Survivalist Forum banner

fined for not having grass

9K views 43 replies 25 participants last post by  juskom95 
#1 ·
https://www.google.com/amp/www.ksdk.com/amp/news/local/st-peters-couple-files-federal-lawsuit-over-grass-ordinance/376250225?client=ms-android-boost-us
 
#20 ·
I have owned five homes. It is not that hard to pick-up the vibes of a town, to see what they will let you do.

The higher the taxes, the more people the town has on payroll. All those people have jobs of making your life suck. The higher the local taxes, the more your life will suck.

Also there is a HOA attitude. HOAs are the worst for this. But in the last decade many counties have adopted a HOA attitude.
 
#8 ·
Her grass allergy probably qualifies as a disability under the Americans With Disabilities Act, which means the city would have to either make an exception or find a way to accommodate her disability.
 
#12 ·
Excellent point. I would want you as my neighbor because you won't mind if i store all my toxic waste products and animal offal on my property line next to yours. And my pig farm/ slaughter house shouldn't bother you either. And of course I need to play my music very loud because I like to hear it wherever I am on my property.

We will get along just fine.
 
#40 ·
Gotta love it when the Authoritarians go to the far extremes to prove that they need governmental control to keep them safe from themselves.

Shoot, with that logic, you shouldn't be allowed to do anything without permission, I mean it might hurt someone else! :rolleyes:
The extremes is exactly what we're talking about. There's nothing "authoritarian" about believing that people should not have the right to poison each others water. Algorythyms literally said that he believes he should have the right to do that. I mentioned extreme examples because he made an extreme statement. "No rules" is what he said. I have a very hard time thinking people are really dense enough to think that's a good idea so I presented some extreme examples to see if that's really what he believes. Do you agree with the "no rules, at all" policy then? You're ok with your neighbor literally doing anything he wants on his property, regardless of how it affects you or your property? You don't think there should be any laws regarding that? If that were the case there would be no legal recourse for you, no "taking care of yourself", not unless he came onto your property, and even then, in the contaminated well example, it's too late. That's not authoritarian, that's respecting the equal rights of others.
 
#44 ·
The extremes is exactly what we're talking about. There's nothing "authoritarian" about believing that people should not have the right to poison each others water. Algorythyms literally said that he believes he should have the right to do that. I mentioned extreme examples because he made an extreme statement. "No rules" is what he said. I have a very hard time thinking people are really dense enough to think that's a good idea so I presented some extreme examples to see if that's really what he believes. Do you agree with the "no rules, at all" policy then? You're ok with your neighbor literally doing anything he wants on his property, regardless of how it affects you or your property? You don't think there should be any laws regarding that? If that were the case there would be no legal recourse for you, no "taking care of yourself", not unless he came onto your property, and even then, in the contaminated well example, it's too late. That's not authoritarian, that's respecting the equal rights of others.
Except your first jumps was right to Anarchy as an opposition argument, this kind of shows your agenda. Good try, but if you stay away from the rhetoric and talking points we might be able to have a discussion.

Try again? Probably not, as you'll just go the "IT'LL BE ANARCHY!!!!" route again.
 
#14 ·
Couple bought in 2002, ordinance passed in 2008 requires 50% grass cover. Grass and mowing thereof worsens her asthma. Seems like the city is being stupid. She has attractive plantings, so the lot isn't a dust bin. So many reasons for the town not to screw with these residents. So many reason for these residents to move somewhere more reasonable...

Algorythms: more like the city MANDATING that you must store toxic waste, not a type of your choosing, on your property. Grass is literally toxic to her. I understand, as I am allergic especially to Bermuda grass. Instant asthma attack if I drive within a block of someone mowing it. We have gravel and shrubs, no grass.
 
#23 ·
Often, when a City posts such an ordinance, what is being sought is a permeable substrate where the water will perk back into the ground, rather than run off. I agree with the ADA issue. The other major reason is for beauty. Conformity? Not so. The city is forcing a resident with a disability to accept an un acceptable ordinance. I predict they win in federal court--and hope the city is held liable for all of their costs plus!
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top