but unfortunately granny gets the shaft because of people that would not do it in such a presentable manner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 The law and execution of the law needs to be consistent. Is this why Timothy Geithner and Charlie Rangel can get away with tax fraud, but I'd be thrown in prison for the same thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Is this why Timothy Geithner and Charlie Rangel can get away with tax fraud, but I'd be thrown in prison for the same thing? Great point and you will get no argument from me regarding the different playing field that politicians and celebrities are on regarding the law and consequences. In this case though it is more of a cut and dry zoning thing. Ratt nails it below Yeah, the law wasn't enacted for gardens that look like that, but unfortunately granny gets the shaft because of people that would not do it in such a presentable manner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 wow, I actually imagined this looking much worse....this was done very sensibly.... can someone tell me what is wrong with this picture because I see nothing wrong with this I'll freely admit, that looks fine and if I were a neighbor probably wouldn't have anything to say about it. However, she's still pushing the envelope of the law on the books, so she (or anyone else for that matter) shouldn't be surprised to find her in that situation. but she might have a decent shot at winning her case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 It breaks the law. Sure it looks great and this particular person did a great job with it. But it is the precedent it sets. You cant allow certain people to do something against an ordinance and not others and base your decision on how well they maintain it. The law and execution of the law needs to be consistent. But that assumes that every person who plants a lawn and shrubs is going to take care of them. So, truly, if it's about worrying about people taking care of it, why allow any landscaping? Like others have said, there are likely worse looking yards in the same neighborhood that conform to the law. Rather than arbitrarily drawing a line at what you're allowed to plant, why not simply say that you can't let your yard to to chight? I mean, assuming that you want to govern that sort of thing to begin with. What about ornamental peppers? Those are basically the same as planting flowers, but they just look like peppers. What about fruit trees? Herbs? Maybe the worst looking thing in my yard right now is the oregano that needs to be cut back. But that's a shrub that would likely be allowed under any rules about what you can plant. Is it just annual veggies? What about annual flowers? Those look like crap once they die just like veggies do. So, what's the rationale with veggies in particular? Why, given the massive precedent set by people letting their lawns go to chight, is that OK if we're going to evoke precedent with veggie gardens? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 But that assumes that every person who plants a lawn and shrubs is going to take care of them. So, truly, if it's about worrying about people taking care of it, why allow any landscaping? Like others have said, there are likely worse looking yards in the same neighborhood that conform to the law. Rather than arbitrarily drawing a line at what you're allowed to plant, why not simply say that you can't let your yard to to chight? I mean, assuming that you want to govern that sort of thing to begin with. What about ornamental peppers? Those are basically the same as planting flowers, but they just look like peppers. What about fruit trees? Herbs? Maybe the worst looking thing in my yard right now is the oregano that needs to be cut back. But that's a shrub that would likely be allowed under any rules about what you can plant. Is it just annual veggies? What about annual flowers? Those look like crap once they die just like veggies do. So, what's the rationale with veggies in particular? Why, given the massive precedent set by people letting their lawns go to chight, is that OK if we're going to evoke precedent with veggie gardens? Good point and hence the slippery slope. They probably nix vegetables because not everyone will do a nice groomed garden in beds. You may have one squared off in chicken wire with tall stakes all over the place to hold the tomatos in place. as far as the point about the grass etc. as others indicated in the thread, if the grass gets unruly they have had notices from the town asking it be cut or they must pay them if they cut it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Good point and hence the slippery slope. They probably nix vegetables because not everyone will do a nice groomed garden in beds. You may have one squared off in chicken wire with tall stakes all over the place to hold the tomatos in place. as far as the point about the grass etc. as others indicated in the thread, if the grass gets unruly they have had notices from the town asking it be cut or they must pay them if they cut it. Right, but in one case, you're waiting until someone doesn't take care of it and in the other, you're basically assuming they won't. That seems wrong. You say the nix veggies because not everyone will do it nice. Again, why not nix all forms of landscaping? After all, we can all cite numerous examples in cities we live in where someone is not keeping up with their lawn and or shrubs. It's not a slippery slope if you simply create a city ordinance about an unkempt yard. That means if you've got dead trees or a dead lawn or a lawn that is 3 ft high or shrubs or annuals that look like crap or a veggie garden that looks like crap, then you've got to make it nice or get fined. Again, assuming that's a road you even want to go down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 that would require a committee making subjective decisions (which would be fine by me), but no one wants the extra work. I once lived in an HOA that didn't allow trucks, period. A neighbor purchased some kind of F250 or something that was brand new. He wasn't allowed to park it in the neighborhood, eventho