U.S.A.

[Pope Flick]

You're so freaking rad.

 

 

[Brentastic]

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.

The chic is facing a 93 day jail sentence. While it probably won't happen, it could and that's not right.

[gbpfan1231]

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

They could easily do a recall election - I mean if you don't like something an elected official is doing he/she shuld be voted on again immediately.

[detlef]

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.

Again, it appears we already have that in place. Or, as I said before, we'd better have it in place if we're going to outlaw growing legal crops in someone's front yard. Again, if we're not going to go around and tell people who have crappy looking yards that they have to deal with them, what point is there telling people what otherwise legal plants they are or are not allowed to put in their front yards?

 

Talk about stupid. Assuming you are really talking about property values and aesthetics, say you have two yards. One has "lawn", only it's really not a lawn at all because it's really just a bunch of dirt with a few weeds in it. This, apparently is fine because it's not a veggie garden. Next door, you have a well kept vegetable garden. This is apparently illegal because, even though this one is well kept, technically someone else could have one that is not as well kept.

 

So, in other words, you have a yard that most certainly does look like crap which is legal right next to one that does not look like crap witch is illegal because, in the care of someone less, well, caring, it could theoretically look like crap.

 

Sounds like a great effing law.

 

What about this? I'm guessing, right now, they don't have lawn police, they have neighbors who complain and then someone checks it out. My guess is that, if that person comes out and decides there's really nothing wrong, nothing gets done. If the lawn does look like crap, they make them deal with it. So, why not the same for veggie gardens? My neighbor swammi gets his panties a wad because I've got tomatoes in my front yard. Some public works person comes out and has a look. They see that my yard looks nice and that I just happen to have tomatoes where he has boxwoods. They figure, nothing to see here and tell him to chill. Should they come out and I've got an unsightly mud pit with scraggly vines and rotting fruit, then they bust me the same way they'd bust me if I had a crappy law.

 

How is this hard?

 

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

Once again, as I clearly stated in my first post, I realize that the law is the law. As I have reiterated, I'm not saying to disregard the law, I'm saying it's a stupid law that should be changed. Because, it is, quite plainly, an effing stupid, 100% irrefutably lame, random, and completely arbitrary law. And your description above further illustrates that simple fact. That and my explanation do Azz.

 

So now it's about height? What about rose bushes? They grow tall. What about boxwoods or any number of shrubs? Why does my yard need to look "typical"? You're just catagorically stating that vegetable plants are unsightly. Have you ever seen okra grow? It's related to hibiscus, which is a beautiful flower. Before it produces the edible pods that we think of as okra, it releases a very pretty blossom that the pod grows from. Have you ever seen a squash blossom? A plant loaded with them? They're really pretty. A pepper plant loaded with ripe red peppers is about as pretty a plant as any flower. Pretty, not only because of the colors, but likely because of the promise of a tasty meal. But let's just arbitrarily outlaw these plants. Because, apparently, according to you for every person who has a good veggie garden, 9 do not. (that's the part I'd love to have you "back up").

 

So, which is it? Is it that you're afraid of people having unkempt veggie gardens in their front lawn or is it that they're not "typical" enough for you even if the yard looks nice?

 

Because, like I've said now plenty of times, it seems like there's already a plan in place to deal with people whose yards look like crap. Why not just stick with that?

[Azazello1313]

WON'T SOMEBODY THINK ABOUT THE SQUASH BLOSSOMS??!1!

[detlef]

WON'T SOMEBODY THINK ABOUT THE SQUASH BLOSSOMS??!1!

Just so I have your stance correct. While you, personally don't particularly care what your neighbors do with their yard, you do support legislation that allows only specific landscaping that does not include edible annuals in one's front yard on a city-wide basis?

 

That, this is not about actually not letting your yard go to crap, but rather not planting things that are not "typical".

 

Because that is my only beef. That, in the name of making sure your neighbor's yard doesn't look like crap, people want to make an arbitrary distinction about what plants they can plant because they think they may be more inclined to look like crap if not taken care of rather than simply making a stink if, in fact, they're not taken care of.

 

Does that not strike you as only a bit absurd?

[Azazello1313]

Just so I have your stance correct. While you, personally don't particularly care what your neighbors do with their yard, you do support legislation that allows only specific landscaping that does not include edible annuals in one's front yard on a city-wide basis?

