
Florida couple wins the right to plant veggies in front yard - onemoresoop
https://www.npr.org/2019/07/02/738131948/after-6-year-battle-florida-couple-wins-the-right-to-plant-veggies-in-front-yard
======
anonu
There was a tangentiel post earlier today on HN about letting your garden grow
wild.

Also, when I was a kid in southern California, my parents used to dry laundry
on a clothes line, outside. We were lucky to have a big backyard so you would
imagine not many neighbors would complain.

We got a letter from the neighborhood saying the laundry was unsightly.

This is strange to me to this day. First, air dryed laundry smells and feels
amazing. Second, you're saving a ton of energy by not using an electric or gas
dryer.

But the sight of some towels and bed sheets on a clothes line makes people
really upset....

~~~
Kadin
Line-drying vs machine drying was, and I suppose still is for some older
people (who probably inhabit the bulk of HOA boards and such) a class issue.

People with means had mechanical clothes dryers; poorer people didn't.
(Clothes _washers_ achieved much greater market penetration and did so
significantly before clothes _dryers_.)

Even going back to before home laundry machines, to what is today an older
person's grandparents' era, in big cities the low-cost option was to have your
laundry returned to you wet, and you dried and folded it yourself. People with
more money, naturally, got theirs returned dry and folded.

Scratch the surface of any obnoxious neighborhood rule and you'll find some
sort of class-consciousness or economic insecurity behind it. People don't
want to see laundry because it reminds them of poor people, or they're afraid
it will make the neighborhood look poorer than it is. I'm not saying that's a
_good_ opinion to hold, but I think that's why it's a weirdly sensitive issue.

In another generation when it's firmly an ecological/"green" thing to line-dry
your clothes, and not a sign that you can't _afford_ to do it any other way,
there probably won't be any opposition. Then it's not a social class
signifier, it's just an individual oddity.

~~~
ultrarunner
This is such an interesting perspective. Though she's never said it, I suspect
my grandmother (96! this year) sees vegetarianism the same way— people with
means could afford meat, whereas poorer folks simply couldn't. Intentionally
choosing to limit or eliminate meat consumption just boggles her mind. This
perspective kind of boggles mine.

I hadn't though to extrapolate that position to other topics!

~~~
nerdponx
In my understanding, this kind of thinking is how the American diet came to be
so heavy in meat, sugar, salt, and fat, with such enormous portions.

~~~
lordgrenville
Surely that's just evolution/biology? People will naturally tend to eat bigger
portions, and more energy-dense foods.

------
ivelostn
These kinds of local ordinances are the same reason my partner and I don’t
just rip up our entire front lawn and replace it with native wildflowers and
vegetables. Our backyard has walking paths of cut grass and is otherwise
vegetable plot and flower prairies.

The U.S. laws and norms that enforce cut lawns are crazy to us. They are
biological wastelands.

~~~
devoply
> They are biological wastelands.

That's the point. The whole idiotic point of grassy yards was that only rich
people in feudal Europe could afford them historically because they were such
an utter waste. The planners of these great nations thought what a great idea,
what if everyone could be rich like that... yes we'll make everyone waste land
so they can pretend that they are rich... while the banks own most of it.

For anyone who thinks that this is a conspiracy theory:
[https://www.planetnatural.com/organic-lawn-
care-101/history/](https://www.planetnatural.com/organic-lawn-
care-101/history/)

~~~
pjc50
That's not really what the linked article is arguing; while we could blame
Capability Brown, a lawn is just a pasture that's been tidied. In the UK you
can usually keep one just by mowing and ambient rainfall. No, the problem was
copying that in a very different climate - and then Leavittown, which forced
lawns on people with restrictive covenants.

~~~
rags2riches
An actual pasture will have a much greater diversity in species than your
typical lawn.

------
hirundo
A lot of people think they have the right to micromanage your home and garden
in order to maintain their own property values. That doesn't seem to be the
case here though. I'd think few would object to living next to this beautiful
garden.

So what's left besides a hunger for regimentation, uniformity, control? What's
the best available argument for stopping people from growing veg in the front
yard?

It might attract more pests. It might be a pain for the bureaucrats to have to
distinguish between gardens and overgrown jungles, so easier to ban the lot.
Nefarious activity could be hidden in the foliage.

I guess there's always a plausible excuse for central control.

