City Forces Homeowners to Destroy Their Vegetable Garden

Can the government prohibit you from peacefully and productively using your own property to feed your family?

That is the question the Institute for Justice (IJ) and a Miami Shores couple have taken to state court in their challenge to Miami Shores’ unconstitutional ban on front-yard vegetable gardens. The law prohibits homeowners from growing vegetables in their front yards, but trees, fruit, and garden gnomes are just fine. Homeowners who grow front-yard vegetable gardens face fines of $50 per day.

12 Comments on "City Forces Homeowners to Destroy Their Vegetable Garden"

  1. BuzzCoastin | Jan 15, 2014 at 7:10 pm |

    damned China
    too bad that homeowner doesn’t live in freest free country on Earth
    the rights & freedoms we enjoy as Homelanders
    is why El Kabong wants to kill us

    waaaa, this happened in the Homeland?
    must be a aRab sympathizer

  2. Anarchy Pony | Jan 15, 2014 at 10:36 pm |

    Conform! Conform! Conform!

  3. Altho I’ve landed on the other side before, I’m forced to agree in this case: outright citywide bans are an unconstitutional push against home farming, a deliberate ploy to keep people dependent on food deserts that make unhealthy choices (ie: corporate crap) your only food option.

    When do I dissent? When the ‘homeowners’ aren’t actually homeowners. If you don’t own the property outright, major structural changes to someone else’s property isn’t your ‘right’. It just isn’t, and there are plenty of cases where lessees or renters have furiously kvetched that their right to alter someone else’s property has been violated…and blessedly they’ve lost.

    But this is different. This is worth opposing. This is the shit that Monsanto and other GMO-brand name-nutrient deficient-chemically treated garbage salesmen want for us. They want a marker closed enough that you can’t run or hide from their products. It’s become an eat swill and die slowly or eat nothing and die fast approach to food laws. un-effing-acceptable.

    • “When the ‘homeowners’ aren’t actually homeowners. If you don’t own the property outright”

      I certainly hope that you mean actual “outright”, and not “in possession of a mortgage over the next 25-30 years”? The latter are no more a ‘homeowner’ than lessees or renters in the fact that their lender actually owns the property, and you are in a situation to attempt to buy it from them some day.

      In the example of a true ‘homeowner’, meaning someone that lives in a house they own truly outright and do not carry any mortgage, then yea, this smacks of control measures to force the public to buy from corporations instead of relying on any manner of self sufficiency.

      Reminds me of those that are opting to go “off grid” and then getting penalized for doing so. Make it blow back on them to the point that they’ll likely abandon their attempt and go back “on grid” just to avoid the hassles that are being passed their way for no good or valid reason other than to keep lining a corporation’s pockets.

      • I just see too many cases where the ‘owner’ is actually a tenant who wants to alter the property. I empathize with their desire to do something good…but if it aint your property…it just aint. Then theres the idiots who sign agreements with neighborhoods to meet certain standards…and are shocked when the contract they signed bites them in the ass. Never, ever sign a contract without reading it carefully. I’m empathetic to people who find their life goals or interests frustrated by petty bureaucracy…but I start feeling less sympathy when people author their own troubles through stupidity and then demand instant satisfaction no matter what they may have done to facilitate the problem.

        • You’ll get no argument from me. If these people would use their heads for something other than a mere hat rack, we’d all be better off. Those that don’t have contracts of conformity to worry about or mortgages to pay on their home still get the short end of the stick all too often, and for those types I really do feel for them.

          Red tape thinking is eroding any perceived freedom that one may have otherwise enjoyed.

          • Amen…when people consistently reject ‘hostile terms’ from contracts…those terms die out. One things realtors and homesellers all have in common is the willingness to suck a golf ball thru a garden hose if it’ll get a house sold. Don’t let them pawn off ‘community rules’ and don’t patronize areas that prohibit people from simple gardening. Take the money away…and those groups will become your advocates to bring you back into the fold. Politics in America is cash driven…and market economics is king. It’s a dirty war and I’d love to change it…but its the way things are now…and I accept that for now. Fight money with money…use greed against the greedy. It IS their weakness…make it work for you instead of them. Growing food on your own property is a basic human right…as legitimate as the right to breathing air. Historically…owning land has ALWAYS been about the right to make use of that land as you see fit…within reason. As long as someone isn’t transforming the entirety of their suburban yard into a factory farm…its no ones business if they supplement their diet with something grown at home instead of Monsanto’s preferred glop.

          • Makes me imagine a scenario that would see the “underground farms” happen. In routinely warm areas of the States, how feasible would it be to literally carve a space big enough for home growing, and then covering it with damage resistant material (but still transparent) so as to allow available sunlight to shine through and then operating your own underground green space for such things?

            Live within the mantra of “out of sight, out of mind” type thing. What they don’t see can’t hurt them, right?

      • AlexCristo | Sep 5, 2014 at 9:10 pm |

        There’s one big problem with you equating homeowners with renters. There’s something called equity in buying a home. You paying towards something you will OWN. It doesn’t matter it’s in 20 or 25 years because you still have home property rights in the meantime. There’s no ‘attempt to buy it.’ It’s not a lease. A home owner signs a mortgage for an amount and when that amount is paid off it becomes their own. I can do whatever I want on my property – within city ordinates of course.

        • Uh huh. Spoken like a truly delusional sort who likes to live in a vacuum of ignorance. So lemme break it down for you in smaller words…

          Fail to make a payment on your mortgage. Go ahead. Then we’ll see who -really- owns your home.

          You own NOTHING until the final payment is remitted. If it can be repossessed, then you own exactly jack s&^t.

          Until then, you are little more than a groundskeeper/maid/tenant. It’s called a fact…embrace it.

          • AlexCristo | Sep 16, 2014 at 9:13 pm |

            BDJ, I don’t argue with people who take a one-sided view and then call people they don’t know ‘ignorant.’ You have all the answers and we’ll leave it at that buddy.

  4. LifelongLIb | Jan 16, 2014 at 1:33 am |

    I’m glad the homeowners are taking the right course — getting the law changed. All too often city agencies or homeowner associations get blamed in situations like this, when they actually have little choice but to enforce the laws/rules as written.

Comments are closed.