Michigan Woman Faces 93 Days in Jail for Planting a Vegetable Garden

[Torgent]

This has absolutely nothing to do with zoning. Its not as if she put in a commercial building in a residential area. I think you are confusing Zoning with the likes of HOA's, which doesnt exist in this neighborhood. As stated earlier, its a city ordinance, and one that will fall short in court due mainly because of its poorly worded guidelines.

It will not fall short in court. If you are warned not to do something because it is outside of the parameters of the law, or to take something down for said reason, and you do not, then you are violating the law entirely. No amount of poorly worded guidelines can save you, because you already know full well that you are breaking the law.

[Talen]

It is a bit extreme to put her in jail, but honestly if you're given a warning and you refuse to listen, do you expect they'll just go "Oh well guess we'll just have to deal with her breaking the law then" Tired of people thinking they're above the law and then are so outraged when they find out they're not

She isn't. The law is too vague - it doesn't actually specify the allowed or forbidden plants and "suitable" isn't a good description.

EJL

[Torgent]

She isn't. The law is too vague - it doesn't actually specify the allowed or forbidden plants and "suitable" isn't a good description.

EJL

There is nothing vague about a warning. She put it up, they warned her to take it down, she didn't. When you receive a warning, you know entirely that you are breaking the law. You can't claim ignorance or that the law is vague.

[Talen]

I have mixed feelings on this. On one hand, city ordinance exist for a reason.

In this case, the likely reason is to present a uniform front view and preserve house prices.

EJL

[Seriousdoom]

Ehm? i saw a tv show about this once, i thought that law was a joke until now.
sick stuff.

[Uennie]

In this case, the likely reason is to present a uniform front view and preserve house prices.

EJL

I personally enjoy when my home's value drops because someone can't plant a tomato in the backyard.

[Talen]

There is nothing vague about a warning. She put it up, they warned her to take it down, she didn't. When you receive a warning, you know entirely that you are breaking the law. You can't claim ignorance or that the law is vague.

She was issued a warning because she "broke" a law that didn't forbid her to do what she did. It states the plant material must be suitable but apprently doesn't specify the plants, or define suitable. The law, as is, is unworkable, too broad, too subject to personal interpretation.

In short, you're arguing a policeman or other authority figure has the right to tell you to stop doing a legal activity because he doesn't want you to do it.

EJL

[Deleted]

There is nothing vague about a warning. She put it up, they warned her to take it down, she didn't. When you receive a warning, you know entirely that you are breaking the law. You can't claim ignorance or that the law is vague.

You can warn anyone about anything, it doesnt make it any more right. In court warning will only mean you were informed, but not if law is enforcable in the first place. There are plenty of stupid rules in US, and no sane judge will follow through to put woman in jail over such nonsense.

[-Zait-]

-.-"

10char

[Torgent]

What people in this thread fail to understand is that she received a warning prior to the fine. When law enforcement directly tells you you are breaking the law, why would you continue? How can you continue and expect to not be punished? Logic tells us that if someone says stop, and they are in charge, we listen or face consequences. She was told to take that hideous farmville inspired garden out of her front yard, she refused, and now she will face the consequences. Who would want to live next to a lady who makes her front yard into a veggie farm? Vegetables smell bad, look horrible when grown ( see tomato plants), and the structures to hold them are an eyesore all on their own. This is why the ordinance is in place, who am I to drop the value of my neighbor's house because I want to grow something in the front yard?

---------- Post added 2011-07-09 at 02:14 AM ----------

She was issued a warning because she "broke" a law that didn't forbid her to do what she did. It states the plant material must be suitable but apprently doesn't specify the plants, or define suitable. The law, as is, is unworkable, too broad, too subject to personal interpretation.

In short, you're arguing a policeman or other authority figure has the right to tell you to stop doing a legal activity because he doesn't want you to do it.

EJL

I'm pretty sure that if you're getting a warning, if you have 2 brain cells, you will understand that your plants are not defined as suitable.

[Tierbook]

well it says that her lawn was torn up from fixing a sewage line so unless she asked for that they should stop being jerks to her imo

[Uennie]

You know what? This is dumb.

When local media asked city planner Kevin Rulkowski what that meant, he said suitable means "common:" lawn, nice shrubs, and flowers. However, the city ordinance does not specifically state that those are the only allowed plant materials.