~~~
tbyehl
Urban/suburban government tends to be... anti-self-sufficiency. Not so long
ago a Florida town was making headlines for going after a resident who'd
disconnected from the power grid. New wells and septic permits are often
disallowed once a city starts offering water and sewer. Etc.

I'm on the border of where my area turns more rural. There are a couple of
properties with horses just outside my single street subdivision where I have
~1 1/2 acres. I can have chickens but I can't eat them. Can't have any other
foul or livestock without at least twice as much land and a bunch of other
restrictions, and I wouldn't be allowed to eat them, either. There's actually
_no_ land zoned for general agricultural purposes in my county. None at all.
In theory we have a zoning classification for a small farm / ranch type
property that allows a smaller than 3ac lot and fewer restrictions on setbacks
but I can't find any actual properties with that zoning in the county GIS.

I am allowed to shoot a gun in my back yard tho. Just not at any of the
delicious wild animals that pass thru.

~~~
cortesoft
The wells thing is tricky, though. There is only one water table, and we all
need to share it. Is it ok for one person to dig a well on their property, and
say, pump millions of gallons out and sell it?

It makes sense that we want to regulate how much water each person is allowed
to extract.

~~~
helloindia
"Is it ok for one person to dig a well on their property, and say, pump
millions of gallons out and sell it?"

\--> This is an actual problem in India. The govt made electricity FREE on
farm lands. So, now people with farmland dug borewell, pump out water and sell
them in tankers in the city, where many apartments don't have municipal water
connection. Water is cheaper for apartments where there is low ground water,
as cost of electicity consumption for farmers is nil.

------
spectramax
If I were to buy a house, I would make sure that it has no HOA bullshit. I am
willing to drive farther into the outskirts of the city but there is no way in
hell I would ever want any HOA police my own property. It just feels wrong.
Just thinking about this sort of thing makes me angry.

~~~
davidw
Paradoxically, it's more likely you'll find a HOA-free house in an older more
central part of town. The 'burbs are the prime breeding ground for those kind
of organizations.

~~~
cwbrandsma
I’ve owned 3 different homes, all built around 1975, only one had an HOA (that
did practically nothing and everyone was happy).

On the downside, some of my neighbors have not watered their lawns in a long
time and the weeds creep from their yards into everyone else’s. But most homes
keep things tidy (which does not always mean grass).

But every single newer home I’ve looked at all came with an HOA and a ton of
rules to abide by. Number of trees, number of bushes, all are specified. No
cars outside, trash cans can only be left out between certain times. Grass
must be cut to a height range.

~~~
windexh8er
I was just reading "Snow Crash" again and your comment reminds me of the
Burbclaves in the story.

------
fit2rule
I have a wonderful garden. Its full of healthy, pleasant things .. trees
bearing fruit (best pears I have ever eaten), berry shrubs, fruit bushes,
luscious section, native tea's, salads, pumpkins, sunflowers, endless other
delights among the privilege of overseeing it all, a daily water, a fair bit
of weeding, occasional critter control, but .. yeah. My family regularly
enjoys a new jam jar, and daily herbs and salads enrich every home cooked
meal.

If someone tried to take that away from me, I'd simply move the whole thing to
another place.

I am yet to see a human being whose lives weren't radically improved by
engaging in the fruits of their own well kept garden.

------
okonomiyaki3000
See, this here's what the rest a ya'll foreners won't never unnerstand bout
'Merica. We got what ya'll cain't never 'magine havin' and that there is a lil
thing we like to call Freedum.

------
danans
Many of my neighbors have front yard gardens, often because depending on the
orientation of the house (it's a dense area) the front yard might have the
best light.

Nobody complains, and if anything, such gardens are often complimented (often
enviously by those of us on the shady side of the street). People here like
the look a well tended space.

I'm sure there's some ordinance on the books disallowing it - like most US
cities - but nobody would report it anyway, and the city (Oakland CA) has
bigger problems to worry about.

