View Full Version : Illegal kitchen garden....again.
This looks like a lovely garden -- I'd love to live next door to these folks.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/illegal-kitchen-garden_n_1687558.html?utm_source=Triggermail&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Daily%20Brief&utm_campaign=daily_brief
Too bad it has to get hacked up. Perhaps they can plant some lovely, environmentally-friendly bluegrass and eat that.
It is a beautiful garden. Thanks for bringing that back up - I remember hearing about it awhile ago and couldn't remember any of the details.
If I was forced to comply I would come up with the absolute ugliest, legal thing I could do to my front yard. That's horrible.
catherine
7-23-12, 12:38pm
Hey, that's funny. DH and I were talking about garden front yards last night and he pointed this article out to me this morning. I think the yard is beautiful.
If I was forced to comply I would come up with the absolute ugliest, legal thing I could do to my front yard. That's horrible.
haha, that would be great. Reminds me of a guy in a neighborhood in my town who decorated his lawn with bowling balls. He lined his driveway with them, his walkway, etc. There must have been 75 bowling balls out there. His neighbors tried to get him to remove them through every means possible, but he was in his legal limits. So, they devised a plan where one of the neighbors asked if he could buy a bowling ball from him and he made the transaction and was thus in violation of some "commercial enterprise in residential area" law. So they made him take away the bowling balls. A few months later, his lawn was strewn with rocking horses.
I'd plant kudzu and bamboo, then move to some less-oppressive place.
catherine
7-23-12, 12:56pm
I love the pictures on their website: they staged a "bed-in" a la John and Yoko, with a handmade sign saying "Give Peas A Chance." Love it...
I don't see how this is different from a knot garden or flower garden or any decorative garden. Couldn't they call it a flower garden? All those plants flower...I'm just saying.
Maybe their immediate neighbors haven't complained, but someone has it in for them. Someone is driving this train.
I'd plant kudzu and bamboo, then move to some less-oppressive place.
I saw a story once of a person who opened a tackle shop in the first floor of their home - no problems until some neighbors complained it was not zoned for it and shut him down.
So he went with something the land was zoned for - pigs. I expect the people who shut down the tackle shop missed it even more than he did :-)
I would remove enough of the garden to be in compliance because its probably not worth risking your house over a fine that would involve, at best, a huge legal battle against city hall. It wouldn't take me long to replace it with a giant giraffe made of old hub caps. And a naked cherub fountain that just happens to be peeing on the mayor's campaign sign. And a huge collection of gnomes all painted with evil Chucky the clown faces. And a dead tree that I bet any tree service would be happy to donate. And...
ApatheticNoMore
7-23-12, 2:16pm
A pity, it's not only practical, it has a good asthetic too IMO (especially from the angle of the photograph), the garden goes well with the house, both strongly geometric.
It reminds me of another story of a poor woman in the U.S. who was recently forced to destroy her edible and medicinal herb garden. So what she can now only get pure food at high end organic store prices which she can't afford?
I saw a story once of a person who opened a tackle shop in the first floor of their home - no problems until some neighbors complained it was not zoned for it and shut him down.
So he went with something the land was zoned for - pigs. I expect the people who shut down the tackle shop missed it even more than he did :-)
good, love the Kudzu also :) (probably the most out of control plant ever bwhahaha). All this type of stuff is BS, don't allow people to provide some of their needs outside of a clearly corrupt economic system (food, opening up businesses etc.).
A nearby church decided to once again "walk the talk" and created a vegetable garden, the proceeds of which were donated to a local food shelf. Nothing illegal about it, but the neighborhood preservation commitee decided to complain about the timber trellises and the chicken-wire fence. The church was able to modify the fence to meet the committee's requirements. But you have to wonder if people don't have better things to do.
You guys are pretty awe-inspiring with the suggestions for alternatives. I love the cherub and the mayor's sign.....
Sheesh I'd love to have a garden like this.
jennipurrr
7-23-12, 3:37pm
I'd plant kudzu and bamboo, then move to some less-oppressive place.
I have a neighbor who planted bamboo by their fence as a barrier. Then they got foreclosed and the house sat empty for nearly two years. The entire backyard is now bamboo gone wild! Its apparently a big mess.
