wrote in message
oups.com...
front yard, (http://cpacker.org/a1.jpg)

(http://cpacker.org/a2.jpg).


I hope that wall falls on a dog.

"Tiny Human Ferret" wrote in message
...
Vox Humana wrote:
"Warren" wrote in message
...

wrote:

Bringing the retaining wall into this shows
that you guys live in gated communities or
similar lala lands. You'd fear to come into
this part of town. Your standards are
irrelevant.


That's an awfully prejudicial remark.



It always comes down to this. I'm surprised that the thread lasted this
long without personal insults or the inclusion of the term "Mc Mansion."

But looking at the photo at http://cpacker.org/a3.jpg I would have to
say that it does look about half reverted to the wild. Then again, I'm
pretty old-school northern-euro in my aesthetics of a "well kept yard".


Oh, I agree. I think there are several issues here. First, there is the
law. I detect that the primary issue isn't the yard, but whether code
enforcement is valid function of government. I do think it is. The second
issue is that when you post pictures to Usenet, you will get a complete
spectrum of opinions and therefore, you can't get ****ed off when people
tell you what they really think.

Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
Vox Humana wrote:
"Warren" wrote in message
...

wrote:

Bringing the retaining wall into this shows
that you guys live in gated communities or
similar lala lands. You'd fear to come into
this part of town. Your standards are
irrelevant.


That's an awfully prejudicial remark.



It always comes down to this. I'm surprised that the thread
lasted this long without personal insults or the inclusion of the
term "Mc Mansion."

But looking at the photo at http://cpacker.org/a3.jpg I would have
to say that it does look about half reverted to the wild. Then
again, I'm pretty old-school northern-euro in my aesthetics of a
"well kept yard".


http://www.earthops.net/now/now-west.jpg (realtime) would give you
an ideal of the general aesthetic in my own neighborhood.

Your picture is so low quality that it doesn't show much of anything.

--

Travis in Shoreline (just North of Seattle) Washington
USDA Zone 8
Sunset Zone 5

Vox Humana wrote:
"Tiny Human Ferret" wrote in message
...

Vox Humana wrote:

"Warren" wrote in message
...


wrote:


Bringing the retaining wall into this shows
that you guys live in gated communities or
similar lala lands. You'd fear to come into
this part of town. Your standards are
irrelevant.


That's an awfully prejudicial remark.



It always comes down to this. I'm surprised that the thread lasted this
long without personal insults or the inclusion of the term "Mc Mansion."

But looking at the photo at http://cpacker.org/a3.jpg I would have to
say that it does look about half reverted to the wild. Then again, I'm
pretty old-school northern-euro in my aesthetics of a "well kept yard".



Oh, I agree. I think there are several issues here. First, there is the
law. I detect that the primary issue isn't the yard, but whether code
enforcement is valid function of government. I do think it is. The second
issue is that when you post pictures to Usenet, you will get a complete
spectrum of opinions and therefore, you can't get ****ed off when people
tell you what they really think.



Ole Parker's just chest thumpin'. Take a look at his webpage. You'll
get a better picture of his 'conspiracy behind every rock' mentality.
It's his right to do whatever and do it whenever he pleases on his
property by gawd! Screw the law and the neighbors!

Travis wrote:
Tiny Human Ferret wrote:

Vox Humana wrote:
"Warren" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Bringing the retaining wall into this shows
that you guys live in gated communities or
similar lala lands. You'd fear to come into
this part of town. Your standards are
irrelevant.
That's an awfully prejudicial remark.
It always comes down to this. I'm surprised that the thread
lasted this long without personal insults or the inclusion of the
term "Mc Mansion."
But looking at the photo at http://cpacker.org/a3.jpg I would have
to say that it does look about half reverted to the wild. Then
again, I'm pretty old-school northern-euro in my aesthetics of a
"well kept yard".

http://www.earthops.net/now/now-west.jpg (realtime) would give you
an ideal of the general aesthetic in my own neighborhood.


Your picture is so low quality that it doesn't show much of anything.


