FL-Judge Rules Government Can Ban Vegetable Gardens Because They’re ‘Ugly’

Joined
Aug 31, 2007
Messages
117,745
FL-Judge Rules Government Can Ban Vegetable Gardens Because They’re ‘Ugly’

These people were suffering under the delusion that most people suffer under: that you actually own anything.

You own nothing, you simply rent from government, at their pleasure.

You are worse off than a feudal serf, and yet the assholes continue to claim how "free" they are.



Judge Rules Government Can Ban Vegetable Gardens Because They’re ‘Ugly’

Matt Agorist September 1, 2016 8 Comments

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/judge-rules-govt-ban-vegetable-gardens/

Miami, FL — Last week, a Miami-Dade judge became the focus of much-deserved anger when she ruled on an ordinance banning front yard vegetable gardens. The village of Miami Shores, according to the ruling, has every right to take legal action against residents who dare to grow food in their own yards because they are “ugly.”

The ruling was a whopping ten pages long as it was filled with legal analysis and definitions of what constitutes a vegetable. Even though she ruled in favor of the ban, Judge Monica Gordo acknowledged that she wasn’t quite sure how a vegetable garden can ruin the aesthetics of one’s property.

However, she stated that the democratically elected government has every right to dictate what constitutes an ugly front yard, and gardens are apparently a contributing factor.

“Given the high degree of deference that must be given to a democratically elected governmental body … Miami Shores’ ban on vegetable gardens outside of the backyard passes constitutional scrutiny,” Gordo wrote.

The court’s decision was based on a three-year long legal battle of Tom Carroll and Hermine Ricketts. They were facing a fine of $50 a day, not for robbing banks, or trafficking humans, or running some other criminal enterprise — but for growing their own food.

For 17 years, the couple grew their own food in their front yard until one day, the state came knocking.

No one was harmed by the couple’s garden, it was entirely organic, and in nearly two decades, not one of their neighbors ever complained. The only injured party in this ridiculous act was the state.

According to the tyrannical legislation, all homeowners are subject to the same absurd constraints. Their yards must be covered in grass — that is the law.

“There certainly is not a fundamental right to grow vegetables in your front yard,” Richard Sarafan, attorney for Miami Shores, said at the start of the case. “Aesthetics and uniformity are legitimate government purposes. Not every property can lawfully be used for every purpose.”

The hubris that it takes to claim that no one has a right to grow vegetables in their front yard is mind blowing. Carroll and Ricketts’ yard is not publicly owned and is not subject to the government’s ‘uniformity’ code — especially when all they are doing is growing food.

This case is different than many of the other gardening cases that arise across the country as the majority of front yard gardens are opposed by Home Owner Associations — not the government. When an HOA tells someone they cannot grow a garden it’s because that person voluntarily agreed to the rules.

Unlike members of HOAs, however, Carroll and Ricketts never agreed to these arbitrary constraints on their private property, which happened to be imposed on them nearly two decades after they’d been growing their own food.

While Ricketts and Carroll are upset over the ruling, the do not plan on backing down anytime soon.

“I am disappointed by today’s ruling,” Ricketts said in a statement to the Miami Herald. “My garden not only provided us with food, but it was also beautiful and added character to the community. I look forward to continuing this fight and ultimately winning so I can once again use my property productively instead of being forced to have a useless lawn.”

According to the report in the Miami Herald:

The upscale village in Northeast Miami-Dade has long insisted it had every right to regulate the look of the community. At a hearing in June, the village’s attorney said vegetable gardens are fine in Miami Shores, as long as they remain out of sight in the backyard.

“There is no vegetable ban in Miami Shores,” Sarafan told the judge. “It’s a farce. A ruse.” However, it’s not a farce. People cannot grow food in their front yards because the government thinks they are unsightly.

“They can petition the Village Council to change the ordinance. They can also support candidates for the Council who agree with their view that the ordinance should be repealed,” Gordo wrote.

However, that is what this couple has been doing for years. Changing the system from within has had zero effect.

The irony here is that had Carroll and Ricketts been growing their garden in the backyard, spraying gallons of glyphosate and permethrin into the air, the city would have been entirely fine with it. Only when this innocent couple dares to grow food in their front yard, violating the “aesthetics and uniformity” of their control freak government, do they ever hear a word.

“If Hermine and Tom wanted to grow fruit or flowers or display pink flamingos, Miami Shores would have been completely fine with it,” said their lawyer, Ari Bargil with the Institute of Justice. “They should be equally free to grow food for their own consumption, which they did for 17 years before the village forced them to uproot the very source of their sustenance.”

In modern day America, growing your own food has now become a revolutionary act.
 
Comrade. Comrade. Comrade.

Surely you know that "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."

Have you neglected your indoctri, er, I mean education, my friend?
 
