Women Gets 93 Days In Jail For Planting A Garden!

[LoftyDog]

I worked for my town in code enforcement, and a lot of complaints were just neighbors fighting and then calling on some random code violation. Nothing big, but they'd call just to **** w/ them. That or it was an old person who needed to complain about something.

Sounds like this lady is already going for a jury nullification more than anything.

[squealpiggy]

I worked for my town in code enforcement, and a lot of complaints were just neighbors fighting and then calling on some random code violation. Nothing big, but they'd call just to **** w/ them. That or it was an old person who needed to complain about something.

Sounds like this lady is already going for a jury nullification more than anything.

You could be right, and perhaps the source of the article (the agitator!? FFS...) is muddying the waters by stating she was asserting her "right" to a jury trial.

[AKATheMack]

This is precisely the conclusion it is unreasonable to leap to. A woman got a citation from the council asking her to move her vegetable garden to the back yard as per building code and you've extrapolated that to "the government" restricting peoples' right to grow their own food!
This is a petty local bylaw case and she has decided to be wacky and assert her right to a jury trial (for some baffling reason) which is going to cost everyone more time and more money and is going to take twelve people away from their jobs and families to sit in a court room listening to something trivial.
This case is tremendously unimportant and only conspiracy theorists could make it seem relevant to human freedom

Has Alex Jones got a hold of this yet?

Making people do things they dont want to do accomplishes much more than writing letters. Also when a goverment official says" you cant grow a garden on your own property" no matter where on the property that happens to be the government IS restricting a persons right to grow there own food.

[squealpiggy]

Making people do things they dont want to do accomplishes much more than writing letters. Also when a goverment official says" you cant grow a garden on your own property" no matter where on the property that happens to be the government IS restricting a persons right to grow there own food.

No it isn't. Nobody is telling her she can't grow her own food. They're telling her that in that neighbourhood the place to grow food is at the back of the property, not the front. This has nothing to do with food, so don't start that Codex Alimentarius bullshit.

[AKATheMack]

No it isn't. Nobody is telling her she can't grow her own food. They're telling her that in that neighbourhood the place to grow food is at the back of the property, not the front. This has nothing to do with food, so don't start that Codex Alimentarius bullshit.

I have no idea what Codex Alimentarius is, I do however understand the definition of the word restrict. If you own any piece of land and the government denies you the right to grow food on it, its a problem.

[squealpiggy]

[/B]

I have no idea what Codex Alimentarius is, I do however understand the definition of the word restrict. If you own any piece of land and the government denies you the right to grow food on it, its a problem.

Codex Alimentarius was a favourite of conspiraloons a bit ago as they suggested it was evidence of a conspiracy to ban food unless it's made out of evil using factories and jews and whatnot. You know how these things go.

The notion that this has anything to do with this woman growing her own food is absurd.

[Amazinger]

Their front yard was torn up after replacing a sewer line, so instead of replacing the dirt with grass, one Oak Park woman put in a vegetable garden and now the city is seeing green.
The list goes on: fresh basil, cabbage, carrots, tomatoes, cumbers and more all filling five large planter boxes that fill the Bass family’s front yard.
Julie Bass says, “We thought we’re minding our own business, doing something not ostentatious and certainly not obnoxious or nothing that is a blight on the neighborhood, so we didn’t think people would care very much.”But some cared very much and called the city. The city then sent out code enforcement.
“They warned us at first that we had to move the vegetables from the front, that no vegetables were allowed in the front yard. We didn’t move them because we didn’t think we were doing anything wrong, even according to city code we didn’t think we were doing anything wrong. So they ticketed us and charged me with a misdemeanor,” Bass said . . .


That there tells me she acted without thinking......

[AKATheMack]

Codex Alimentarius was a favourite of conspiraloons a bit ago as they suggested it was evidence of a conspiracy to ban food unless it's made out of evil using factories and jews and whatnot. You know how these things go.

