USDA rules forbid a 4yo girl from having a garden.

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 04:01 AM
link   
4 Year Old Girl’s Vegetable Garden Must Go, Says USDA.


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.

Every once in a while (though not often) the intent of some government rules, regulations or laws are justifiable.

But the vast majority of the time, they are not.

"Structures within landscaped areas"... what does this even mean? Would a swing set be forbidden? How about a bird bath? Can a garden even be considered a "structure"?

Again, with this monstrous, overbearing, federal government.

Is there any reason why the state, county or local governments couldnt devise its own rules regarding property rights?

Repeat after me, "theres-too-much-government, theres-too-much-government, theres-too-much-government, theres-too-much-government, theres-too-much-government, theres-too-much-government!, theres-too-much-government!!, theres-too-much-government!!!, theres-too-much-government!!!!, theres-too-much-government!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Get off our backs, get out of our lives already!!!



edit on 25-8-2013 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 04:23 AM
link   
problem is alot of people that want less government want to retain the benefits of it in other areas. Unfortunately when it comes to gov intrusion and overreaching...its either all or nothing....theres no middle ground....unless of course you can find an example of a government over a large landmass and people that was able to remain small....but ive never seen it



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


You know this doesnt even surprise me. We got people in power who shouldnt be allowed to have it. Sociopaths and psychopaths.



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 04:40 AM
link   
So if I understand this correctly, this story has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with gardening, or vegetables.

In fact, it is all about people constructing a structure on property *they do not own*.

I agree with the USDA here. People cant go around building things on the land next door, for no other reason that they live near it.
If its not yours, dont build things on it. Its quite simple really.

Edit - actually it doesnt even have anything to do with the USDA. Its a property management company that is enforcing the rules that all tenants agreed to when they moved in.
edit on 25-8-2013 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


And with that alfa1, you've pretty much confirmed my suspicion that you are one proper miserable so and so.

Letting the little girl, or anyone else grow a few cabbages isn't going to hurt anyone or anything, except maybe the overinflated egos of some pencil necked idiots who enjoy being miserable gits.

It's educational.

It get's the kid out in the open air.

It's constructive.

It's natural.

It's healthy.

It's economical.

It's environmentally sound.

It's fun.

It's...against the 'rules'...bugger the rules, let the kid grow a few veggies on deserted land for Christs sake and grow up.

 



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 05:05 AM
link   
This is an exceptional example of the anti-government state of mind.

The big evil gubmit against the single, poor, disabled mum and her enterprising daughter, the script writes itself.

The story is a beat up, appealing to the above mentioned anti-government types.

Do a google search on the story title and there's a rogues gallery of fringe anti-government websites and blogs, whetting their lips at this story.

But how about we look at it with a bit of objectivity?

I'll wait while some of you google what that word means...

So what exactly is the issue here?

Is it the evil gubmit cracking down on peoples freedoms to have and grow a garden?
Is it Rosie's mother for not doing the due diligence on if there can be a garden there or not?

Reading the article it is clear that they want us to think that the evil gubmit wants to control us and have no gardens:


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.


It would seem though, that is not quite true and can be answered by browsing the USDA blog where they regularly and actively encourage children to be involved with growing gardens and learning where their food comes from. You can see it here:

blogs.usda.gov...

Oh my!

So, we come to point 2.

Rosies mum should have thought to ask if what they did could be done there. I bet if she did, there wouldn't be a problem, but no, it's easier to blame the evil gubmit for ones mistakes.

The other thing too, is that we aren't told where specifically the garden was, besides near their unit. What if this garden is blocking a thoroughfare to neighbours units? Or is in an area shared by all the residents?

Taking the instant anti-government stance without all the facts is just so cliched and stupid.

I hope she gets to keep the garden, I'm sure with all the mobs of emails the USDA are going to get in the next few days will get the problem sorted out.



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 06:05 AM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


I ran into the same problem google to find out any other information on this. The result is a bunch of right wing sites that just copied and pasted the source text. Nothing else, not a one made any attempt to expand on the story whatsoever. And this is a huge problem with the libertarian and right wing. One says it the others just simply repeat it playing on peoples worst fears.