What it doesn't show (an overgrown patch of jungle weeds held in place
by a failing brick wall) means something.

Vox Humana wrote:
"Tiny Human Ferret" wrote in message
...

Vox Humana wrote:

"Warren" wrote in message
...


wrote:


Bringing the retaining wall into this shows
that you guys live in gated communities or
similar lala lands. You'd fear to come into
this part of town. Your standards are
irrelevant.


That's an awfully prejudicial remark.



It always comes down to this. I'm surprised that the thread lasted this
long without personal insults or the inclusion of the term "Mc Mansion."

But looking at the photo at http://cpacker.org/a3.jpg I would have to
say that it does look about half reverted to the wild. Then again, I'm
pretty old-school northern-euro in my aesthetics of a "well kept yard".



Oh, I agree. I think there are several issues here. First, there is the
law. I detect that the primary issue isn't the yard, but whether code
enforcement is valid function of government. I do think it is. The second
issue is that when you post pictures to Usenet, you will get a complete
spectrum of opinions and therefore, you can't get ****ed off when people
tell you what they really think.

There's also the issue of differing aesthetics. I live in a suburb of
the District, and Mr Packer lives in a part of the District which has a
rather different planning and land-use concept. For instance, the
District has fairly small and rather squarish blocks, generally with
fairly narrow street frontage when compared to the depth of the plots;
also the District has alleys and my suburb hasn't any alleys.

Due to the urbanized nature of even the "bedroom neighborhoods" such as
Mr Packer's, there's a tradition of letting nature flourish wherever it
may, as a contrast to the asphalt and sidewalks. Also, the District is
rather famous for its extensive Urban Forest, as well as one of the
highest acreages of per-capita parks. My own suburb mostly has trees
which have grown since the neighborhood was cleared and developed in the
late 1950s. I suppose that the contrast and comparison I wish to make is
that it's a lot easier to manage your yard's vegetation when it was
placed there by design.

Given the local problem with the spread of "invasives", I suspect Mr
Packer's yard will soon become home to the spreading "mile-a-minute
vine" which within a year should overtake his property and pull all of
the trees down onto his house, ending this discussion.



--
The incapacity of a weak and distracted government may
often assume the appearance, and produce the effects,
of a treasonable correspondence with the public enemy.
--Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"
================================================== ================
"Sometimes, Evil drives a mini-van."
--Desperate Housewives

G Henslee wrote:
Travis wrote:
Tiny Human Ferret wrote:

Vox Humana wrote:
"Warren" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Bringing the retaining wall into this shows
that you guys live in gated communities or
similar lala lands. You'd fear to come into
this part of town. Your standards are
irrelevant.
That's an awfully prejudicial remark.
It always comes down to this. I'm surprised that the
thread
lasted this long without personal insults or the inclusion of
the term "Mc Mansion."
But looking at the photo at http://cpacker.org/a3.jpg I would
have to say that it does look about half reverted to the wild.
Then again, I'm pretty old-school northern-euro in my
aesthetics of a "well kept yard".

http://www.earthops.net/now/now-west.jpg (realtime) would give
you an ideal of the general aesthetic in my own neighborhood.


Your picture is so low quality that it doesn't show much of
anything.


What it doesn't show (an overgrown patch of jungle weeds held in
place by a failing brick wall) means something.

There is no need for a brick wall in mostly flat terrain.

Travis wrote:
G Henslee wrote:

Travis wrote:
Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
Vox Humana wrote:
"Warren" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Bringing the retaining wall into this shows
that you guys live in gated communities or
similar lala lands. You'd fear to come into
this part of town. Your standards are
irrelevant.
That's an awfully prejudicial remark.
It always comes down to this. I'm surprised that the
thread lasted this long without personal insults or
the inclusion of
the term "Mc Mansion."
But looking at the photo at http://cpacker.org/a3.jpg I would
have to say that it does look about half reverted to the wild.
Then again, I'm pretty old-school northern-euro in my
aesthetics of a "well kept yard".
http://www.earthops.net/now/now-west.jpg (realtime) would give
you an ideal of the general aesthetic in my own neighborhood.
Your picture is so low quality that it doesn't show much of
anything.
What it doesn't show (an overgrown patch of jungle weeds held in
place by a failing brick wall) means something.


