Posted on 01/08/2013 10:07:15 PM PST by krularebbe
(Scroll down for video) A Florida couple faces hefty financial charges after refusing to give up their home vegetable garden, according to press reports in Orlando Florida.
The couple's home vegetable garden which is located in the College Park section of Orlando, is on the cutting board again after the city threatened hefty fines if not uprooted this week, according to a group for citizen’s rights.
Jason and Jennifer Helvenston announced that they are launching the "Plant a Seed, Change the law," program to protest Orlando's law against home gardens, saying it violates their constitutional right to peaceful use of their property to grow their own food.
(Excerpt) Read more at yourjewishnews.com ...
Nobody has mentioned the role of Agenda 21 in the movement to ban home gardens.
We can assure you the freedom that you will not go hungry before lunch--if we hang you after breakfast.
So what’s the deal here? Did the community at large decide they didn’t want such gardens in their community (and if so, why?) and then did these people move in and decide to refuse community standards, much like immigrants who refuse to assimilate?
It’s a neighborhood association in the PNW. Everyone owns their own homes, but they give up certain rights in order to live in a “nice neighborhood”.
The association’s power over what individuals could do with their homes grew since she joined it. They also limit you to two dogs or cats, I’m just remembering, because she used to complain that her neighbor had three, and even bought a camera to prove to the Association that her neighbor had three cats...
Which of course is how it all starts. They start curtailing people’s rights in the name of “security and decency” and for tbe sake of busybodies with long noses, the “strong men” in the Association enforcing the rules get more and more power. They even debated prohibiting trick-or-treating on Halloween but realized it was unenforceable. For now.
Now my mom wants to sell her home and get out of there, she’s 80 and wants a smaller condo, but she can’t leave. Despite the bad housing market, the kiss of death is that the neighborhood is so strictured it’s gotten a reputation that makes many people not want to live in a place where an untrimmed border on your yard and an extra car in your driveway when relatives visit becomes an open door to a proctological examination.
I’m kind of living life on the opposite pole...on a sailboat...I’ll be responsible for my own decency and security, I want my freedom.
If I were your neighbor you wouldn't have a walnut problem...I'd be on my hands an knees picking them up. LOVE walnuts. I live in Florida and I get lots of surplus grapefruit, oranges and lemons from people who don't want them. I find a way to use them all, if it's a blue moon I may even juice them and add a little soda and rum...fiesta. I have one cherished neighbor with tangerine trees, I look forward to those.
I'm kind of a frugal scrounge anyway...I walk everywhere, and if a deer were killed by a truck right in front of me I'd probably make a carrying sack out of it's skin and take what's recoverable home...I don't care what people think.
DEFINITELY not "Association material"...LOL
“Isn’t it difficult to artificially inseminate hens?”
LOL.... That’s the job for the liberal neighbors!
Is this a free country or isn't it, Herr Kommissar?
Sounds like an excellent place not to buy or build a house in.
The Romain-ing of htis htread will now be cancelled due to bad puns- Lettuce Pray that no moe bad puns come our waty
Compared to what?
One person's right ends at the point other people's rights begin, the problem being to determine where that point is.
What limits would you put on the right of people to freely associate and form the kind of community upon which they agree?
Would you say people have the freedom to enter a community and disrupt it if they don't like it, or do they just have the freedom to not enter it if they don't like it?
Herr Kommissar
No value added there.
These people hurt nobody and infringed on nobody else's rights.
However, you do not believe that they are free to do with their property as they see fit.
That puts you in the same category as the people who forced Obamacare and Kelo v. New London on us.
What limits would you put on the right of people to freely associate and form the kind of community upon which they agree?
What? Do you mean like "No Blacks or Jews are welcome here?"
Again, tyranny of the masses over the rights of the individual.
I didn't answer that way.
It is a land where the tyranny of the masses overrule personal property rights of the individual.
Again, tyranny of the masses over the rights of the individual.
I clearly wrote "One person's right ends at the point other people's rights begin, the problem being to determine where that point is."
...personal property rights...
Do you have an authoritative reference that articulates what those rights are and that they exist? I'd truly like to have something we can all agree on or at least discuss. For the RKBA we've got the Bill of Rights, but what do we have for "property rights"?
However, you do not believe that they are free to do with their property as they see fit.
I take it that you don't like zoning laws and that if you see fit to do so you think you should be free to build a property line to property line high rise on your property that blocks the sun from your neighbors property. I take it that you don't like noise laws and that if you see fit to do so you think you should be free to hold loud parties at 2 AM on your property regardless of your neighbors desire to sleep.
These will explain it better than I can in a short post:
Private Property Rights- A basic Premise Of America's Constitution
The Constitution and Property Rights
I think my point about busy-bodies forcing their will on others has been made.
IIRC, sometime in the 90’s there was a citrus canker outbreak that resulted in all citrus in SF that wasn’t a commercial grove being cut down.
I wanted an authoritative reference (preferably on the level of the BOR) that articulates what those rights are and that they exist, not an explanation of something for which that had not been done.
Your first reference is a little light. The second is better but seems to rely on penumbra a lot.
Either reference could be used in support of the intangible rights of a community of people versus the rights of an individual. Or they could be used the other way around. They are not definitive.
I wrote the above for the record, posterity, and to let you know I actually read the references. I don't think we are going to get anywhere with this.
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.