 

That, this is not about actually not letting your yard go to crap, but rather not planting things that are not "typical".

 

Because that is my only beef. That, in the name of making sure your neighbor's yard doesn't look like crap, people want to make an arbitrary distinction about what plants they can plant because they think they may be more inclined to look like crap if not taken care of rather than simply making a stink if, in fact, they're not taken care of.

 

Does that not strike you as only a bit absurd?

 

I think it's kinda stupid. but I see why they have the laws in place, and unlike you, I see the need to outlaw specific things in this kind of law, rather than simply outlawing "crappy looking yards" and giving cops or whomever the arbitrary power to "know it when they see it". although there appears to be some dispute about this, it seems she asked the city about it and was advised that she shouldn't do it. she did it anyway, some busybodies complained about how it looked, and the city had to enforce its law.

 

the only thing about this story that seems "absurd", to me, is people getting worked up like she's the rosa parks of rutabagas.

[detlef]

I think it's kinda stupid. but I see why they have the laws in place, and unlike you, I see the need to outlaw specific things in this kind of law, rather than simply outlawing "crappy looking yards" and giving cops or whomever the arbitrary power to "know it when they see it". although there appears to be some dispute about this, it seems she asked the city about it and was advised that she shouldn't do it. she did it anyway, some busybodies complained about how it looked, and the city had to enforce its law.

 

the only thing about this story that seems "absurd", to me, is people getting worked up like she's the rosa parks of rutabagas.

So, I suppose something needs to be ironed out. You've again brought up the notion of not wanting to allow the city to decide if your yard looks like crap. Others have said they've gotten letters from the city saying they needed to mow their lawns. So, again, it sounds like they're already given "arbitrary power" to decide if your lawn looks like crap.

 

And, again, if you're against this, I can't see why you could justify outlawing some annuals on the basis that they produce edible fruit or, themselves can be eaten.

 

Once again. Two yards: One, a well-kept vegetable garden, the other a Josh Gordon-infested mud pit. Swammi? Are you saying the mud pit should be good to go but not the veggie garden? Because, the veggie garden might end up looking as bad as the Josh Gordon-infested mud pit already looks?

[bpwallace49]

I think it's kinda stupid. but I see why they have the laws in place, and unlike you, I see the need to outlaw specific things in this kind of law, rather than simply outlawing "crappy looking yards" and giving cops or whomever the arbitrary power to "know it when they see it". although there appears to be some dispute about this, it seems she asked the city about it and was advised that she shouldn't do it. she did it anyway, some busybodies complained about how it looked, and the city had to enforce its law.

 

the only thing about this story that seems "absurd", to me, is people getting worked up like she's the rosa parks of rutabagas.

 

 

detlef we get it. You have a garden.

 

God bless.

[delusions of grandeur]

Once again. Two yards: One, a well-kept vegetable garden, the other a Josh Gordon-infested mud pit. Swammi? Are you saying the mud pit should be good to go but not the veggie garden? Because, the veggie garden might end up looking as bad as the Josh Gordon-infested mud pit already looks?

Who's arguing that a Josh Gordon-infested mud-pit is okay? It's going to get a complaint filed on you just the same.

 

If anything the penalty may be too harsh for the garden, though I couldn't imagine her anything near the maximum sentence. Fine if you want to argue the merits of the law, but it's not a double standard. Neither is permitted by their ordinances.

[i_am_the_swammi]

So now it's about height? What about rose bushes? They grow tall. What about boxwoods or any number of shrubs? Why does my yard need to look "typical"? You're just catagorically stating that vegetable plants are unsightly. Have you ever seen okra grow? It's related to hibiscus, which is a beautiful flower. Before it produces the edible pods that we think of as okra, it releases a very pretty blossom that the pod grows from. Have you ever seen a squash blossom? A plant loaded with them? They're really pretty. A pepper plant loaded with ripe red peppers is about as pretty a plant as any flower. Pretty, not only because of the colors, but likely because of the promise of a tasty meal. But let's just arbitrarily outlaw these plants. Because, apparently, according to you for every person who has a good veggie garden, 9 do not. (that's the part I'd love to have you "back up").

 

So do you mandate that people should be allowed to grow rows of corn in their front yard, as long as they are neat rows? Because it sounds from your analogies above, you do. If I think corn is a pretty plant, I should be able to grow it in rows in the front yard of a home in a residential community? Its exactly this thinking that had the law passed in the first place.