~~~
flowersjeff
Probably because, recently, CA passed a state law making these legal?... I
also am in the Bay Area, and I assure you - we have more than enough busy
bodies that would report (if they could).

~~~
danans
Perhaps, but the gardens have been here a while, probably since before the law
you mentioned.

------
angel_j
They didn't really win it. A new law passed exempting gardens. One wonders if
the law passed to save the ordinance, and others like it, from being uprooted
in higher court.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
That may not be the result _you_ wanted, but it's very much the result _they_
wanted.

------
rswskg
America 'Land of the free'.

------
enriquto
Wait, what is wrong with having vegetables on your yard? I understand that if
you want to raise chickens you need some kind of approval by the rest of the
society, due to noises and smells. But what makes "vegetables" different than
other flowering plants that you are allowed to plant? You can have plants as
long as their fruits are tiny and non-edible?

------
BorRagnarok
Banning people from planting veggies. Veggies!

Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, under US military control, every year, millions of
acres of Opium are planted, harvested, processed, packaged and shipped,
suplying over 90% of the worlds' Heroin. [0]

What a world.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanista...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan)

------
shaunxcode
Food not lawns!!

------
jdietrich
Land of the free, home of bizarrely authoritarian local ordinances.

~~~
the_pwner224
The freedom is that the federal government has _only_ a limited set of rights.
The people also are given a set of unalienable rights through constitutional
amendments (the Bill of Rights and so on).

Everything else is left up to the middle governments - states and
municipalities.

Though the federal government has increased its scope massively since the
early days of the country, and in some cases via sketchy interpretations of
the Constitution...

~~~
opwieurposiu
The people are not "given" rights. Your rights are natural and they exist
apriori, regardless of what any government or agent of the state may say.

A right can not be given it can only be taken. A government can take them away
and the people can take them back.

~~~
gota
That's a view that seem common among extreme libertarians. An opposing view is
that no person has any rights other than those that _other people_ agree they
have. That latter view is more common among extreme communitarians, that _all_
rights are "given".

I'd say it's arguable whether we are (or should be) moving towards making your
position, the first one, true.

But it seems clear that in the natural state of human beings there were no
rights (e.g. certainly no complex idea of property), so we are at the vert
least transitioning _to_ your position _from_ the latter.

I make no judgment of value, just pointing out you are at best "partially", or
"not yet fully", correct.

Point in case, travel a few thousand kilometers in any direction and most
likely everyone you meet will disagree on what are your rights - not the least
because there you'll be a foreigner. Do you really have inaliable rights as a
fact of nature when there's not a single shred of structure to support them?

Even more strikingly clear - were there rights before peoples? Were there
human rights before humans? Was there a right to live before life? Rights as
an intrinsic part of the natural is impossible in this view.

~~~
briandear
> That's a view that seem common among extreme libertarians.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

If that is “extreme libertarian” then count me in. The United States was
literally founded on this concept. It’s extreme to think of rights any
differently, at least if you are an American. ”Extreme” is the idea that
rights are gifts from government or from the benevolence of a sovereign. The
view of rights as being unalienable is distinctly American; Englishman Thomas
Hobbes expounded on this and thusly planted the seeds of the American idea.
Such seeds didn’t take root in England at the time as citizens there were
subjects of a king, but it was Hobbes that set the wheels of freedom in
motion.

Extreme? I suppose it depends on one’s perspective. At the time Hobbes was
extreme, but then, as Americans, we might think of any idea contrary to
liberty as a extreme.

~~~
igravious
> The view of rights as being unalienable is distinctly American

That's quite a claim.

> Englishman Thomas Hobbes expounded on this and thusly planted the seeds of
> the American idea.

John Locke is the usual go-to figure, no?

> Such seeds didn’t take root in England at the time

Are you sure?

“17th-century English philosopher John Locke discussed natural rights in his
work, identifying them as being "life, liberty, and estate (property)", and
argued that such fundamental rights could not be surrendered in the social
contract. In Britain in 1689, the English Bill of Rights and the Scottish
Claim of Right each made illegal a range of oppressive governmental
actions.[18] Two major revolutions occurred during the 18th century, in the
United States (1776) and in France (1789), leading to the United States
Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man
and of the Citizen respectively, both of which articulated certain human
rights. Additionally, the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776 encoded into
law a number of fundamental civil rights and civil freedoms.”

