So a dear FB
friend of mine posted the above article today and when I read it, the
whole argument about how the city was infringing on these nice
people's rights to have a garden got me to thinking. You see these
sort of articles all the time. They range from a little old man not
being allowed to fly his flag on a pole to his yard to some couple
trying to run a winery out of their bathroom. (Yes it did happen,
look it up.) No matter what the subject, the hue and cry goes out
about “Intrusive government/laws infringing on people's right to
feed/clothe/booze themselves.”
Now I am all for
pounding down the evils of Big Brother Government. I believe that
people have the right (Within certain limitations) to live the kind
of life they wish to lead. However, I also recognize that all of our
freedoms have certain tradeoffs built directly into them. It is the
deal we make with the Devil (Washington/City Government) to ensure
certain needs are met.
In the above
example, the Ordinances cite are “archaic” which means they have
been on the books for a long time. The restrictions aren't new and
weren't imposed after the garden in question was planted. Now, if
this town's ordinances are like most, for this couple to have planted
this “illegal” garden, one of two things would have had to
happen. If they followed zoning laws, they would have had to filed
with the city to make alterations to their property to ensure that
all the alterations met proper zoning code. They could have also
chosen not to check zoning and city codes and simply went ahead with
their garden anyway.
Either way, the
couple in question are in the wrong. If they filed, they knew in
advance that their garden did not meet city codes but did it anyway.
If they chose not to file or even check the codes, they A. Broke the
rules and B. Still violated the zoning laws and codes.
Now you may argue
that the laws and codes are unfair and overly restrictive. To which
I would reply, “Well yes, but they are still there.” You might
then cry out, “The laws should be changed!” I would nod sagely
and simply repeat previous statement. (Yes I know I am putting a lot
of words in your mouth, but I washed my hands first. I promise.)
Living in a city
comes with many benefits and just as many trade-offs for those
benefits. You accept that the city has certain “controls” over
your freedoms in return for little things like electricity, running
water, police protection, sanitation etc. Citizens accept that they
have to accept these limitations because they choose to live in the
city.
In this case, the
city states that a garden cannot be planted in the front yard.
Simple and to the point with absolutely no vagueness. Is that law
“archaic?” Is it a fair law? Not my call to make. Should the
law be changed? With the growing (Pun intended) home garden culture
becoming more and more prevalent, I would say yes. However, until
these laws are changed they still have to be followed. A resident
enters into a contract with the city he chooses to live in to respect
its rules and regulations. You don't have the option of picking and
choosing which rules you get to follow. Don't like them, change
them. Until you change them, follow them.
End of Rant
No comments:
Post a Comment