he complained that there were junk cars that weren't even worth what his wheels were worth. But apparently that's already happening. People are referencing getting warned by the city because their lawn looked like crap. So, that seems to be happening. In fact, any city that's going to draw the line at veggies better damned well enforce some rules about how your lawn looks or that's even more screwed up. Outlaw certain forms of gardening regardless of how well they're done but, provided you have a lawn, we don't care how it looks? That would be messed up on a massive level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 can someone tell me what is wrong with this picture because I see nothing wrong with this there is nothing too wrong with this picture....except that its against the law. And the law is in place because, even though this garden appears to be an exception, it (1) looks newly planted, and there is a chance it may not appear so kept 6 months from now and (2) history tells us that if you let one person have a well-kept garden, there will be 9 others that have one that is not-so well kept. City ordinance states no vegetable gardens in the front of house in sight of the road....why is that so difficult to understand for some here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) there is nothing too wrong with this picture....except that its against the law. And the law is in place because, even though this garden appears to be an exception, it (1) looks newly planted, and there is a chance it may not appear so kept 6 months from now and (2) history tells us that if you let one person have a well-kept garden, there will be 9 others that have one that is not-so well kept. City ordinance states no vegetable gardens in the front of house in sight of the road....why is that so difficult to understand for some here? Well for starters, I'm not arguing the law should be ignored, but rather changed. And, I'm not so sure about your bit about, if you let one person do a nice one, crappy ones will spring up everywhere. Where does history tell us this? Seemingly, there is no rule against veggie gardens in the front yard in my city. Just did a quick google and didn't come up with anything. But, really, it comes down to the fact that they're reasonably common. But, by "reasonably common" I mean like maybe 1 in 50 houses have them (if that). So, it's not like open season around here, it's just that you notice they're around. Thus, I would imagine that this is really a situation where, those who want to do. And those who want to actually do it right. Otherwise, in a city like mine, where it seems to be legal, there'd be crappy looking veggie gardens all over the place. But there really aren't. At least no more than there are crappy looking yards in general. Not to mention people whose yards look like hell from all the kids playtoys littering the thing. So, is this really worth a law? A law against doing something right just because someone else might do it wrong? Couldn't you outlaw a ton of things on that basis? Again, is there really a historical precedent where a city was overrun with crappy looking veggie gardens and something simply had to be done? Edited July 13, 2011 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 My whole county is basically farmland. There are more houses I can count that have a mile long driveway leading up to the plantation and on either side is corn and farmland in the front, sides and back. You city folk will not last long when the economy finally does fail and you are forced to live on your own wth all these rules. Don't come knockin'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted July 13, 2011 Author Share Posted July 13, 2011 My whole county is basically farmland. There are more houses I can count that have a mile long driveway leading up to the plantation and on either side is corn and farmland in the front, sides and back. You city folk will not last long when the economy finally does fail and you are forced to live on your own wth all these rules. Don't come knockin'. Robots love rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Robots love rules. You're so freaking rad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 No, I'm saying the law is to blame - the point isn't about people looking into ordinances it's about basic liberties being taken from us one at a time. The disconnect here is that robots like you see a law and automatically abide by it because (I'm guessing) you must think government knows what's best for us dummy civilians. People like me would like to see only reasonable laws in place and question the laws that don't make sense. This is an issue about liberty not obedience. people WANT zoning laws and such where they live. and they are also free to enter into covenants and such (or live in places where those are already enforced) if they want an even greater level of conformity-enforcement. everybody comes down at a slightly different place on the spectrum of wanting to be told what to do with their own property versus tolerating what their neighbors do with theirs, and obviously they are free to vote with their feet. personally, I couldn't stand to live in a covenant controlled environment, and I mostly couldn't give a crap what my neighbors do, if they have a garden or a broke-down car in their front yard or whatever; but I guess I'm glad there are some basic zoning and land-use limitations in my neighborhood. each to their own, however....and I really can't see how a story like this is even a blip on anyone's radar as some sort of "what's the country coming to" story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 I really can't see how a story like this is even a blip on anyone's radar as some sort of "what's the country coming to" story. 5 pages of drivel summed up in one sentence....nicely done, Az. