It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Rosie started the garden in May 2013, but now the property management company has ordered the garden be removed this week!
The reason?
Gardening apparently goes against the rules set by the USDA’s Rural Development Agency which forbids residents to have structures of any kind within landscaped areas.
With each passing day, it seems the United States of America, “Land of the Free and Home of the Brave” is becoming more and more like the Communist Russia I learned about in elementary school where people weren’t allowed to grow their own food unless the State “allowed” it.
Originally posted by MysterX
Letting the little girl, or anyone else grow a few cabbages isn't going to hurt anyone or anything...
Originally posted by alfa1
Originally posted by MysterX
Letting the little girl, or anyone else grow a few cabbages isn't going to hurt anyone or anything...
But why is "Rosie" more special than everyone else?
According to your argument, all 314 million people in the USA should be allowed to use *somebody elses property*.
(or maybe it is in fact your argument that rules can be broken for just one person, but not everyone else)
Originally posted by MysterX
But why is "Rosie" more special than everyone else?
(or maybe it is in fact your argument that rules can be broken for just one person, but not everyone else)
This one isolated case of a little girl
a little girl who
The girl ...
Originally posted by alfa1
But why is "Rosie" more special than everyone else?
(or maybe it is in fact your argument that rules can be broken for just one person, but not everyone else)
That isn't what i'm saying at all alfa, and you know it.
But that is indeed what you're saying, as referenced in your previous post:
This one isolated case of a little girl
a little girl who
The girl ...
Because it my point of view that if stupid and rediculously unfair laws exist, then efforts should be put into place to either remove them, or alter them to make them fairer.
It is certainly not my view that we can say "the law applies to this person, but we will ignore it for that other person." That should never be the case with any law. Ever.
"That isn't what i'm saying at all alfa, and you know it."
"According to your argument, all 314 million people in the USA should be allowed to use *somebody elses property*"
"Most of the population of the US will already have access to at least a small patch of land in which to grow flowers of vegetables, so let's not be overly dramatic just to make a point eh?"
"Because it my point of view that if stupid and rediculously unfair laws exist, then efforts should be put into place to either remove them, or alter them to make them fairer.
It is certainly not my view that we can say "the law applies to this person, but we will ignore it for that other person." That should never be the case with any law. Ever.
Originally posted by KeliOnyx
reply to post by MysterX
But there is a problem in this line of thinking. We do not know why the rule exists to begin with. What we do know is that the building is a public housing unit, presumably with common areas and the property is landscaped. I can think of a number of reasons to not allow gardening in this situation the first of which being we do not know what chemicals are being used to treat said areas. It is very easy to say let her have her little garden she is four and it would be good experience for her. Is it just as to say that if we found out that she wasn't allowed to have the garden because the chemicals used to treat the grassy common areas next to it were known carcinogens?
The problem here is the story is a hit piece designed to play on one's emotions. There is too much information we are lacking to even take this on a case by case basis. And then the next question that comes to mind is what if we took the USDA and its rules governing public housing and set it aside. And in it's place it were a privately held planned community? Would we still have the outrage we see here? I doubt that we would.
We do not know why the rule exists to begin with.
...presumably with common areas and the property is landscaped.
we do not know what chemicals are being used to treat said areas. It is very easy to say let her have her little garden she is four and it would be good experience for her. Is it just as to say that if we found out that she wasn't allowed to have the garden because the chemicals used to treat the grassy common areas next to it were known carcinogens?
now for the Big Bro is after you spin from the link
Rosie started the garden in May 2013, but now the property management company has ordered the garden be removed this week! - See more at: govtslaves.info...
Big Gov is out of control or it is the one that takes all the blame, how about reading the rules and regs to fight back or see through the BS
The reason?
Gardening apparently goes against the rules set by the USDA’s Rural Development Agency which forbids residents to have structures of any kind within landscaped areas. It seems to me that the practice of growing vegetables by the most needy in our society would take precedence over landscaping, wouldn’t you agree?
I wonder if the USDA plans to establish “rules” about breathing air in subsidized areas too?
The Federal bureaucracy seems to think that it owns those individuals who receive any sort of government assistance and that their behavior is completely within its jurisdiction to control no matter how ridiculous or blatantly un-American the power-tripping “rules” they decide to put in place may be.
- See more at: govtslaves.info...
UPDATE 8/25/2013: Roger Doiron, Director of Kitchen Gardeners International, has provided more details on this emerging story. The USDA has claimed in email correspondence to Mr. Doiron that it has no written rules preventing Mary and Rosie from having a garden (despite the property management company’s insistence to the contrary)
The property management company claims that gardening goes against the rules set by the USDA’s Rural Development Agency which forbids residents to have structures of any kind within landscaped areas