They could plant an edible that looks to a newbie like it's just a flower. Jerusalem artichokes come to mind. "No food here! Just nicey nicey flowers!" Dandelions are good food. Lamb's quarters. Purslane.
Tussiemussies
7-23-12, 5:34pm
Saw this on Facebook and thought what a shame that this beautiful and well-maintained garden will have to be dismantled.
Do believe in gardens on front lawns just as long as they are well maintained, otherwise a big mess would just bring down property values. Until this is widely accepted, it probably does bring down property values, which is a shame...
I'd find an attorney pro bono and fight this really stoooopid regulation. Sheesh!
awakenedsoul
7-23-12, 8:20pm
I have a potager/cottage garden in my front yard, but I live in an unincorporated area. I don't understand why people move into places with homeowners associations and/or strict regulations, and then break them. It's very expensive, time consuming, and it wastes a lot of energy. These people are obviously talented and intelligent gardeners. I'm not a lawn person, either, but this rule breaking mentality doesn't make sense to me. There are plenty of places where you can live and grow whatever you want.
If I had to guess I'd bet they moved in before they considered the idea of planting the garden.
Reminds me of an article I read about when I lived in Coral Gables, a tony, older inner suburb of Miami. The city had all sorts of restrictive rules (no visible clothes lines, only certain colors of paint for outside walls, etc) The guy in the article had gotten in trouble for parking his brand new pickup that he used for work in his driveway, because apparently one of the rules was no pickups parked in one's driveway and a neighbor complained. So he bought a rusted out 25 year old beater car and proceeded to park that in his driveway, using it to drive back and forth the few blocks to the metrorail station where he started parking his truck, since that was allowed, and parking there was free anyway.
I have a potager/cottage garden in my front yard, but I live in an unincorporated area. I don't understand why people move into places with homeowners associations and/or strict regulations, and then break them. It's very expensive, time consuming, and it wastes a lot of energy. These people are obviously talented and intelligent gardeners. I'm not a lawn person, either, but this rule breaking mentality doesn't make sense to me. There are plenty of places where you can live and grow whatever you want.
In all fairness, in some cases -- and I'd be willing to bet this is one of them -- the "town rules" aren't exactly something one reads before moving in, or even before putting in a garden, even if you can find them at all. Our town's are buried and archaic. An entire town is so concerned with gardens that they have a rule about it? They might be like the city planning bureaucracy from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:
ARTHUR DENT: ....the plans weren’t immediately obvious to the eye were they?
MISTER PROSSER: That depends where you were looking.
ARTHUR DENT: I eventually had to go down to the cellar!
MISTER PROSSER: That’s the display department.
ARTHUR DENT: With a torch!
MISTER PROSSER: The lights, had… probably gone.
ARTHUR DENT: So had the stairs!
MISTER PROSSER: Well you found the notice didn’t you?
ARTHUR DENT: Yes. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet, stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying “Beware of the Leopard”.
Apparently the planting requirements in that area are '30% grass'. As I recall, there are many edible grasses...
iris lily
7-24-12, 12:49am
Look, I think their veggie garden is pretty (but for the raised beds which I disliked) and the restrictions probably stupid, but why do these people think that their local ordinances doesn't apply to them? They are special because...? Either get out, or get the ordinance changed.
So often we encounter people here in our historic district who like the look of the old houses here but who then want to change their own house into something not supported by the historic preservation ordinance. doh.
iris lily
7-24-12, 12:50am
I have a potager/cottage garden in my front yard, but I live in an unincorporated area. I don't understand why people move into places with homeowners associations and/or strict regulations, and then break them. It's very expensive, time consuming, and it wastes a lot of energy. These people are obviously talented and intelligent gardeners. I'm not a lawn person, either, but this rule breaking mentality doesn't make sense to me. There are plenty of places where you can live and grow whatever you want.
ok, I just read your post and agree.
Thing that is interesting is that there's really nothing in the law itself that would assert good legal reasoning for this beyond class ideology and related issues. That is to say, the city/town/neighborhood wants to have a certain "look."
