This is what Amerika is coming to? - Jail time for not cutting your grass?

[Bond007]

If it's just appearances then I'll agree this is pretty ridiculous. Sadly, not out of the ballpark for some of the crazy ordinances that local government tends to pass.

I don't know about the area, but in some places overgrown and dried lawns may present a serious fire danger, in which case I wouldn't mind requiring owners to take better care.

M

 

[robc]

Maybe the Government just doesn't want their cities and homes looking like Chernobyl,(overgrowth).

Unkempt yards depreciate the value of neighboring homes. Now go ahead and tell me with a straight face that you would mind at all that you couldnt sell your house because your jackass neighbor decided to "stick to the man" and not mow his lawn.

I completely agree... people should be held accountable for the appearance of their property. One of my neighbors races cars. He has a giant trailer sitting in his driveway 24/7. It's unsightly. Another neighbor did a crappy job on his wood fence. It looks like some little kids built it. He should have to fix that crap up. Yet another neighbor lets his kids leave their toys (dozens of them) in the yard all summer, which makes the whole cul-de-sac look like an unsupervised daycare. There's even one guy down the street who painted his garage door powder-blue. THE HOUSE WAS YELLOW!!!

Property rights be damned!!! I want my environment (neighborhood) to look just like the picture in the add. We need more government... to monitor these atrocities.

 

[Danzig]

This problem should be taken to the court system.. If the neighbors have a problem with the condition of their neighbor's yard because it is devaluing their own..then they should file suit.

The government threatening jail time is asinine and immoral.

 

[Derius_T]

While I agree that people should take care of their homes and lawns, I do not believe the government should be able to infringe on peoples rights by forcing them to "do this or else". If the "law" was in place before you moved there, such as signing an agreement in a gated community or sub-division as part of living there, then fine. Hell, I mow my immediate yard around my house, but often let the other 4 acres grow all summer, to be used as cheap feed for livestock.

Neighbors don't like it? Too bad. Come on over here and cut it, and pay the feed price I'm out. It's MY PROPERTY, its MY BUSINESS...butt out or move.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Neighbors don't like it? Too bad. Come on over here and cut it, and pay the feed price I'm out. It's MY PROPERTY, its MY BUSINESS...butt out or move.

It is your property, but you still have to obey the law of the land and if you choose not to do so, then YOU can fight the law on whether you think it is legal or not.

You can't tell the city to butt out or move and the city is your neighbor. You live in the city and not vice versa.

FYI, the law was already in place for keeping lawns maintained. They are simply changing the penalty.

 

[Creature]

As far as I'm concerned unless your name is on the title butt out. Your authority stops at the property line.

Wrong. Ever heard of municipal codes and ordinances?

 

[hammer4nc]

I'm having a little trouble reconciling these two contradictory posts from the same person:

Of course, you could either get involved in Canton, OH politics or you could leave the country if it displeases you.

and...

You can't tell the city to butt out or move and the city is your neighbor. You live in the city and not vice versa.

Though, this type of hypocrisy reflects the attitude of many in government today. A one-way street.

Assertion: The explosion of civil law is one of the biggest drags on the economy in recent decades; hordes of useless "code enforcement officers" chasing intrusive ordinances between coffee breaks. This is but one small example.

For those who think that keeping grass cut under penalty of law, enhances their property values...a full accounting of the costs involved would make it a very bad economic choice indeed. Government is almost always the worst alternative, from an economic standpoint.

 

[chris in va]

They could have done it some other way. Don't ask me how, I'm not that creative.

We haven't had much rain the past two years, but this spring has seen my grass practically explode with growth. The highway crews can't keep up, and the medians look like tall grass prairie.

I'm trying to come up with a way to keep this post on 'firearms' topic, coming up blank...

EDIT: Wait, I've got it. Bring in the dogs, we'll have a pheasant hunt! Whew.

 

[MedicineBow]

I fail to understand the point of this thread.

It is somehow news -- or shocking, or terrible, etc. -- that local city councils establish ordinances to try to protect property values?

Or that folks on city councils listen to everyone as they wrestle with these issues? Or that they don't please everyone in the process?

If you don't like what these folks do with some particular ordinance, call them up, e-mail them, show up at the meetings, or run for the darn council. Such is democracy.

But don't pretend some sort of ideological horror that towns have speed limits, building codes, zoning, ordinances against throwing trash around, you name it.

 

[Creature]

Well said, MedicineBow.

 

[PT111]

I don't like government or anyone else telling me what I can or can't do with my property. How many of you get upset and file complaints when a business owner, corporation or homeowner tells you that you can't carry your weapon on their property? May not be any of you but I constantly see threads about signs being posted and all this talk about Gun Free Zones and people wanting liability laws passed for peopel who try to enforce Gun Free Zones. How many want businesses to be forced to allow guns in their parking lots

How many of you wanted to lynch the Supreme Court Justices for ruling that a city can use its imminent domain powers to take property away from an private citizen and give it to someone else to develop fancy new property.

So we wind up with:

City can force you to cut your grass
City can take your property and give it to the highest bidder
City can force you to allow guns on your property whether you want them or not

As I see it all three are the same intrusion into individual property rights that the government should stay out of and not a hill of beans difference between the three.

 

[divemedic]

City can force you to allow guns on your property whether you want them or not

Not entirely accurate. If you do not want guns on your property, do not open it to the public. When you open a business to the public, you have to obey a host of other laws: fire codes, handicap access, equal opportunity, and others. Entirely different from a law jailing you for not cutting your grass.

