Frank Logullo wrote:
"John R Cambron" wrote:
To my eye your "furry front yard" looks unkempt. Being that it
yours I have no say in the matter.

Me too but it depends where you live.


Where I grew up, a traditional English cottage garden was viewed as being
worse than a car up on blocks. Xeroscaping (although I didn't know anyone
who even knew that term, if it even was invented yet) was also frowned upon.
And don't even think of naturalizing crocus in a lawn. They might as well
have been dandelions.

Many cities have noxious weed ordinances that they use to justify going onto
inner-city vacant lots to mow them. The problem comes when the people who
are enforcing the ordinances have no gardening, horticultural or botany
experience. Anything taller than ankle high better have a flower they
recognize, or have woody stems so they can call it a shrub.

Ornamental grass? To them, Kentucky Bluegrass is the only ornamental grass
allowed, and it better be mowed. Ground cover? You mean Kentucky Bluegrass?
Hollyhocks, lilies and gladiolus, if not in bloom, are far too tall, and
must be weeds.

They'll write the ticket for anything. If the property owner mows it down,
they were right. If the property owner doesn't respond, someone will mow it
down for them. And if the property owner challenges, well, maybe then
they'll send a qualified person out to check. Maybe. Maybe they'll just take
a few pictures, and count on the judge not caring about anything other than
how bad it looks in their poorly taken pictures.

Meanwhile down the street there will be people dumping chemicals on their
lawn in such quantities that they're turning it into a future Superfund site
who are allowed to continue to assault the environment, pollute the soil and
ground water, and poison the neighborhood pets and children. If the only
things they have that are higher than ankle-high are some foundation shrubs
too close to the foundation of the house, they're okay.

On the other hand, I'm not thrilled with landscapes that make walking down
the sidewalk an obstacle course. I don't like vegetation that blocks traffic
signs. And I don't like tall shrubs so close to the corner that I have to
pull out into traffic from the left just to see if there's any traffic from
the right. When it comes down to these safety issues, I don't care if
they're weeds, or expensive specimens.

All that said, I'm not sure I like what's in the picture. There's not enough
context to tell if it looks good. But it doesn't appear to be a safety
problem, and, as far as I can tell, isn't neglected. What must be the most
frustrating about this is they apparently never clearly articulated what
they thought the problem was.

"It violates the ordinance." "How?" "It just does." That's not a very
satisfying exchange. And even though this ticket was dismissed, without
knowing why it was written in the first place, it's not a victory. New
tickets could be on their way, and unless they state how or why, there's no
way to really address the what.

--
Warren H.

==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.
Have an outdoor project? Get a Black & Decker power tool::
http://www.holzemville.com/mall/blackanddecker/