Front-yard vegetable gardens may end in one Florida community

Back in 2013 we introduced Tom Carroll and Hermine Ricketts of Miami Shores, a small burg of 10,500 Floridians that was originally a neighborhood within the city of Miami until it was incorporated as its own village in 1932.  Their story began as so many other tales of individuals who wanted to grow their own food, in place of water wasting lawns.  They had been growing vegetables in their front yard for well over 17 years until the village ordered by town officials to do away with the vegetable garden.

In the land of pink flamingos and salamander wall sculptures, one Florida couple is embroiled in a lengthy legal battle over the right to grow vegetables in their front yard. (Video screenshot: Miami Herald/YouTube)  

We had hoped back then that this would go the way of several other cases nation wide and individual property rights would be upheld and not be dragged out in the courts, but in Tom and Hermine's case this was not the out come.  Three years have passed and we are awaiting a judges ruling, some time in the next few weeks, but the damage as been done.  Faced with $50 per day fines for disobeying a new village ordinance, Tom and Hermine were forced to remove their organic garden, which, contained over 75 different types of vegetables including kale, onions, Swiss chard, spinach and Asian cabbage.

The zoning ordinance that called for front-yard conformity and dictated what residents could plant on their property. Vegetable gardens weren’t outlawed outright but they were relegated to backyards. As reported by the Miami Herald, the crackdown was prompted by a complaint issued by a single neighbor. Whether or not said neighbor was new to the area or had simply been harboring ill-will toward Tom and Hermine and their garden for over a decade is not known at this time.

Richard Sarafan, attorney for the village argued to the judge that the village is within its right to dictate what is grown — or isn’t grown — in the front yards of homeowners while making it abundantly clear that vegetables are great, so long as they are kept out of sight in backyards. There certainly is not fundamental right to grow vegetables in your front yard,” Sarafan claimed. “Aesthetics and uniformity are legitimate government purposes. Not every property can lawfully be used for every purpose.”  Sarafan also mentions grass, sod and “living ground cover” as acceptable forms of front-yard vegetation within village limits.

Final thought -

Jack boot local governments continue on as they exert their position of doing what is best for everyone, with out regard for individual rights and liberties.  We have seen numerous cases of the federal, state and local governments restricting water rights or attempting to when attempting to collect rain water, instituting solar taxes as well as taxes on geothermal, to prop up their personal pursuits or that of their lobbyist.  We have local officials who attempt to get into office under the pretense of green initiatives and a move for more sustainable communities, when they themselves have little regard for any of that except it was a positive campaign tool.  Although the judge may decide in favor of Tom and Hermine's case they have already been forced to end their pursuit of providing for themselves as they have done for 17 years, or they could decide on the side of the village, providing another stepping stone for other municipalities to follow suit and ban whatever a few council members feel is unacceptable in accordance to their personal have and have not beliefs.  I say this, plant away, then plant some more.  If they say remove it plant some edible wilds, then plant even more.  Plant, plant and plant, find vacant lots and plant, plant on the porch, in the windows and on the fence, stick that cabbage among the marigolds, stick garlic in with the coreopsis and mix in pole beans with the morning glories!

More from the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers on the water grab

The feds have launched a new power grab, and it’s coming at the expense of property rights.  But is water actually property?  This falls in the same category as local and state taxation for residents who install solar...or raise water fees all because people are using less.  Question being how long before we have to apply for a permit to have a blue barrel collecting rain water?  I fear the answer would be soon.

The Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers have proposed a new rule to define “waters of the United States.” This definition is supposed to clarify what “waters” are covered under the Clean Water Act and therefore what these two agencies can regulate.

Most people would consider a water body to be a river, a lake, maybe even a pond. But the feds are casting their nets much wider than that. Their proposal could cover almost any type of water. Almost all ditches, including man-made ditches, could be regulated. Depressions in land that only sometimes have water in them could be deemed a tributary and covered under the rule, even if the depression is bone-dry almost every day of the year. The sheer overreach of the proposed rule is breathtaking.

Under the Clean Water Act, property owners are often required to obtain costly and time-consuming permits if engaging in activities that affect jurisdictional waters. We’re not talking toxic waste disposal being required to trigger the need for a permit. The statute would even prohibit actions that cause absolutely no environmental harm. For example, someone might need a permit for kicking some sand into a jurisdictional water.

The EPA is promoting the rule by cynically asking, “Do you choose clean water?”  The real question posed by the proposed regulation is: Do you choose federal regulation of almost all water?

Common activities, from farming to home building, could require a permit. Individuals who want to use their property for ordinary, everyday uses could be forced to get a permit. Sackett v. EPA offers one egregious example of overzealous regulatory enforcement. In this 2012 Supreme Court case, the EPA sought the power to impose fines of $75,000 per day on a couple for placing gravel on virtually dry land to build a home in a built-out subdivision. This proposed rule will likely lead to even more Sackett-type abuses of regulatory power.

Put simply, this rule is an attack on property rights. As EPA and the Corps of Engineers claim jurisdiction over more and more waters, property owners will have to secure more and more permits—or simply forgo projects because of the additional cost and time required to secure a permit.

And there’s a growing risk of “gotcha” enforcement. It’s already tough for property owners to know that their property has a jurisdictional water. Because the proposed rule is so broad and vague, this problem is only going to get far worse. The existence of a jurisdictional water may be far from clear—even to the EPA and the Corps, at least until they subjectively decide that a water is jurisdictional after all. Through this water (and land) power grab, the EPA and Corps will have the power to limit severely how people can use their property.

Furthermore, the proposed rule ignores the important role states play in protecting water resources—a role stressed in the Clean Water Act itself. States have a better sense of their specific environmental needs than the federal government and can provide a tailored approach to regulation. Yet the EPA and Corps proceed as though they know best, no matter what the law says about state power.

The EPA is promoting the rule by cynically asking, “Do you choose clean water?” As if critics of the rule want dirty water. The real question posed by the proposed regulation is: Do you choose federal regulation of almost all water? The Clean Water Act rejects this federal power grab.

At the start of April, the agencies sent a final version of the rule to the Office of Management and Budget for its approval. Congress must act quickly to stop this rule from going forward.

Ultimately, Congress should develop legislation that clearly defines what waters are regulated under the Clean Water Act. But for now, lawmakers should pass legislation directing the agencies to withdraw their proposed rule immediately. Property owners shouldn’t have to walk on egg shells, afraid of overzealous agencies going after them for simply using their land for ordinary activities and making an honest living.

Originally published in The Washington Times