Posted on 06/19/2012 4:41:21 PM PDT by JohnKinAK
Hard to say. I know locally we had an incident a few years back somewhat similar.
In the my local version, it seems that code said a yard had to be a lawn of certain grasses no higher than x.
The “violater” didnt have a lawn but rather a garden.
While I support the woman in this story, I know a number of our fellow Freepers dont.
There was a post, probably a couple of years past now, where some group of “no good” immigrants, I dont remember who, had committed the crime of choosing to plant gardens in their front yards. Some of these evil SOBs even went so far as to try to provide for their own heating!
Our fellow Freeps on that thread were hysterical because they felt it made the neighborhood smelly and the sight would lower their propery value.
(”Lowered Property Value”, a crock of crap I dont want to get started on...)
Wow, look at all the posts since I started my reply.
Looks like youre one of the ones I was talking about. LOL!
I recall a local woman growing a garden front and back yard. She didn’t keep the garden well and it looked terrible.
The neighbors complained and it eventually went to zoning.
She put up a real nice white picket fence, the only fence on the block.
It looks real nice and I don’t think anyone cares anymore as the “gardens” are nicely hidden behind this 4 foot picket fence and some lattice work she installed.
Heck, this gal could have probably done the same and maybe she would have enjoyed similar results.
If you look at the neighborhood in street view and aerial view I think it would totally fly.
42 USC 1983
My bad, I thought the stuff WAS behind a fence.
Re: the pattern, though, if she’s in the same town, that comment applies as much to code enforcement as it does to her. Maybe they’re the ones with a pattern. If she’s in a new town and still having trouble, then I agree with your assessment.
It all looks quite normal ~ lots of trees, wildflowers, and so forth. There are no formal gardens and you are never annoyed by a lawnmower.
When they were debating the "grass ordinance" for Fairfax County this community showed up with their lawyers to make sure they got their exception.
BTW, that grass ordinance was a fake ~ it only applied to lots of less than 1/2 acre in size. Folks with larger lots, or were commercially zoned, were not required to adhere to the grass ordinance.
I got an exception for chicory ~ which when it blooms is the primary source of high oil seeds used as food by migrating finches in this part of the country. If we lose the chicory crop we lose the birds ~ they all end up famished and fly into tall buildings and die by the tens of thousands.
Oh the finch-anity.
That lady's lawn would be no problem in Fairfax' "naturalized neighborhood", and probably wasn't a problem until somebody built those apartment blocks.
Looks like they clear cut everything around her.
It looks like the city fathers in Tulsa do not like trees. Is there a good reason for that?
On the Street View of Google I recall a tree that had a large limb lying on the ground next to it.
It could be the tree was diseased.
Lucky for her it’s not a city owned tree otherwise she would be on the hook to plant another tree.
Our forefathers would be shooting by now.
Why should taxpayers be punished?
Why not take the jobs of those responsible instead?
“In other words, she should sue the crap out of the taxpayers.”
Yes, when the taxpayers allow their lackeys to run wild, then they deserve to pay the price.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.