Zoning laws are designed to keep live, work, commercial and industrial spaces in logical order for the best possible health of the community. A public health concern. I get that. And that is where most land-use law rests. But these sorts of laws do not have a public health basis -- which is typically one of the restrictions on this sort of thing (gardens). Instead, this is really just about appearances.
And to me, that makes no sense from a legal perspectibe (the underlying theory of such a law).
There are several issues at play in having a garden of this type -- including food security and sustainability, land use, etc etc. And one of them is also property rights -- which asserts certain "rights to use" of property. Restrictions on animals (such as ducks, chickens, etc) fall into public health concerns, but growing vegetables? not so much.
End of the day, I think it's time that people start going to city counsels and having these weird 'classist' laws overturned. It just makes no sense that private property can't be used to grow a beautiful, healthy garden that is no risk to public health.
Secondarily, I posit that had they done something in the "english cottage style" that might also function in terms of herbs, flowers, small trees (dwarf lemon anyone?) and then also veggies -- with no lawn (you could still use the same amount of space) -- would this be at issue? Would anyone have even noticed beyond "wow, a full garden with so many diverse plants!"
One of my friends has a suburban permaculture garden here. It's a *tiny* space. She has 12 fruiting trees and 3 fruiting vine species (grapes, feijoa, and kiwifruit. she might even have passion fruit. She has over 40 kinds of herbs. She has about 70 kinds of vegetables.
Because she plants in a "disorganized" english cottage style, people see it as a fully ornamental garden.
Of course, this garden is simply a more formal style. Remove the wood and plant hedges of boxwood or lavender or whatever around it, it might just look like a "formal english cottage garden" and not a "functional veggie garden."
And this, goes to the issue of that legality again. It's really about "what we are used to" or what is "fashionable" -- or how you spin things.
HOAs actually hold no force of law. They can't even enforce on their fines in most localities. We were fined left, right, and center for all kinds of things (while other places, with much worse situations were not), and never paid the fines because there's literally no force of law.
I think people break them because they don't assume that hte HOA would *really* care so long as it "looks nice."
But this is different than city-wide ordinances against food growing (food security issues). Someone said it's something about protecting agriculture at one point in my meanderings on the topic (not in this thread, just in general), and I htink that's pretty nuts. Obviously this is not large enough to form a commercial venture, and even if it were, it's not large enough to compete with massive commercial growers to really impact them negatively.
Apparently the planting requirements in that area are '30% grass'. As I recall, there are many edible grasses...
So if they remove the gravel pathways between the raised bed and grow grass pathways... will it be enough of a %?
Miss Cellane
7-24-12, 8:41am
I have mixed thoughts about this.
First, why did they plant everything in the front yard and not the backyard? Does the backyard get no sun? Was it already completely planted and they wanted more veggies? Or did they want to make a statement? Since the law in their area does allow for some food gardening in front yards, why did they feel the need to plant more than allowed?
I have more sympathy for them if they really needed the food than if they were just trying to make a statement.
Their garden looks lovely. But daily, I walk past our town's community garden. At this point in the summer, many people who started off with enthusiasm early in the growing season have stopped visiting their gardens. There are many plots that are weedy and overgrown, shedding seeds left and right. And they don't look all that attractive. Some of them, if in a front yard, would fall under the town's blight regulations and the owners would be ticketed until they got it all cleaned up.
When towns make these regulations, they can't assume that everyone will have a lovely, neat, tidy garden. They have to plan for the worst--the people who dig up their entire front lawn, plant it and then stop gardening. Then the neighbors will have the sight of weeds and overgrown plants. And the town will have the hassle of dealing with the neighbors' complaints and trying to get the gardeners to clean up their yard.
My reading of the article is that 30% of your front yard could be planted with vegetables. 70% has to be lawn or trees or flowers or whatever else is acceptable.
Please don't get me wrong--I'm in favor of planting your own veggie garden. I'm a champion weeder, taught by my dad as a wee tiny tot. But not all gardeners are good gardeners. Not all veggie gardens look nice.
There's a place for everything, and although the couples garden is to die for, I'm glad there are ordinances that prevent property-owners from broadcasting their utilitarian needs for all to see.