There is no need for a brick wall in mostly flat terrain.


You missed the point.

pfft...

"Tiny Human Ferret" wrote in message
...
Vox Humana wrote:
"Tiny Human Ferret" wrote in message
...

Vox Humana wrote:

"Warren" wrote in message
...


wrote:


Bringing the retaining wall into this shows
that you guys live in gated communities or
similar lala lands. You'd fear to come into
this part of town. Your standards are
irrelevant.


That's an awfully prejudicial remark.



It always comes down to this. I'm surprised that the thread lasted
this
long without personal insults or the inclusion of the term "Mc
Mansion."

But looking at the photo at http://cpacker.org/a3.jpg I would have to
say that it does look about half reverted to the wild. Then again, I'm
pretty old-school northern-euro in my aesthetics of a "well kept yard".



Oh, I agree. I think there are several issues here. First, there is
the
law. I detect that the primary issue isn't the yard, but whether code
enforcement is valid function of government. I do think it is. The
second
issue is that when you post pictures to Usenet, you will get a complete
spectrum of opinions and therefore, you can't get ****ed off when people
tell you what they really think.

There's also the issue of differing aesthetics. I live in a suburb of
the District, and Mr Packer lives in a part of the District which has a
rather different planning and land-use concept. For instance, the
District has fairly small and rather squarish blocks, generally with
fairly narrow street frontage when compared to the depth of the plots;
also the District has alleys and my suburb hasn't any alleys.

Due to the urbanized nature of even the "bedroom neighborhoods" such as
Mr Packer's, there's a tradition of letting nature flourish wherever it
may, as a contrast to the asphalt and sidewalks. Also, the District is
rather famous for its extensive Urban Forest, as well as one of the
highest acreages of per-capita parks. My own suburb mostly has trees
which have grown since the neighborhood was cleared and developed in the
late 1950s. I suppose that the contrast and comparison I wish to make is
that it's a lot easier to manage your yard's vegetation when it was
placed there by design.

Given the local problem with the spread of "invasives", I suspect Mr
Packer's yard will soon become home to the spreading "mile-a-minute
vine" which within a year should overtake his property and pull all of
the trees down onto his house, ending this discussion.


Nature flourishes in my landscape, but it wouldn't be seen as wild or
unkempt by any reasonable person. Ironically, a "natural" look probably
takes more thought and care than a rigid, formal design. Letting your yard
become overgrown with weeds and calling it "natural" is like letting your
kids run wild and celebrating their exuberance.

G Henslee wrote:
Vox Humana wrote:

"Tiny Human Ferret" wrote in message
...

Vox Humana wrote:

"Warren" wrote in message
...


wrote:


Bringing the retaining wall into this shows
that you guys live in gated communities or
similar lala lands. You'd fear to come into
this part of town. Your standards are
irrelevant.



That's an awfully prejudicial remark.




It always comes down to this. I'm surprised that the thread lasted
this
long without personal insults or the inclusion of the term "Mc
Mansion."


But looking at the photo at http://cpacker.org/a3.jpg I would have to
say that it does look about half reverted to the wild. Then again, I'm
pretty old-school northern-euro in my aesthetics of a "well kept yard".



Oh, I agree. I think there are several issues here. First, there is the
law. I detect that the primary issue isn't the yard, but whether code
enforcement is valid function of government. I do think it is. The
second
issue is that when you post pictures to Usenet, you will get a complete
spectrum of opinions and therefore, you can't get ****ed off when people
tell you what they really think.



Ole Parker's just chest thumpin'. Take a look at his webpage. You'll
get a better picture of his 'conspiracy behind every rock' mentality.
It's his right to do whatever and do it whenever he pleases on his
property by gawd! Screw the law and the neighbors!