Ah, fascism of aesthetics. Another delightful side effect of minarchy. Well done, minarchists! :P


A minimal statist is still a statist. But hey, I'm told a little robbery, rape and murder is a okay. Not too much, not too little. At least, that's what I've been told.
 
Aesthetics and uniformity are legitimate government purposes.

ngR4MZh.jpg
 
GordoMonica941.jpg


I was gonna say ban the Judge, but I guess that wouldn't work.
 
“There certainly is not a fundamental right to grow vegetables in your front yard,”


What then is a fundamental right if not a non aggressive human act?

The science of mine and thine—the science of justice—is the science of all human rights; of all a man’s rights of person and property; of all his rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is the science which alone can tell any man what he can, and cannot, do; what he can, and cannot, have; what he can, and cannot, say, without infringing the rights of any other person.
It is the science of peace; and the only science of peace; since it is the science which alone can tell us on what conditions mankind can live in peace, or ought to live in peace, with each other.
These conditions are simply these: viz., first, that each man shall do, towards every other, all that justice requires him to do; as, for example, that he shall pay his debts, that he shall return borrowed or stolen property to its owner, and that he shall make reparation for any injury he may have done to the person or property of another.
The second condition is, that each man shall abstain from doing, to another, anything which justice forbids him to do; as, [6] for example, that he shall abstain from committing theft, robbery arson, murder, or any other crime against the person or property of another.
So long as these conditions are fulfilled, men are at peace, and ought to remain at peace, with each other. But when either of these conditions is violated, men are at war. And they must necessarily remain at war until justice is re-established.
[]
Natural law, natural justice, being a principle that is naturally applicable and adequate to the rightful settlement of every possible controversy that can arise among men; being, too, the only standard by which any controversy whatever, between man and man, can be rightfully settled; being a principle whose protection every man demands for himself, whether he is willing to accord it to others, or not; being also an immutable principle, one that is always and everywhere the same, in all ages and nations; being self-evidently necessary in all times and places; being so entirely impartial and equitable towards all; so indispensable to the peace of mankind everywhere; so vital to the safety and welfare of every human being; being, too, so easily learned, so generally known, and so easily maintained by such voluntary associations as all honest men can readily and rightfully form for that purpose—being such a principle as this, these questions arise, viz.: Why is it that it does not universally, or well nigh universally, prevail? Why is it that it has not, ages ago, been established throughout the world as the one only law that any man, or all men, could rightfully be compelled to obey? Why is it that any human being ever conceived that anything so self-evidently superfluous, false, absurd, and atrocious as all legislation necessarily must be, could be of any use to mankind, or have any place in human affairs?
[]
What, then, is legislation? It is an assumption by one man, or body of men, of absolute, irresponsible dominion over all other men whom they can subject to their power. It is the assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to subject all other men to their will and their service. It is the assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to abolish outright all the natural rights, all the natural liberty of all other men; to make all other men their slaves; to arbitrarily dictate to all other men what they may, and may not, do; what they may, and may not, have; what they may, and may not, be. It is, in short, the assumption of a right to banish the principle of human rights, the principle of justice itself, from off the earth, and set up their own personal will, pleasure, and interest in its place. All this, and nothing less, is involved in the very idea that there can be any such thing as human legislation that is obligatory upon those upon whom it is imposed.
The Science of Justice - Spooner 1882
 
Last edited:
When an HOA tells someone they cannot grow a garden it’s because that person voluntarily agreed to the rules.

Voluntary? LOL. The latest method of taking away rights.
 
However, she stated that the democratically elected government has every right to dictate what constitutes an ugly front yard, and gardens are apparently a contributing factor.

“Given the high degree of deference that must be given to a democratically elected governmental body … Miami Shores’ ban on vegetable gardens outside of the backyard passes constitutional scrutiny,” Gordo wrote.

Instead of launching into the whole "democracy" thing, I'll just say that if "democracies" can ban ugly people, I'm all in.
 
While certainly their representatives may have been democratically elected, those representatives are obliged to serve their constituents on the birthrights of their republic. In other words, they every RIGHT to grow legal and lawful horticulture in their front yard or elsewhere on their property--the government has no valid legal basis for writing ordinances on such things so subjective as aesthetics, be it to maintain property values or whatever other nonsense. To wit, not even the bimbo judge could even muster any supporting logic.
 
Voluntary? LOL. The latest method of taking away rights.

Basically they do volunteer when they sign on to live in a HOA.

The HOA are like Nazi Germany circa 1933. This is their first mistake by moving into one of these, IMO.
 
Those who think they have a right to tell others what they can do with their own property, disgust me.
 
Basically they do volunteer when they sign on to live in a HOA.

The HOA are like Nazi Germany circa 1933. This is their first mistake by moving into one of these, IMO.

In some areas, almost all homes are part of some type of HOA. It can't be avoided. And "voluntary" HOA rules are like the Apple Agreement. No one reads them.

View attachment 5195
 
Back
Top