[lastchance]

The district court erred. There can be no doubt that under Florida statute, "“Florida-friendly landscaping” means quality landscapes that conserve water, protect the environment, are adaptable to local conditions, and are drought tolerant. The principles of such landscaping include planting the right plant in the right place, efficient watering, appropriate fertilization, mulching, attraction of wildlife, responsible management of yard pests, recycling yard waste, reduction of stormwater runoff, and waterfront protection. Additional components include practices such as landscape planning and design, soil analysis, the appropriate use of solid waste compost, minimizing the use of irrigation, and proper maintenance." There is nothing in there that states a vegetable, fruit garden does not meet that definition. In addition, "(c) A local government ordinance may not prohibit or be enforced so as to prohibit any property owner from implementing Florida-friendly landscaping on his or her land." Nothing allows the government to decide where on the property a Florida friendly yard can be established. The judge is a jackthug.

[frog in a pot]

The district court erred...

See this from the language you cite:
The principles of such landscaping include planting the right plant in the right place...

Suspect the court found the village did not abuse its authority to define the right plant and the right place.

[Red Badger]

The Florida Supreme Court isn’t much better..................