Billy wrote:
In article ,
Nad R wrote:

Billy wrote:

When they get there they may or not have restrictions on the
look of there area they live in. Grass only front lawns, height of
antennas, RVs in driveways... That kind of restrictions, not who may move
in.

Right, overt race restrictive covenants are forbidden now (Shelley v.
Kraemer). Now it is all done with a wink and a nod.

But how is it discriminating to require all homes in that community to have
a manicured front lawn?

I suppose it isn't, but it is a restrictive covenant. Can a property
owner make whole their ownership of their property? It is clear that a
court can remove racial covenants (Shelley v. Kraemer). I suppose the
answer is to keep nibbling at the legally questionable edges of the
covenant until it becomes so restrictive that the homeowners association
is disbanded. Neighbor may even have to learn to talk and cooperate with
each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictive_covenant
Some have accused homeowners associations of selective enforcement of
these rules, making a case only when it is something (or someone)
another person dislikes. Breaking a rule, even unintentionally, can
bring fines or even a lien on the home. In extreme cases, a homeowners'
association may file a lawsuit against an owner who violates the
covenants or even foreclose the property.

Illegal taking of property, perhaps.

In any event, here, the ordinance was vague, and merely required the use
of usual (common) plants. Does an autocratic, pencil pushing bureaucrat
get to be the final judge on what is usual?

Intercourse the bureaucrat.

According to the local news the woman is taking her front veggie garden to
a jury trial.

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)