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 I rest my case Det, I don't think anyone is arguing that the garden was that bad, and I think you could make a decent case that you should be able to do so as long is doesn't become unkempt, but all people are arguing is that the law isn't just arbitrary or absurd. The communities have good reason for limiting what is visible from the street, whether or not you or I agree. I actually do live in an area with these ordinances, though thank goodness we get a free pass by living at a dead end with an enormous kudzu problem. I don't like the law, but I know it's a possibility we could get fined, and their completely within their right to do so when I chose to live in their city. That's all people are arguing. But I'm not arguing that you should be able to make your yard look like crap. The arbitrary nature of the law from my perspective is that, apparently you can grow whatever you want besides veggies and only get grief from the city if it looks like crap. However, you can't grow veggies because it might end up looking like crap. Why not just say your yard can't look like crap and leave it at that? Again, assuming that you want to police the appearance of people's yards. Which, I can completely understand even if I think there are bigger fish to fry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 5 pages of drivel summed up in one sentence....nicely done, Az. Dude, some of that drivel is yours. You've thrown out some statements rather matter-of-factly that you've failed to back up. Kindly do so? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) Why not just say your yard can't look like crap and leave it at that? and put cops in charge of subjective aesthetic assessments of the attractiveness of peoples' yards? that's dumb. if you're going to try and legislate it, you've got to have a brighter line than that, and legislate against the particular things that tend to 'crop' up -- gardens, junk, inoperable cars, campers, un-mowed grass/weeds, etc. Edited July 13, 2011 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 But I'm not arguing that you should be able to make your yard look like crap. The arbitrary nature of the law from my perspective is that, apparently you can grow whatever you want besides veggies and only get grief from the city if it looks like crap. However, you can't grow veggies because it might end up looking like crap. Why not just say your yard can't look like crap and leave it at that? Again, assuming that you want to police the appearance of people's yards. Which, I can completely understand even if I think there are bigger fish to fry. I actually deleted that response, because it was irrelevant to what you were arguing and has been repeated ad nauseum. To be sure, it's very much a pretentious law, I won't argue with that. But the fact stands that some neighbors did call and complain about something they didn't feel belonged in the front yard. So while you and I could give 2 s**ts if they have a garden, it did bother people, and I'm guessing she made no attempt to see if it would before she went and through 5 planters in her yard visible from the street. To them "suitable means "common:" lawn, nice shrubs, and flowers... You wanna change that, then go through the motions to do so, like they did to prohibit it. Like I said, I'm completely with you on that if you keep a nice kempt garden. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 What I don'tunderstand from taz and brent is why these issues? Maybe America is going to hell in a handbasket but it's not because some lady can't air her grievances in the wrong forum or because you can't have a compost pile in your front lawn. There are plenty of things that actually matter to get riled up over. Let me help you out. The Citizen's United decision by the supremen court is worthy of repulsion. Once that abomination gets fixed, I might give a $hit about small potatoes, until then, there are bigger problems worthy of our time and attention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Dude, some of that drivel is yours. You've thrown out some statements rather matter-of-factly that you've failed to back up. Kindly do so? such as? Not sure what I didn't "back-up". The law is the law....until its changed, follow it. She knew it, was warned, disregarded the warning, and is now on the hook. As to your point about discriminating against vegetables.....I think most of us know that many vegetables grow in a vine-like fashion. So if you are going to blankly allow vegetables, you are then permitting corn/tomatoes/etc, which can grow 2-5 feet above ground (much higher than 99.999% of un-mowed lawns). Your argument about your oregano plant is lame in that regard, because to the naked eye 50 feet away on the street, they likely appear similar to many other typical shrubs. Corn and tomato plants don't look like typical front-yard shrubs. I get that there are may people who would likely keep a tidy garden in the front of their house....the problem is, there are likely more that would push the envelope. Where does it stop? And who is to be the end-all in determining what is proper, and what is unruly? Too subjective when it comes to allowing vegetable growth. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to generally know what a kept lawn looks like. The bigger point: its the law. It was passed by officials elected by the majority. If there are more people that want it changed, let the majority elect an official who will repeal it. Or move. Until then, follow the law, or be prepared to suffer the consequences Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 people WANT zoning laws and such where they live. Does anyone watch "How the States Got Their Shapes" show on History channel? Did you see the episode about Houston (with no zoning laws) and a roller coaster was built right next to a single family home at the beach? Ouch...how'd you like to have a roller coaster next door all day long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Does anyone watch "How the States Got Their Shapes" show on History channel? Did you see the episode about Houston (with no zoning laws) and a roller coaster was built right next to a single family home at the beach? Ouch...how'd you like to have a roller coaster next door all day long. It would be almost as bad as owning a house in a subdivision that backs up to the community pool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.