Omission is NOT the same as "yes you can do this". He stated what WAS acceptable. Trying to read between the lines and saying "WELL YOU'RE WEREN'T SPECIFIC IN WHAT WASN'T" is childish and nonsense. It's right there in black and white what is considered suitable, you're all just trying to find the grey. That's the absolute end of it.

[Torgent]

You can warn anyone about anything, it doesnt make it any more right. In court warning will only mean you were informed, but not if law is enforcable in the first place. There are plenty of stupid rules in US, and no sane judge will follow through to put woman in jail over such nonsense.

I never claimed jail was appropriate, but she deserves to be forced to remove it, receive a hefty fine, and community service. Had she received no warning, I would say let her off, but she was warned and continued to disobey.

[Talen]

What people in this thread fail to understand is that she received a warning prior to the fine. When law enforcement directly tells you you are breaking the law, why would you continue?

Because law enforcement are trying to enforce a law that doesn't exist. Do the police have the right to fine you for parking legally for example?

Who would want to live next to a lady who makes her front yard into a veggie farm?

Some people won't mind. More importantly...who would want to live in an area where you can be arrested for doing legal activities?

I'm pretty sure that if you're getting a warning, if you have 2 brain cells, you will understand that your plants are not defined as suitable.

In this case, it apparently means that someone who wasn't authorised by law to define their suitability decided they weren't suitable based on a totally arbitrary set of criteria, including personal opinion, because the standard for "suitability" wasn't laids down in the law.

EJL

[Violent]

well it says that her lawn was torn up from fixing a sewage line so unless she asked for that they should stop being jerks to her imo

That's Michigan for you bro... Our state is so damn broke, they won't hesitate to pinch you for every penny you got.. Even (as you can see) for a simple garden..

[Uennie]

Because law enforcement are trying to enforce a law that doesn't exist. Do the police have the right to fine you for parking legally for example?



Some people won't mind. More importantly...who would want to live in an area where you can be arrested for doing legal activities?

[COLOR=red]

In this case, it apparently means that someone who wasn't authorised by law to define their suitability decided they weren't suitable based on a totally arbitrary set of criteria, including personal opinion because the standards for "suitability" weren't laids down in the law.

EJL

I like how you ignored my post that pretty much derails your 'lolvague' argument. In fact I'm LOVING how you're ignoring the damage to neighboring property values, and the rights of the people living around her as well.

[Deleted]

I never claimed jail was appropriate, but she deserves to be forced to remove it, receive a hefty fine, and community service. Had she received no warning, I would say let her off, but she was warned and continued to disobey.

Nope, none of that will happen. You too obsest with enforcing of stupid/unenforceable laws. If anything, due to large outcry in media this law will be removed, unless they have really stupid politicians in that city.

[Talen]

Omission is NOT the same as "yes you can do this". He stated what WAS acceptable. Trying to read between the lines and saying "WELL YOU'RE WEREN'T SPECIFIC IN WHAT WASN'T" is childish and nonsense. It's right there in black and white what is considered suitable, you're all just trying to find the grey. That's the absolute end of it.

His personal opinion, however, isn't law. That's the problem. Suppose next year he wnated to do a little vegetable gardening and changed his mind? Suppose he had hayfever and banned roses? Laws need to be specific. For example...some crops have flowers. Banned or not?

I like how you ignored my post that pretty much derails your 'lolvague' argument.

If you'd wait for me to actually read it before posting....

In fact I'm LOVING how you're ignoring the damage to neighboring property values, and the rights of the people living around her as well.

Not denying that may be the reason for the law. Only stating that the law doesn't seem to actually apply...its too vague to be workable. The law doesn't forbid her from growing vegetables. It only requires her to grow what is defined as suitable...but doesn't appear to provide that criteria or means to determine it.

EJL

[Uennie]

His personal opinion, however, isn't law. That's the problem. Suppsoe next year he wnated to do a little vegetable gardening and changed his mind? Suppose he had hayfever and banned roses? Laws need to be specific. For example...some crops have flowers. Banned or not?

EJL

His personal opinion is what delegates it, stop searching for grey and get over it. How can you ignore the neighboring property damage, the smell of manure that probably would have plagued neighboring homes. You know for a fact that she is wrong for ignoring a warning and being so selfish to continue on. This isn't about her, this is about the neighborhood she lives in and the people who have to live around her. Or are you of the belief that her rights outweigh those of the people around her? The needs of one are more important than the needs of many, is that it?

[Tierbook]

anyone know why talen does EJL after everything he writes its rly getting annoying lol