Look, I think their veggie garden is pretty (but for the raised beds which I disliked) and the restrictions probably stupid, but why do these people think that their local ordinances doesn't apply to them? They are special because...? Either get out, or get the ordinance changed.
So often we encounter people here in our historic district who like the look of the old houses here but who then want to change their own house into something not supported by the historic preservation ordinance. doh.
I wonder if the restrictions were in place when they started? I wonder if the restrictions were put in place as a result of what they did?
Like if someone else starts planning with the 30% rule they have in place now, not knowing by the time they finish the rules will be changing again?
This is the kind of nanny government I don't like - no safety concerns, no blight, looks very well maintained. But they have to maintain their own property per what the town considers an acceptable use.
Lol puglogic...you gotta love Douglas Adams.
I painted our house a few years back. A year after it was done I receive a letter from our HOA president informing me the color had not been 'approved' by the 'architectural committee' and that I needed to submit a written request outlining why I should be allowed to proceed with my paint job. There was only one small section of one road from which our house was even visible and the paint in question was one shade darker than the previous paint so the house would further blend in with the surrounding rocks and trees. The HOA president found out about it when he was invited to a bbq. That was the last bbq he was ever invited to. My reply to the architectural committee, in true anarchist fashion (there really wasn't a committee anyway), was three simple letters. GFY. I think he figured it out. I figured out that in general I have very little use for HOAs.
I agree with Mrs. M and others who share her feelings. Beautiful garden. Belongs in the back yard.
I don't agree that the gardener who owns the garden and house should engage in passive aggressive measures to stick it to their neighbors and the town if they make them move the garden. What's the point in that?
I do think the gardener should be allowed to harvest this year before turning the garden back into a relatively normal lawn.
If gardener/homeowner wants to plant a big vegetable garden in his front yard in the future he should move somewhere where it's allowed.
ApatheticNoMore
7-24-12, 1:30pm
I don't agree that the gardener who owns the garden and house should engage in passive aggressive measures to stick it to their neighbors and the town if they make them move the garden. What's the point in that?
woah is that speculation on motives. Planting a vegetable garden in your lawn is not by itself passive-agressive. That's ridiculous. Now if they knew beforehand it was illegal then there was some desire to buck the system I guess (since the system is silly I like their pluck in that case, but sure if they knew the consequences, then they knew).
And planting a vegetable garden is not by itself sticking it to your neighbors unless you anticipate backlash. It could just as well be seen as GIVING to your neighbors (especially if you share your bounty or let them pick some produce). I've often thought of it that way (oops too much of an idealist, better write on the board "property values" a thousand times so I remember what really matters in this life!). I've often thought the front yard is an expression of what we GIVE to the world, an offering if you will. I don't think that necessarily means vegetable gardens, though I have no problem with them, but the beauty we create in the visible front yard is a free GIFT for others to appreciate (maybe it's native plants, maybe it's a fake stream bed - ok hokey but I've seen it done well of course, maybe it's an interesting combination of plants). Of course it's not an *obligation* to be obsessed with your front yard (a gift is not an obligation). Man I give up, maybe I'm sometimes too idealistic to live or too idealistic for this world? I've often though if I owned property I'd plant some edible fruit trees for the picking (right by the sidewalk know what I mean). Might also be some fruit trees out back for me, myself, and I of course, nothing wrong with a little bit of selfishness either :).
If gardener/homeowner wants to plant a big vegetable garden in his front yard in the future he should move somewhere where it's allowed.
Yea people buy without knowing though sometimes. People in places where housing is cheap buy when they are young and don't understand the world and all it's regulations.
As a habitual conformist, I appreciate Mrs-M and others who have pointed out that if you opt in to a community you then agree to abide by its rules. I imagine that if a homeowner on Nantucket or Martha's Vineyard just went and painted their sea-worn grey cedar shakes red or purple the whole beach would probably revolt. So I concede that there's a time and a place for everything. Maybe a front yard garden is not the right place, if the desire is to get along with your neighbors and adhere to social contracts.