To be fair, this guy refused to clean his junky yard for over ten years, even though it was infested with rats and he had been taken to court numerous times, and even been jailed twice. Agreed, he has a right to do as he pleases with his property, but when his behavior affects the property of his neighbors, he is infringing on the rights of others. I could see jail for extreme cases like this.

 

[Yithian]

Meh.

I'd just pave over my yard.
Let them peruse over the property values then.
I would bet my proprty taxes would lower too.

 

[FrankZappa]

I hate cutting my grass. If I could do as I please I'd pour concrete and paint it green. I don't even care if it was green. It could be purple as long as I wouldn't have to cut it.

Ever think of using Astro-Turf?
It always looks neat and groomed and you never have to plant, water, fertilize or cut it. However, you may have to vacuum it once a year to get the dust out.
As silly as this sounds, there are people out there doing it right now.
It'll actually pay for itself through the savings on your water bill and lawn care services.

 

[Dearhunter61]

Rights? Your Rights?

How does one use the city making people cut their grass about personal rights? What about the rights of the neighbor to live in a safe enviroment? By not cutting it it has already been stated what the result is.

If we all live in a community with homes at X value and me being the person I am and wanting to turn my house and front yard into a junkyard hey to bad to the rest of you all...I do not care about the value of your property...It is my RIGHT to live in a Junkyard pigsty.

Now it is not about my rights...but about the rights of my neighbors. We go to court and I wonder who would win?

Need to put everything into proper perspective.

 

[longcoldwinter]

I get to be one of those code enforcement officers. I respond to people complaints of raw sewage surfacing from failed septic system, mounds of garbage left rotting in the sun, mounds of animal feces fun stuff like that. If people would all take care of there own messes, I would not be needed, but they dont.

Its been my experience that nobody wants to be told what to do, but they damn well want to able to boss there neighbors around

Pure appearance issues really dont warrent goverment intrusion but alot of other issues do.

 

[hammer4nc]

The point of this thread is that code enforcement/inspections can become a revenue-generating scam, less focused on complaints and genuine problems, more concerned with maintaining a new revenue stream.

In general, that's the problem with government...they don't know when to stop! There may be a kernel of justifiable reasons for such activities, around which is built a ever-expanding maze of regulations having nothing to do with health, safety, or quality of life. Inspectors stop responding to "complaints", and instead, start roving patrols to nab violations when there are no complaints at all. Gotta pay for all those new trucks?

http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-6/12127309016570.xml&coll=1

Case in point, previous thread in which overzealous code enforcement led to disastrous results:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=279509&highlight=code+enforcement

Example: I deal with building inspectors on occasion. Used to be, when you paid for the inspection, it included the reinspection, if minor discrepancies were found initially. Then, someone got the bright idea that reinspections deserved a second inspection fee. Guess what? Inspectors started finding a whole new array of obscure flaws that would never have been failures in the past, and the success rate for initial inspections plummeted. Sometimes inspectors would make crap up just to fail people on initial inspection, so they could collect the reinspection fee.

Prison time for not cutting grass? This is the type of cancer in government that is killing this country. :barf:

 

[hammer4nc]

Prison for the scofflaws! Get out the tape measure.

Comment: Yet another example. Wonder how many complaints have been pouring in over this affront to property values? This is the predictable end result when you encourage meaningless "code enforcement". The fact we'd even have a discussion where some would defend this type of action; shows just how far we've sunk as a society.

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2008/06/09/Couple_fights_to_save_jasmine_vines/UPI-55541213029315/
Couple fights to save jasmine vines

Published: June 9, 2008 at 12:35 PM

ST. LUCIE, Fla., June 9 (UPI) -- A pizza deliveryman and his disabled wife are fighting the Florida town of St. Lucie over removing a 2-foot trellis of sweet-smelling jasmine vines.

The vines prized by Stephen and Eileen Smith sit atop an 8-foot fence, which makes the fence 2 feet higher than local ordinance allows, The Palm Beach Post reports.

For the past three years code enforcement officials have been ordering the Smiths to either remove the vines or obtain a zoning variance.

The Smiths say they can't afford the $1,215 required to apply for a variance.

The couple tried appealing their case to the circuit court but a judge dismissed it because the code enforcement board had failed to enter a final written order.

Currently the couple is facing a fine of up to $50 for having a fence that is too high.

 

[zukiphile]

That many be true, but its not the government business to tell folks to do it.

In most cities up here, it is the [local] government's business to tell folk what house they may build, how to build it and the standard to which they must maintain it.

I've spent lots of time fighting municipalites over all sorts of issues, but this is an example of the police power and municipalities are not beyond their rights to exercise that power reasonably.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Actually, it isn't just about property values. When neighborhoods go into maintenance decline, there is a common correspondence with a crime incline. In other words, unkempt yards, vehicles in yards, vehicles on blocks, etc. tend to go hand in hand with more crime.

Of course, if you don't want to live with the protection of the city and all that it has to offer, move to some unicorporated area. If you don't want to move, then get pro-active in your politics and make the changes you want.

Though, this type of hypocrisy reflects the attitude of many in government today.

Just what is hypocritical about suggesting those who don't like the law give involved with the process or get the hell out? Or did I miss some lesson that whining online is the way to get good resolution?