If there is an abuse of power or an overreach going on, people should want to know and act accordingly in response. But there is a burden of proof that is required and let's face it this story is missing key facts. Facts including an inquiry by the reporter to the USDA and property management company on their position. Instead what we get is big bad Government takes 4 year old's garden away to push the reader into a Government is bad mindset.

But then you get on the USDA site and there they are showing gardening programs for children and tips on starting your own garden. So there is a disconnect going on here and no one bothered to investigate otherwise, they just jumped on the "how dare they deprive a four year old" bandwagon.



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 06:09 AM
link   

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)



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 06:16 AM
link   
I for one am not anti-government.

Anyone with sense knows a developed and technological society with large numbers of citizens require an organising and regulatory government. Those who think otherwise are plain wrong, at least as our world is organised in reality instead of in fantasy.

But i do feel that automatons in governement, usually local government as opposed to national, are the problem that need addressing.

This one isolated case of a little girl deprived of her small garden after tending it regularly and putting a lot of work and effort into it (remember when those things were encouraged and praiseworthy?) for her age, doesn't stand as a banner for all that is wrong in local governemnt, but it does stand as an example of a kind of dystopian dehumanisation that is becoming more prevalent in our societies.

It's as though there is zero discernment going on. No individual choices, no leeway, no kindness any longer.

It's this kind of thing that needs to be stopped in it's tracks, not a little girl who ought to be praised for working hard and showing a willingness to learn about the natural life cycle of our plants and our food.

Human beings need rules and laws yes, but we also have the capability to read between the lines and make case by case judgements. The girl should have been able to keep her postage stamp sized garden.



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 06:20 AM
link   

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)


That isn't what i'm saying at all alfa, and you know it.

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?

Discernment and rational and even perspective is what i'm talking about in this case.



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 06:26 AM
link   

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)


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.



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 06:52 AM
link   

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.



Misquoted me.

I thought you would have easily have been able to 'discern' what i meant. (see how this is proving what i'm talking about?)

When i said

"That isn't what i'm saying at all alfa, and you know it."


I was referring to your comment

"According to your argument, all 314 million people in the USA should be allowed to use *somebody elses property*"


As, if you were using your discernment properly, you would have been able to connect what i said immediately afterwards;

"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?"


Which you seem to have ignored, again to simply make a point.

You also don't seem to be able to recognise that what you did there, is almost exactly what those jobsworth petty officials did to the little girl (i mentioned 'little girl' again btw).

You say;

"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.


I agree, and the first step in achieving that sensible goal, is open and honest discussion about an unfair law or ruling. Which is what is happening here and now btw.

Besides..we're not talking about 'laws' here, it's about acts, statutes or local council rules, not laws.


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.


Not ever?

When i'm talking about discernemnt, i'm talking about the difference between a little girl wanting to learn about the natural world around her while at the same time, growing a small amount of vegetables on a tiny parcel of abandoned waste ground for her poor family to help them get by...that is one thing, another thing entirely would be a property developer building a condo on the patch of land and expecting the same leeway that was given to the little girl (or anyone like her) to apply to his or her condo development...discernment is the key.

There's a point where officials have to remember proportion, have to consider individual circumstances...they were not showing any evidence of that in this case. That is what needs to be tackled, unless we all want to live in a society managed by mindless, less than Human robots unable to make harmless exceptions based on individual circumstances.

I don't want that for my kids, do you?







edit on 25-8-2013 by MysterX because: quotation incorrectly placed



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 07:06 AM
link   
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 easy 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.
edit on 25-8-2013 by KeliOnyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 07:31 AM
link   

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.


Look...i hear what you're saying and i feel your intention is sound, but when we examine what your point actually is, it doesn't really make a lot of sense.

We do not know why the rule exists to begin with.


It's a fairly safe bet it exists to prevent buildings or other permanent structures going up willy-nilly all over the place on waste patches of land without planning consent and regulation. Which would be right on in my book. A tiny vegetable garden can not be classified as a permanent structure, or an attempt to circumvent building or planning regulations.

...presumably with common areas and the property is landscaped.


Read that as 'has grass on it'...this isn't going to be a case of the girl destroyed an expensive rockery or garden feature in order to plant a few veggies...the land was unused and probably just grassed over.