But I LOVE Apathetic's more idealistic vision of using your yard to gift your neighbors. Too bad not enough people see that as a gift. Perhaps they will someday when land is so arid and our natural resources are so stripped to the bone that people will beg for these gifts.
awakenedsoul
7-24-12, 2:44pm
Look, I think their veggie garden is pretty (but for the raised beds which I disliked) and the restrictions probably stupid, but why do these people think that their local ordinances doesn't apply to them? They are special because...? Either get out, or get the ordinance changed.
So often we encounter people here in our historic district who like the look of the old houses here but who then want to change their own house into something not supported by the historic preservation ordinance. doh.
I'm with you, Iris lily. I have to laugh when I hear stories like this. If they could only see some of the front yards in my neighborhood! The first half of the street is nice. Many of the neigbors have front gardens, and most have green, well kept lawns. Keep on driving, though, and there are rusted cars, a schoolbus, construction equipment, toys, and junk strewn in people's driveways and front yards. Anything goes here. Once a year the fire dept. gives out notices for brush clearance. They could easily have their vegetable garden in a neighborhood like mine. I can just see from the photograph, that it's a more rigid type of neighborhood, as far as requirements. People who follow the rules resent people who break them. I love growing all my own food, but people really react strongly to gardens, for some reason. Sometimes it's jealousy, sometimes it's "too different," etc. Certain areas have a lot of pressure to conform.
woah is that speculation on motives. Planting a vegetable garden in your lawn is not by itself passive-agressive. That's ridiculous. Now if they knew beforehand it was illegal then there was some desire to buck the system I guess (since the system is silly I like their pluck in that case, but sure if they knew the consequences, then they knew).
And planting a vegetable garden is not by itself sticking it to your neighbors unless you anticipate backlash. It could just as well be seen as GIVING to your neighbors (especially if you share your bounty or let them pick some produce). I've often thought of it that way (oops too much of an idealist, better write on the board "property values" a thousand times so I remember what really matters in this life!). I've often thought the front yard is an expression of what we GIVE to the world, an offering if you will. I don't think that necessarily means vegetable gardens, though I have no problem with them, but the beauty we create in the visible front yard is a free GIFT for others to appreciate (maybe it's native plants, maybe it's a fake stream bed - ok hokey but I've seen it done well of course, maybe it's an interesting combination of plants). Of course it's not an *obligation* to be obsessed with your front yard (a gift is not an obligation). Man I give up, maybe I'm sometimes too idealistic to live or too idealistic for this world? I've often though if I owned property I'd plant some edible fruit trees for the picking (right by the sidewalk know what I mean). Might also be some fruit trees out back for me, myself, and I of course, nothing wrong with a little bit of selfishness either :).
Yea people buy without knowing though sometimes. People in places where housing is cheap buy when they are young and don't understand the world and all it's regulations.
No, I don't think planting a garden in the front yard is passive-aggressive. I was referring to some suggestions that were made regarding what to do once they were made to till the garden over. Read back through the posts. I'm not going to point any of the ideas out.
I think the garden is BEAUTIFUL and well maintained. I just think it should go in the back yard. I have no doubt the gardener/homeowner didn't know it was illegal when they planted the garden. That's why I suggested the town allow them to go through harvest before making the change first.
Believe it or not, I'm not really passive-aggressive either (most of the time anyway). I'm also a pretty darn good neighbor under most circumstances. I do, however, tend to protest when I believe something is wrong. If enough people agree with me then things will change. If it turns out I'm the lone wolf, they won't. But the surefire way to insure nothing gets done is to stay quiet.
I have no idea why these gardeners chose to live where the garden they wanted is illegal. It is, so I am with those of you who think they should push right up to that legal limit while protesting in other ways to implement change. We all understand the rules are there to help protect the neighborhood from all kinds of other, far less manicured possibilities. That isn't any more unreasonable than the whole notion of a front lawn is in the first place. As lovely as their garden is, they have a certain poverty of structural imagination. I'm pretty sure they could turn half the yard back into lawn and still grow just as much or more food. Personally, I would seriously consider putting the cherub peeing on the mayor's campaign sign right in the middle of my front yard as a protest. It would draw attention. A protest without attention is wasted and I like to stir the pot a little anyway.