 

Is it that you're afraid of people having unkempt veggie gardens in their front lawn or is it that they're not "typical" enough for you even if the yard looks nice?

 

I'm not afraid of anything related to vegetables. But to your question, I don't think people should be growing crops and vegetables in their front yards if they live in a clustered residential neighborhood. Again, I think there would be a significant grey area as to what would be considered "tidy", and what would be unkept. I'll ask you the same question I asked earlier which you ignored: do you think its easier to categorically call a lawn "unkept", or a vegetable garden?The answer is pretty simple, but for some reason, you are making it harder on yourself.

 

according to you for every person who has a good veggie garden, 9 do not. (that's the part I'd love to have you "back up").

how do you propose I do that? Its called an educated guess, based on years of seeing hundreds of people's vegetable gardens cooped up in chicken wire, versus the nicely-kept boxed-look that was shown earlier (though it was a new garden, so it should look pretty nice). I would propose that after a couple years of rain and rot, those lovely wooden gardens won't look 20% of what they do now.

[Clubfoothead]

like she's the rosa parks of rutabagas.

 

Yer the freaking Jim Nance of thehuddle.

 

[detlef]

Who's arguing that a Josh Gordon-infested mud-pit is okay? It's going to get a complaint filed on you just the same.

 

If anything the penalty may be too harsh for the garden, though I couldn't imagine her anything near the maximum sentence. Fine if you want to argue the merits of the law, but it's not a double standard. Neither is permitted by their ordinances.

But, apparently, one is only not permitted regardless of how well it is kept, the other is permitted provided it is nicely kept. There is a huge difference.

[alexgaddis]

Detlef, please plant your garden in the BACK of your house...

 

TIA

[WaterMan]

Instead of America: Land of the free, home of the brave

 

How about America: It could be worse

[detlef]

So do you mandate that people should be allowed to grow rows of corn in their front yard, as long as they are neat rows? Because it sounds from your analogies above, you do. If I think corn is a pretty plant, I should be able to grow it in rows in the front yard of a home in a residential community? Its exactly this thinking that had the law passed in the first place.

 

 

 

I'm not afraid of anything related to vegetables. But to your question, I don't think people should be growing crops and vegetables in their front yards if they live in a clustered residential neighborhood. Again, I think there would be a significant grey area as to what would be considered "tidy", and what would be unkept. I'll ask you the same question I asked earlier which you ignored: do you think its easier to categorically call a lawn "unkept", or a vegetable garden?The answer is pretty simple, but for some reason, you are making it harder on yourself.

 

 

how do you propose I do that? Its called an educated guess, based on years of seeing hundreds of people's vegetable gardens cooped up in chicken wire, versus the nicely-kept boxed-look that was shown earlier (though it was a new garden, so it should look pretty nice). I would propose that after a couple years of rain and rot, those lovely wooden gardens won't look 20% of what they do now.

In essence, yes, why not. Again, I freaking hate lawns and am converting my yard away from lawn as fast as is reasonable. So, maybe I don't like your lawn and think my corn looks freaking great. If someone moved in across from me and put some huge garish fountain in the middle of his yard, I'd sure wish he didn't. But it's not my yard.

 

So yes, provided I'm not making a mess of my yard, then I think you should butt the hell out of it.

 

And I haven't ignored a single thing you've said. An unkempt yard can look like any number of things. It can be a Josh Gordon-infested "lawn" that's either overgrown or has tons of missing patches. It can be overgrown shrubs with massive dead spots inside (that are tall, btw and quite visible). There are any number of things that once can do to one's front yard that have nothing to do with plants that I think would not be very appealing to look at. So I do find it odd that the one thing we're going to single out are veggies. Regardless of how well tended to they are. That is really it.

 

If the city wants me to get a permit to raise chickens in the city limits, I get that. I also understand having to ask my neighbors to sign off on that and setbacks from the property line and the whole deal. Even though any a-hole can get a dog.

 

But now you're going to tell me what plants look good and what plants don't? In my yard? Thank you, but piss off. That's a stupid effing law. Like I said, make it an HOA issue so you and your neighbors can keep your street pumpkin-free. Don't tell a guy who lives miles away from you what he can and can't grow in his yard because you don't like it.