The notion that this has anything to do with this woman growing her own food is absurd.

That was never my stance, Im much too lazy to keep up with conspiracy theories. My stance is that she has every right to fight this as her denial is based on a faulty definition of the word suitable. If you're wondering how I know a vegetable garden is suitable live vegetation for a front yard, try saying
" Growing a vegetable garden in your own front yard is inappropriate" without sounding like an ignorant asshole. You place the blame on this woman for standing up for herself on such a trivial matter, but if its such a trivial matter why does the city not receive the blame for having such a trivial matter on the books? I believe making the city spend money it doesnt want to spend and waste it time it doesnt want to waste is a great way to open their eyes to the ignorance of this ordinance. Im disappointed in your stance that this woman should roll over just because the city asked her to. The garden is already planted and its harming noone, why should she waste the time and money shes put into this garden just because of a nosy a neighbor and a D.A who thinks the word suitable is synonymous with common?

[squealpiggy]

That was never my stance, Im much too lazy to keep up with conspiracy theories. My stance is that she has every right to fight this as her denial is based on a faulty definition of the word suitable. If you're wondering how I know a vegetable garden is suitable live vegetation for a front yard, try saying
" Growing a vegetable garden in your own front yard is inappropriate" without sounding like an ignorant asshole.

As staggering number of legal cases are decided over the semantics of legislative wording. That's just how it is, and that's why lawyers have to be so qualified.

You place the blame on this woman for standing up for herself on such a trivial matter, but if its such a trivial matter why does the city not receive the blame for having such a trivial matter on the books?

It's a city bylaw and all city bylaws are trivial. Noise complaints, gum on the sidewalk, littering, zoning, parking, they're all trivial but they're all necessary because everybody has to live together and an astonishing number of people are petty and vindictive and easily offended.

I believe making the city spend money it doesnt want to spend and waste it time it doesnt want to waste is a great way to open their eyes to the ignorance of this ordinance.

This is not making "the city" spend money. It's making the taxpayer spend money on her vanity case.

Im disappointed in your stance that this woman should roll over just because the city asked her to.

If she wanted to fight it she could have done it against the original request. She could have got a petition together or gone to her local representatives then. Instead she ignored it and hoped it would go away and only when it was clear that the city meant it did she then start pretending she was some sort of freedom fighter and demand her constitutional rights.

The garden is already planted and its harming noone, why should she waste the time and money shes put into this garden just because of a nosy a neighbor

Because the neighbour made a complaint and the city found the garden in violation of its code.

and a D.A who thinks the word suitable is synonymous with common?

The "D.A."? What is this LA Law now? This is a local council enforcing a bylaw! The District Attorney is not going to be prosecuting the case!

[AKATheMack]

As staggering number of legal cases are decided over the semantics of legislative wording. That's just how it is, and that's why lawyers have to be so qualified.

and her lawyer is being hired to test the legitimacy of their definition of suitable
It's a city bylaw and all city bylaws are trivial. Noise complaints, gum on the sidewalk, littering, zoning, parking, they're all trivial but they're all necessary because everybody has to live together and an astonishing number of people are petty and vindictive and easily offended.

shes within her right to ask for a trial as part of these trivial matters also and people(you) still act offended.
This is not making "the city" spend money. It's making the taxpayer spend money on her vanity case.

The taxpayers arent going to have to come up with any extra money their money already belongs to the city. Its the city spending money they dont want to spend.
If she wanted to fight it she could have done it against the original request. She could have got a petition together or gone to her local representatives then. Instead she ignored it and hoped it would go away and only when it was clear that the city meant it did she then start pretending she was some sort of freedom fighter and demand her constitutional rights.



Because the neighbour made a complaint and the city found the garden in violation of its code.



The "D.A."? What is this LA Law now? This is a local council enforcing a bylaw! The District Attorney is not going to be prosecuting the case!

If shes looking at jail time its a criminal case, if its a criminal case its tried by the D.As office.