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?


What chemicals?

The ones that are routinely sprayed around with abandon in heavily urbanised areas by the council?

Those chemicals that the kid would be breathing in that the council claim are safe to be sprayed along verges and road divides etc?

If they are going to be dangerous on a tiny patch of waste ground, i'd imagine having to close your windows and doors when the council start spraying them under high pressure, is going to expose the kid to a lot more toxins and chemicals than a humble vegetable garden would, don't you?

What business has any authority to go around dumping carcinagenic chemicals around the homes of poor families in the first place? If that danger was indeed real in this case, that of course vastly outweighs the regulatory 'infringment' of growing a few veggies and points to much bigger regulatory nightmare entirely.

If the land is indeed toxic...the veggies are loving it, they look very healthy indeed.

Of course we need to abide by just laws and rules for the benefit of all of us...but there is a limit, and that limit is when humanity and common sense takes a dive out of the window in order to simply enforce the rules for the sake of enforcing the rules regardless.

Thanks for your post though, i appreciate what you are saying..i just don't happen to agree with it.







edit on 25-8-2013 by MysterX because: correction



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 07:44 AM
link   
I read the link. The USDA haven't said a damn thing about Rosie's garden. It's the property managers who are quoting some arcane rule, no doubt because some small minded neighbor has decided to suck some joy from life by complaining about this little girl.

Neighbors invariably suck.



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Given that it wasn't the USDA instructing this, and is in fact the property managers calling on USDA regulations, this is still a pretty crap situation. As with so many things these days there seems to be a real lack of discernment and discretion. Surely the property managers could've looked into it, seen it for what it is and just asked her to keep the garden maintained or put some signs around it or something, instead of telling her to get rid of it completely.

The no structures rule says to me there is some health and safety involved - being a public area maybe? And any small fences, or even pallets as shown on the link (though im sure that's not the girl's actual garden) and anyone tripping over would leave the company at risk of law suits (as ever). Why does it seem so difficult to compromise these days? A communal garden is as much theirs as it is everybody elses, their rent gets paid right? Why not remove the 'offending structures' (assuming there is any) and let the girl garden away.

Or even send some letters round the complex telling neighbours about it and see who complains and who doesn't, though i'm sure admin costs would stop that...



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by MysterX
 


Cool, I guess you won't have any problem with me going to your house and growing whatever plants I want on your lawn, then.



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 11:54 AM
link   
well I call BS on this one for here is the home page of USDA www.usda.gov... now the structures could be a tool shed or a green house and they are under a different policy www.usda.gov... now I see no problem here other than the property management is pulling a fast one and does not what it's landscaping undone, and that is not of USDA concern. Did a quick search and it is all of Goofy Like Pickles or BFIN or AJ links to the OPs story no local news or any link well what you know here is one www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com... 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...
now for the Big Bro is after you spin from the link

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...
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
edit on 25-8-2013 by bekod because: line edit



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 12:01 PM
link   
I find this a bit confusing.....you blame the USDA, but your source clearly states that the property management company is the one doing the ordering.....wouldn't all this effort have been better used in finding the identity of the property manager, so our irate letters would go to the actual cause of this 'injustice'?

from your source:


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)


Sounds rather like the management company (a for profit, sub contractor....you know, a capitalistic outfit like say,.... Haliburton) is the true villain here , and a lying sack of garden fertilizer in the bargain.

Adding to my confusion and also from your source.....



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


"structures'?? ..since when is a garden a 'structure' ? The only 'structure' in the photo is what appears to be an old wooden pallet under the child's feet....so just remove the pallet...no more 'structure', just landscaped vegetable beds.



posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 01:41 PM
link   
We just need to say Da, like a good Comrade and accept the fact the USDA (Of all the wacky friggin things?!) actually had Federal authority to reach into individual local landscaping for what items are placed within it.

Da.. Da... And next Comrades, we shall be relieved of our stress and anguish in selecting a profession. The state shall come to evaluate us and select our best fit for us. In time....all things in time..


It really is for our own good. We just have to keep telling ourselves that. However many thousands of repetitions it comes to take, each time.





top topics
 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join