------
ptah
this woman's garden sounds like an example of what all gardens should be like:
thriving polycultures

------
teekert
Throw away those veggies, slave!

------
sparkling
Tax payer dollars at work

------
macawfish
I know sharing feelings is risky around here but I'm gonna go out on a limb
and share: it discourages me and deeply angers me that people are out here
having to fight for six years to _plant a vegetable garden in their yard_.
This is very grim.

It's gonna take the kind of courage and patience exemplified by Hermine
Ricketts and Tom Carroll to grow in the ways we need to grow to survive and
evolve as a species.

We need to remember who we are.

~~~
keyle
I share my feelings all the time on HN. And I get a roller coaster of up and
down votes... Never stop sharing your feelings, otherwise what's the point of
a community.

I think you should always be encouraged to share your point of view, whether I
agree or not (in this case I do), and only get downvoted if you're just flat
out spreading misinformation. I often upvote opinions I don't agree to on the
basis that they make their case in a valid way.

~~~
saalweachter
What's the point of collecting HN karma if you're not going to spend it
occasionally voicing unpopular opinions and making cheap sarcastic replies?

~~~
inamberclad
There's no point since you'll be downvoted to the abyssal plane and nobody
will see your comment.

~~~
briantakita
Sometimes it's a badge of honor to get a bunch of downvotes. It's validation
that a "sacred cow" has been cooked into tasty burgers.

~~~
phs318u
> It's validation that a "sacred cow" has been cooked into tasty burgers.

Or that you’re being a jerk.

The HN guidance on commentary is clearly a large part of why HN hasn’t
devolved into Slashdot, and the generally on-point and respectful discussions
invite really interesting and knowledgeable people to hang around, from whom
we all benefit.

I’ll admit that I’ve occasionally scratched my head over downvotes I’ve
received. But while there may well be some that apply votes contrary to the
guidelines, in most cases - if I honestly review what I’ve written - I’ve
phrased my comment in a way that’s not conducive to productive discourse.

~~~
close04
> The HN guidance on commentary

Votes receive no guidance and most people don't vote for the quality and
accuracy of the comment, they do it based on how that comment fits with their
personal opinion. I've seen civilized and purely objective comments being
seriously downvoted, especially on polarizing topics.

Many go beyond just this and after you have one unpopular comment you realize
all of your comments that day just received the same exact number of downvotes
at the same approximate time.

So I wouldn't really call it 50/50 between "sacred cow turned burger" and
"being a jerk" downvotes but it sure is too close to trust the voting system
blindly. I will read even the greyed out comments.

~~~
tremon
[ I admit, this is heading offtopic, but still a useful discussion ]

 _most people [vote] based on how that comment fits with their personal
opinion_

Isn't that what the voting system is for then? When I see someone has already
written what I was going to say, I upvote them instead of writing a "me too"
comment. My other upvotes are reserved for posts that spark my curiosity, or
grey comments where I think the downvotes were undeserved.

I almost never upvote comments I disagree with, unless (as above) they bring
something new to the table. Downvotes I try to reserve for obnoxious or
trollish comments only, but I admit there may be occasions where some man's
troll is another man's freedom fighter.

~~~
phs318u
I will typically upvote comments that elaborate, translate (DSL>English), or
opine with corroborating evidence. The last I will try and do regardless of
direction. I especially will upvote where one person offers a well written
comment and another offers a well written rebuttal. I will upvote both as I
want to promote what I consider a “healthy” discussion. I will sometimes
downvote based on (poor) form irrespective of content. That’s because there’s
always a way of getting your point across with being a jerk. Given that one
can make a point without being a jerk, the choice to be a jerk is therefore a
gratuitous attack in the person, and whether you’ve also attacked the
substance becomes almost irrelevant at that point. My 2c.

------
Proven
They have always had the right (to use their property the way they see fit, as
long as it didn't damage other people's property), but local government was
violating their exercise of that right.

Remember that courts don't give rights, they only protect them.

~~~
favorited
If you read the article, you'd see that the appeals courts ruled _against_
them - ruling that the couple did _not_ have that right.

The state legislature passed a bill overriding local ordinances to protect
vegetable gardens specifically.