[Ursa Majoris]

the rosa parks of rutabagas.

That is just

[detlef]

Detlef, please plant your garden in the BACK of your house...

 

TIA

ALL of my garden, or just the plants that make things I can eat.

[Brentastic]

You momos are still arguing about this nonsense

 

 

[delusions of grandeur]

But, apparently, one is only not permitted regardless of how well it is kept, the other is permitted provided it is nicely kept. There is a huge difference.

 

Yes, the difference being it's meant to be a front LAWN, not a farm.

 

Again, this is not a federal law, and differs from locale to locale depending on what the community's priorities are. In Durham, you live in an area where farming is more widely accepted. Sounds like that works out good for you, but not everyone feels that way.

 

I don't know why you feel the need to make sure that everyone feels like you and your community do...

[detlef]

Yes, the difference being it's meant to be a front LAWN, not a farm.

 

Again, this is not a federal law, and differs from locale to locale depending on what the community's priorities are. In Durham, you live in an area where farming is more widely accepted. Sounds like that works out good for you, but not everyone feels that way.

 

I don't know why you feel the need to make sure that everyone feels like you and your community do...

Like I said, I don't think everyone should have to have a vegetable garden in their front yard. I just don't like the precedent it sets when swammi gets to decide what plants he thinks would look best in my yard. And, btw, I doubt he'd even be able to tell that I have peppers or okra growing in my front yard. However, it annoys me that, should he get pissed off at me for some reason, I'd be at his mercy in terms of him "outing me to the cops for my contraband garden".

 

Especially considering that our garden is, again, considered by those in our neighborhood to be among the finest.

 

"Sorry Detlef, we've received a complaint that you have peppers and okra integrated into your front yard landscaping. I can plainly see that your yard is among the nicest looking in the neighborhood, but we do have standards after all. We like lawns. You should as well."

 

And, again, if we're talking about property values, this seems like the perfect opportunity for an HOA restriction. Swammi and his same-thinking neighbors can decide what they want going on in terms of yards in their neighborhood. Hell, if they don't want someone painting their house jet-black, they can stop them from doing that. Then, should my neighbors and I choose to put veggies in our yard, we're cool to do that.

 

How does that come off as me wanting "everyone to feel like I do"?

[detlef]

They should. Peppers and okra are great.

What okra an okra flower looks like

 

At least for those who don't know

[Hugh B Tool]

They should. Peppers and okra are great.

 

 

I H8 Oprah. nasty slimey stuff right there

[delusions of grandeur]

Like I said, I don't think everyone should have to have a vegetable garden in their front yard. I just don't like the precedent it sets when swammi gets to decide what plants he thinks would look best in my yard. And, btw, I doubt he'd even be able to tell that I have peppers or okra growing in my front yard. However, it annoys me that, should he get pissed off at me for some reason, I'd be at his mercy in terms of him "outing me to the cops for my contraband garden".

 

Especially considering that our garden is, again, considered by those in our neighborhood to be among the finest.

 

"Sorry Detlef, we've received a complaint that you have peppers and okra integrated into your front yard landscaping. I can plainly see that your yard is among the nicest looking in the neighborhood, but we do have standards after all. We like lawns. You should as well."

 

And, again, if we're talking about property values, this seems like the perfect opportunity for an HOA restriction. Swammi and his same-thinking neighbors can decide what they want going on in terms of yards in their neighborhood. Hell, if they don't want someone painting their house jet-black, they can stop them from doing that. Then, should my neighbors and I choose to put veggies in our yard, we're cool to do that.

 

How does that come off as me wanting "everyone to feel like I do"?

It comes off the way because you keep unequivocally stating that's an unjust law. All I'm doing is playing devil's advocate and saying it's not for everyone.

 

I agree on the HOA, the more local the better. I'd rather city council not have any say in what my neighborhood does...

 

But what you're talking about having these things integrated into your landscaping is alot different than plopping down 5 large wood planters with no surrounding vegetation in a small yard, or at least it is to some people... In a case like yours, I'd like to think that no one would complain, and if they did that the city could use some discretion.

Edited July 13, 2011 by delusions of granduer

[detlef]

I H8 Oprah. nasty slimey stuff right there

Pickled or fried, there's no slime. We do a tempura okra at Jujube that's great.