Oh, it goes farther than that. After 9/11, the Feds started putting up
barriers around a lot of real-estate. Mr Packer decided that it would be
entertaining and enlightening to go around town taking pictures of the
security barriers and the terrain they protected, and putting said
pictures on the WWW, and then pointing said global InterNet to said WWW
pages, via postings to UseNet.

This wasn't well-received.


--
The incapacity of a weak and distracted government may
often assume the appearance, and produce the effects,
of a treasonable correspondence with the public enemy.
--Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"
================================================== ================
"Sometimes, Evil drives a mini-van."
--Desperate Housewives

Vox Humana wrote:
"Tiny Human Ferret" wrote in message
...

Vox Humana wrote:

snip snip

Due to the urbanized nature of even the "bedroom neighborhoods" such as
Mr Packer's, there's a tradition of letting nature flourish wherever it
may, as a contrast to the asphalt and sidewalks. Also, the District is
rather famous for its extensive Urban Forest, as well as one of the
highest acreages of per-capita parks. My own suburb mostly has trees
which have grown since the neighborhood was cleared and developed in the
late 1950s. I suppose that the contrast and comparison I wish to make is
that it's a lot easier to manage your yard's vegetation when it was
placed there by design.

Given the local problem with the spread of "invasives", I suspect Mr
Packer's yard will soon become home to the spreading "mile-a-minute
vine" which within a year should overtake his property and pull all of
the trees down onto his house, ending this discussion.



Nature flourishes in my landscape, but it wouldn't be seen as wild or
unkempt by any reasonable person. Ironically, a "natural" look probably
takes more thought and care than a rigid, formal design. Letting your yard
become overgrown with weeds and calling it "natural" is like letting your
kids run wild and celebrating their exuberance.

I can tell that you shop in grocery stores quite similar to my own.

My own yard has a variety of native as well as non-native species.
However, most of the non-natives are annuals and winter kills them off.
Replanting every year is a bit of a hassle, but it prevents the yard
from being overrun by ornamentals. BTW, I misspoke in the quoted text,
above, there are a fair amount of rather large (100 years or so) trees
such as white oak, poplar, ash, gum and hickory. (I have all of these
forming a pentacle in the back yard, and call it the Grove.) Most of the
underbrush probably was cleared, leaving only the large trees, and
houses were built in between the large trees. Then grass was brought in,
along with whatever other landscaping plants were added later on. To
find the smaller native stuff has taken some time, as even the local
parks are often second generation regrowth after having been cleared,
farmed, and fallowed a few times since Colonial days.

An interesting site on the flora of the area is available at
http://www.mdflora.org/
which is the "Maryland Native Plant Society". Vegetation in the District
naturally was about exactly what you'd find in the adjacent regions of
Maryland or Northern Virginia.



--
The incapacity of a weak and distracted government may
often assume the appearance, and produce the effects,
of a treasonable correspondence with the public enemy.
--Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"
================================================== ================
"Sometimes, Evil drives a mini-van."
--Desperate Housewives

Travis wrote:
Tiny Human Ferret wrote:

Vox Humana wrote:
"Warren" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Bringing the retaining wall into this shows
that you guys live in gated communities or
similar lala lands. You'd fear to come into
this part of town. Your standards are
irrelevant.
That's an awfully prejudicial remark.
It always comes down to this. I'm surprised that the thread
lasted this long without personal insults or the inclusion of the
term "Mc Mansion."
But looking at the photo at http://cpacker.org/a3.jpg I would have
to say that it does look about half reverted to the wild. Then
again, I'm pretty old-school northern-euro in my aesthetics of a
"well kept yard".

http://www.earthops.net/now/now-west.jpg (realtime) would give you
an ideal of the general aesthetic in my own neighborhood.


Your picture is so low quality that it doesn't show much of anything.

It's a webcam.

--
The incapacity of a weak and distracted government may
often assume the appearance, and produce the effects,
of a treasonable correspondence with the public enemy.
--Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"
================================================== ================
"Sometimes, Evil drives a mini-van."
--Desperate Housewives

wrote:


G Henslee wrote:

After reviewing the pics the officer probably figured that retaining
wall would be falling over in less than 6 mos anyway, and the overgrowth
would take care of itself.


