Living without HOAs is just fine unless you need one (like to force a
neighbor to cut down the 6 foot weeds and haul off the junkyard outside
his garage, or to force another neighbor to disconnect the 35-foot
motor home parked in the driveway).

Anyway, the woman shouldn't have signed an agreement in order to "make them
go away." That was a bad sign and I don't blame the judge for getting
upset with her for trying to claim that she signed it when she was sick
when she wasn't claiming that at the time.

I also don't share her (paraphrasing here) "weeds are
anything that you don't want to grow there." I agree that there is a
lot of latitude in the definition of a weed, but I don't want the neighbor
on my corner being able to go to court and just say that he wants them
to grow there. That's seems likely the incentive behind the plant
identification req. on the lady - if you intend it to grow there, then you
likely know what it is (particularly if you're educated in horticulture). She
ought to be able to produce a list pretty easily - she's obviously qualified.
As for the "inspection" situation, if her habitat is being maintained in a
fashion agreeable to her neighbors and HOA, then it won't matter when the
inspectors show up.

I have a weedy front yard. It's a steep slope (~30 degrees) and
the deer destroyed the ground cover that was planted when we built the
house. I didn't really realize that it was mainly deer damage that was
prevented the stuff from growing in, but I know now and I'm filling in
the spaces with more deer-resistant plants, but it's never going to be
a suburban lawn situation (installing a lawn on that slope would be nuts).
Anyway, I know what's supposed to be there and what is not.
--
Marc Stephenson IBM Server Group - Austin,TX
T/L: 678-3189