Gregg, I just laughed out loud reading your posts. I had this sudden image flash through my head of these people planting the requisite 30% (useless, expensive, water-sucking) grass, but with two tones of grass, one slightly lighter green than the other, spelling out the letters G F Y. Hey, it's grass, right?
I am a good rule-follower when I perceive following the rule in question will be in the interest of the greater good. This isn't one of those cases. It's a useless throwback regulation imho that benefits no one. If my town were to come to me and point out an obscure requirement that no more than 10% of my yard can be planted in collard greens, well, first I'd be screwed :) 'cause I love those things, but then I'd look for public support to change the rule (which is where these people are), and if that didn't work I'd move. I'm not one to blindly follow orders when they are stupid ones.
ToomuchStuff
7-25-12, 2:03am
This is in Canada, which is part of her majesty's rule? Does anyone remember the tv show Good Neighbors? Me thinks they are wanting to prevent that.
A timely link about mixing flowering and edible gardens.
http://www.houzz.com/ideabooks/2758184/list?utm_source=Houzz&utm_campaign=u140&utm_medium=email&utm_content=gallery7
Lol pug, I like the way you think!
Gorgeous link, and some great ideas for mixing ornamentals and edibles in ways that (almost) everyone should like. Most won't hold up under "30% grass" rules, but I think a lot of communities would welcome this kind of thing, front OR backyard.
awakenedsoul
7-25-12, 11:16am
That's what my garden looks like...lots of old fashioned flowers with fruits and herbs.
ApatheticNoMore
7-25-12, 11:25am
It wasn't exactly English cottage architecture for the house (to match an English garden). The house was bland mass produced mini-mcmansion style, but it was angular, which is why I thought raised beds were very consistent. None for modernism I guess. :)
It shows how different we all are: I think my house should support my utilitarian needs! It is getting harder and harder, though, to find areas that fall within an area where one could fulfil other utilitarian needs - like a job, or school for the kids - within reasonable/affordable distance, where one can do stuff like hang out laundry, let alone grow a garden. In some zones, even a backyard veggie garden is forbidden, in case it attracts "vermin." To me, a house in a sterile, heavily restricted area, has very little property value regardless of its possible resale value. Unfortunately, I think for most people the degree of choice of where we live may be the most strongly restricted factor.
To me, a house in a sterile, heavily restricted area, has very little property value regardless of its possible resale value.
That pretty well follows along with how I feel, too. My home is the one place I really want to be able to express who I am and what my values are. There just isn't much allure to a place that puts severe limits on that expression no matter what the other amenities of the area are.
HOAs actually hold no force of law. They can't even enforce on their fines in most localities.
I think you need to be *very* careful heading down this path. In many jurisdictions in the US, your covenants or home owners association regulations are quite enforceable in civil court, and can result in liens against your home, evictions, termination of utility services, or all sorts of other unpleasant circumstances. Because of excesses of HOA in the past, some states regulate heavily what HOA can do, but they still retain substantial powers under those regulations, with the HOA often assuming the position of a municipal government. (See the Davis-Stirling regulations in California, for example.)
ApatheticNoMore
7-25-12, 2:33pm
That pretty well follows along with how I feel, too. My home is the one place I really want to be able to express who I am and what my values are. There just isn't much allure to a place that puts severe limits on that expression no matter what the other amenities of the area are.
Not just putting limits on your expression and your getting utility out of your home (although thats bad enough) but honestly I don't see the appeal in living in such a sterile community even if I was just renting. No expressions of individuality, no diversity, nothing interesting to see when you go for a walk, no people growing gardens so kids might see from a distance where a tomato comes from, just endless sameness. It sounds *aweful*. Sure what kind of community you'd like to live in is a matter of taste, but I'd way rather live next door to 100 fake pink flamingoes frankly, than that type of enforced visible nothingness as far as the eye can see.
treehugger
7-25-12, 2:42pm
...but I'd way rather live next door to 100 fake pink flamingoes frankly, than that type of enforced visible nothingness as far as the eye can see.