Most of the houses older than 50 years around
here have tilted walls. I've been monitoring
mine for the 19 years since I've lived here
and it's added about an inch to its outward
tilt in that time.

Bringing the retaining wall into this shows
that you guys live in gated communities or
similar lala lands. You'd fear to come into
this part of town. Your standards are
irrelevant.

Standards of another neighborhood are irrelevent.

But, the photos you took paint a different picture. They not only show
your property, but one can easily observe portions of your neighbors'
properties.

a3.jpg shows part of a well-trimmed devil strip of the neighbor to the
right.

a4.jpg shows several well maintained properties, plus nicely vertical
retaining walls without weeds at the base. Unfortunately for you, their
walls emphasize the tilt on the one section of wall.

Your neighbors, members of your part of town, seem to have pretty high
standards of maintenance.



I welcome creative suggestions for my site
that involve trimming or selective removal,

15 minutes of weed removal at base of walls.
5 minutes mowing.
Dump the yard waste in a corner of your lot to compost.
Plant a tree in the strip where the sidewalk narrows, like your
neighbors. Very slow growing or shorter form are called for to avoid
growing into the wires above.

-matt

Vox Humana wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


Indeed, had the government appeared at
the hearing, one of my tactics would have
been to ask if the inspector lived
anywhere nearby, after establishing
that there was no citizen complainant.


I don't follow that logic. Does the code state that a citizen complaint is
required to initiate an investigation? Does your code enforcement agency
accept anonymous complaints? The problem with enforcement of such codes is
that they generally lack an objective standard. Therefore, the

That's the point. My tactic would have been to
show that the inspector was basing his evaluation
on his own tastes. The odds are that they
would be along the lines of what that webcam showed
that was offered in one of the followups, i.e.
crewcut lawns, trees, and little else.

But first, I would want to establish that there
was no citizen complainant. The reason is that
the good will of my neighbors means more to me
than freedom to manage my property according
to my own esthetic standards.

If there was a complaint from a neighbor, I would
have stated the importance of my neighbors' good
will toward me and asked the adjudicator to grant
a continuance pending my talking to the neighbor
and offering to accomodate him. If there was a
privacy issue, I would have asked the adjudicator
to direct the inspector to get in touch with
the complainant and ask for permission to make
known his identity. By proposing to settle
directly with the complainant I would have indicated
my genuine desire for a just outcome and that,
after all, is what the adjudicator is paid to
achieve.

If there was _no_ complainant, then I would be
free to use my questioning of the inspector to
show that it was a matter of his taste, ultimately.
Because, as you said, weed laws are typically
vague. For example, some of the ordnances use the word
"cultivate" in a way that weakens them, legally speaking.
If they prohibit "uncultivated" vegetation, it's
a simple matter to show that one of the
dictionary definitions of cultivate is simply
to "favor the growth of" a plant. Then I can
correctly state that my yard is cultivated
because I remove tree saplings, poison ivy,
etc. specifically to favor the growth of what's
left.

That's the legal issues. As for the esthetic
issue, whether I can call my yard natural
landscaping, I'll try to post a followup to
Ferret's reply to Vox Humana and confine
it to rec.gardens. I have 15 minutes left...
how do you folks post multiple times in
24 hours? Do you write faster than I -- or
not work for a living?


--
(Charles Packer)
ungoogled: mailboxATSIGNcpacker.org
http://cpacker.org/whatnews

Vox Humana wrote:
Nature flourishes in my landscape, but it wouldn't be seen as wild or
unkempt by any reasonable person. Ironically, a "natural" look probably
takes more thought and care than a rigid, formal design. Letting your yard
become overgrown with weeds and calling it "natural" is like letting your
kids run wild and celebrating their exuberance.

What defines the difference between "natural landscaping" and unkempt?
How do we know the difference between a Nieman-Marcus yard and a Costco
one? Do we have a gene for perceiving invasive species?...

--
(Charles Packer)
ungoogled: mailboxATSIGNcpacker.org
http://cpacker.org/whatnews