Update...Canada Couple Wins Right To Grow Vegetables On Front Lawn...Case Closed!

page: 2
26
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   
I wouldn't eat those. I see there is road right next to them. People should use common sense and grow their food somewhere more healthier place. Those vegetables are full of heavy metals and all kinds of nasty hydrocarbons, like benzene.




posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 03:13 AM
link   
Been following this one closely, and this is fantastic news! My garden has slowly been encroaching from the back to the front over the years. Luckily, no HOA to deal with and I made it a community garden over my second deployment. Neighbors loved it and always look forward to its excess. Great work!



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 07:15 AM
link   
If due to inflation is more economic to grow your own food rather than go earn money to buy it, the state shouldnt stop one.

My grandfather in italy made a big edible garden in between a field and a small junkyard not even on his property and nobody had complaints. Except for the snails that landed in the bucket.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by IsThisThingBugged
reply to post by jude11
 


It could possibly be as simple as a clause in their home owners association agreement. In my neighborhood your only allowed to paint your door green, red or blue for example.

May have had nothing to do with freedoms and such, obviously I don't know though. That's a pretty elaborate set up, not sure I'd want that in my neighbors front yard. Drag my property value down which is selfish.
edit on 25-8-2012 by IsThisThingBugged because: (no reason given)


This is true; HOA's can be downright militant. I've seen people get fines for having one of those rolling basketball hoops in their drive way. For having two hockey sticks and a soccer ball on the front porch. For having a plant that is not indigenous to this state, (palm trees), fruit trees of any kind. In short, when you drive through Anthem, AZ, it looks like a ghost town because anything in the yard that indicates the presence of life or children is an offense. If you don't put your trash cans or recycle cans in the right place, some mean, old *itch will take a picture and send you a fine. If you don't pay the fine, they put a lien on your home.

You can imagine what would happen in this "community" if you had a garden in your front yard. They'd probably have a good ol' fashioned hanging in the town square.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by IsThisThingBugged
reply to post by jude11
 


And it doesn't matter if their neighbors supported it if it's against their HOA... HOA's are binding contracts (an important part of free societies) you can't just disregard them.
edit on 25-8-2012 by IsThisThingBugged because: (no reason given)


You are correct, you cannot simply disreagrd them. But want to know something? You can have their charter revoked by popular vote. I should know... I succeeded in doing exactly that when they continued to over-step their bounds.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
In actualment, the whole rules and regulations are against the constitution and against infinite sovereign and inaleinable rights and against common law. Common law is about not harming others and it doesnt mean, not harming their home values. It means you can't harm by raping, murdering, endangering the lives of others, but that everyone has infinite rights and especially on their own properties, and with regards to their lives, opinions and freedoms. And so do your neighbors ,and you have no right to make them stand under your control freak thumb of how you think everyone on your block should live. For that is slavery and slavery is massive harm.

In other words, just because they draft a contract, or bill or legislation does not make it legal in any way shape or form. And in fact, all of these things have to be backed by the constitution, for it is only the constitution and common law virtues that give any empowerment or legality to their legislations.

And those officials were breaking the law by trying to enforce and unlawful law. That is another thing, anyone trying to enforce an unlawful, unconstitutional law, is always committing a crime, whether they realize this or not.

So Im really happy with this decision.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by GAOTU789
reply to post by rickymouse
 


You're probably right and honestly that's just wrong. They did the right thing and went the legal route to be allowed to do this.

And to the poster who mentioned the HOA, those things are crazy but you know the rules when you move into they suburbs so I guess you live with them. Me personally, I could never live somewhere with a HOA. I want to be able to do what I choose to my property, not have some freakin' group of people tell me what colour I can paint my door.


Its up to people to challenge the home owners association left right and center, for they act as if they have the right to infringe upon people's constitutionally protected legal and infinite rights, and they think they can erect unlawful codes that are shot gun marriages, ie, you don't obey, you don't get a home. That is completely illegal behavior on their part.

People don't understand what the constitution and common law is and that most of these things are unlawful and they are not expected to sit an take it up the backside.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   
You don't have any rights that you are not willing to defend - you cannot count on others to defend your rights for you.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
I remember reading about this original story a while back, but what was the city's take on it all again? Why specifically did they oppose the garden? Or was it just one of those 'we don't want you to have that' sort of situations?



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   
I hope they claim legal costs, and damages (both physical, and to the stress of having their garden trashed). The city should also be forced to cast a bronze statue of them –although that may be going a little too far!



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaMaa
I remember reading about this original story a while back, but what was the city's take on it all again? Why specifically did they oppose the garden? Or was it just one of those 'we don't want you to have that' sort of situations?


Sorry I don't have time but if you look at the OP, I posted the original story and info. It's my thread as well.

Peace


edit on 27-8-2012 by jude11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by jeantherapy
 


Thx to the Queen in every country she has here face on a bill or has a colonization is the same you own your house for 99 years after that you have to pay the land again
No disrespect to the Queen
edit on 28-8-2012 by knowneedtoknow because: (no reason given)
edit on 28-8-2012 by knowneedtoknow because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by knowneedtoknow
 


There is nothing akin to Eminent Domain where the Queen's face appears? Surely corporations and money have influence even in Canada?



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by IsThisThingBugged
reply to post by jude11
 


It could possibly be as simple as a clause in their home owners association agreement. In my neighborhood your only allowed to paint your door green, red or blue for example.

May have had nothing to do with freedoms and such, obviously I don't know though. That's a pretty elaborate set up, not sure I'd want that in my neighbors front yard. Drag my property value down which is selfish.
edit on 25-8-2012 by IsThisThingBugged because: (no reason given)


You're kidding right?

If your home owners association tells you what door color you should have, that means you're in a socialistic totalitarian regime, fer chrissake!

No, that denial of FREEDOM of this couple to crow vegetables on their own property came from the barbaric idiots at the City Council, for whom there is only one imaginable way to use the land: having a stupid lawn.


And yeah, this has entirely got to do with freedom.



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Echtelion
 


I worked with a guy who built a house with no other houses around for half a mile. He lived there many years. Eventually a subdivision was built around him. He had a motor home, boat, several old cars that he wanted to restore on his property. The home owners association of the subdivision sent him a letter saying that he had to remove all his cars etc. He just chucked them in the trash.The home owners association went through their normal legal wrangling and paid lawyers etc to take the home away from him. Unfortunately for them, he never signed any home owners association agreement.





new topics
top topics
 
26
<< 1   >>

log in

join