I totally and completely agree. Even though I think pink flamingos are silly and I wouldn't want them in my yard, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest to live next door to them. Same for houses painted purple and avant garde topiary. I don't even know if anyone can really quantify the amount that said hypothetical pink flamingos, purple houses, vegetable gardens, clothes lines, and, for that matter, weedy lots actually lower property values. I'm a homeowner and I am standing up to say, bring it [individuality] on! Property values be damned. :)
Of course, this is all a separate issue from moving into a neighborhood where one knows up front about these sorts of restrictions. But, finding out about this stuff after the fact, when just going about one's normal, every day, veggie growing life, well, then peaceful protest of these rules is absolutely appropriate, always assuming that one accepts the consequences of peaceful protest (fines, angry neighbors).
Kara
awakenedsoul
7-25-12, 2:46pm
Yeah, this makes me appreciate my neighborhood. I have all that: two clotheslines, an orchard, vegetable garden, cottage garden, trees, and a shady old fashioned porch. It's nice to be able to have your own style and express your artistic creativity. If you live in a crummy neighborhood, you can plant whatever you want!
It's weird how if you want to live simply, and spend $100,000. or less on a home, (in California,) you kind of have to move somewhere on the outskirts that's a little "iffy".
I hate the idea that the town is making them increase the amount of grass in their yard. Grass is almost completely useless: it spreads but fails to choke out weeds and in many areas it is brown unless heavily watered. As for property values, it's all about location. I know this firsthand because we own two houses. One is <10 years old, has an HOA and the front yard conforms to those regulations. But because it's in Phoenix AZ it has lost nearly 2/3 of the value from Oct 2008. OTOH, our house in unincorporated county in Colorado has no HOA, and the front yard is bushes, mulch plus a cinder-block veggie garden that doesn't look anywhere near as nice as this couple's. The CO house has not gained much value in the last 4 years but neither has it lost value. And I put the garden in the front both because of greater sunlight and because the backyard is fairly steeply sloped which is difficult to work with. So I find the whole "property value" argument a little thin, especially if something is fairly asthetically pleasing. I'd be tempted to put in the grass, then get the ugliest fake chickens (or goats) I could find to position as though "eating" the grass and maybe put a sign "if these chickens were real, this grass would be useful".
I wouldn't buy a house in a neighborhood with HOAs. Just wouldn't. A good friend of mine--the one who planted her front yard with vegetables and herbs--is living in a different house now, and she painted it purple, but she still has vegetables in the front yard. She has a big lot with room for fruit and nut trees (figs!), a good sized flock of chickens, two cats and a dog. She also has a system of rain barrels, some welded yard art, and probably a flamingo or two. I envy her cozy little farmette.
I wouldn't buy a house in a neighborhood with HOAs. Just wouldn't.
A HOA is just a form of local government. Would you buy a house in a county, or a state, or a nation? Probably.
My neighborhood has a HOA. It charges quarterly dues and fees, and has meetings, and regulations, and elected leadership. It maintains our private road network, drinking water system, and stormwater solutions. It provides joint resources and training for dealing with wildfire and storm events. It doesn't care about what kind of 60 year old rotting car you have in your front yard.
The devil is in the details, and ultimately, the people.
I guess a controlling spouse could be considered a form of "local government," and I don't want one of those, either. City and county are enough for me. Fortunately, I have a choice. As much as possible, I want the authority in my life to be me. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/phil/phil_36.gif
ApatheticNoMore
7-29-12, 11:46pm
HOAs have always struck me as additional layer of goverment for people who *just could not get enough*. Federal government, state government, local government ... you know what I really need more of ...
Um ok >8)
Our local government doesn't provide roads, water, or sewer service to our neck of the woods. So we have to band together to do it ourselves.
Our local government doesn't provide roads, water, or sewer service to our neck of the woods. So we have to band together to do it ourselves.
Well, that's because of the type of development you bought into. Buying in a HOA neighborhood is a choice. We're in a HOA governed neighborhood; I am not crazy about it & would prefer a different place, but it's affordable, and we're here for the duration of the housing market recovery. If we weren't underwater on our mortgage, we'd likely move. Ah well!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.