Women Gets 93 Days In Jail For Planting A Garden!

[iPhoneKiller]

This is why Americans are fat, you can't grow vegetables or you go prison to get raped (Diverse people who rape you which is good I guess) but they want you to go Mcdonalds.

[squealpiggy]

A vegetable garden though? Really? I don't see how that's an obstruction in the neighborhood.

I didn't write the code.

[Nuurzhaelan]

Because she replanted a garden in a wacky way

That is subjective.

and this resulted in the neighbours complaining to the city. The city agreed that this garden did not fit in with code, code which is put there to keep everybody relatively happy and to maintain everyone's property values. The city asked her to change the garden to conform with the expectations of the neighbourhood and advised that vegetable gardens are permissable in back yards but not front yards, she refused to move them. They wrote a citation and she refused to pay it. They summonsed her to court to have her case decided as a result of a refusal to accede to the demands of the city or pay the fine and she demanded to have to most time consuming, disruptive and expensive method of having her case decided. As a result of HER CHOOSING a jury trial the potential penalties increase exponentially.

I get that and I probably would have heeded the first warning myself, but I do think that this enters the realm of over regulation. I would have thought that the garden could have attracted vermin giving the city a fair reason to disallow it. But as gardens are allowed in the rear of the property, I think the neighbors and city are overly invested in their vision and not personal liberties. I have never supported laws that regulated against personal taste. I think that is absurd.

She's a total idiot. Does she think that because it's a jury trial they're going to be ruling over whether or not planting vegetables at the front of the house is right or just? They are going to be deciding whether or not her vegetable garden is "suitable" for a front garden in her neighbourhood and they'll be pushing for a maximum penalty because she's deliberately being a pain in the ass about it.

Unfair laws should be challenged. It's a silly law. An institution that defends laws because they're laws should signal the population that there is too much bureaucracy. She's neither encroaching on anyone's rights, privileges nor putting anyone at risk of physical harm. At worst she's doing nothing more than altering the look of her property...HER property. Property values are only relevant to those buying and selling (and for tax purposes). I don't understand their (the neighbors) *****, unless it's because they have an axe to grind. As for the city, the aristocrats at city hall are probably vexed that someone had the temerity to challenge a silly law.

[FastForward]

I didn't write the code.

What if the law said jews had to wear a star of david so they could be identified easly like during nazi germany. Would you agree with that as well?

[BrotherDudeJack]

That is subjective.



I get that and I probably would have heeded the first warning myself, but I do think that this enters the realm of over regulation. I would have thought that the garden could have attracted vermin giving the city a fair reason to disallow it. But as gardens are allowed in the rear of the property, I think the neighbors and city are overly invested in their vision and not personal liberties. I have never supported laws that regulated against personal taste. I think that is absurd.



Unfair laws should be challenged. It's a silly law. An institution that defends laws because they're laws should signal the population that there is too much bureaucracy. She's neither encroaching on anyone's rights, privileges nor putting anyone at risk of physical harm. At worst she's doing nothing more than altering the look of her property...HER property. Property values are only relevant to those buying and selling (and for tax purposes). I don't understand their (the neighbors) *****, unless it's because they have an axe to grind. As for the city, the aristocrats at city hall are probably vexed that someone had the temerity to challenge a silly law.

very well said..

[squealpiggy]

What if the law said jews had to wear a star of david so they could be identified easly like during nazi germany. Would you agree with that as well?

Well that's irrelevant because the law doesn't say that and this concept is not a part of this discussion.

[squealpiggy]

As for the city, the aristocrats at city hall are probably vexed that someone had the temerity to challenge a silly law.

Well the city were responding to a complaint and are enforcing a bylaw as a result. She decided to turn a local city bylaw into an example of massive injustice by demanding for no reason a jury trial.

[Spray_resistant]

Well the city were responding to a complaint and are enforcing a bylaw as a result. She decided to turn a local city bylaw into an example of massive injustice by demanding for no reason a jury trial.

Maybe she did it just to be a cunt as they are I think you can admit acting like cunts themselves about something that is not a big deal really when the city should have just let it go regardless of the needless law on the books.

[squealpiggy]

Maybe she did it just to be a cunt as they are I think you can admit acting like cunts themselves about something that is not a big deal really when the city should have just let it go regardless of the needless law on the books.

It's not really "needless" as her garden has produced complaints. If people in the neighbourhood do not want vegetable gardens in front gardens then a bylaw prohibiting vegetable gardens in front gardens is not needless.

It's like parking. Parking cars in areas where they don't cause a hazard is annoying to some people, hence there are parking bylaws.

[Nuurzhaelan]

It's not really "needless" as her garden has produced complaints. If people in the neighbourhood do not want vegetable gardens in front gardens then a bylaw prohibiting vegetable gardens in front gardens is not needless.

It is needless because those are petty, perhaps even vindictive complaints. Laws should serve the common good, not the common taste.

If I elect to wear plaid with spots, I'll be goddamned if someone is going to stop me because it is unsightly.