Posted on 04/02/2018 4:23:25 PM PDT by grundle
Janice Duffner lives in St. Peters, Missouri, where she owns a house. Because she is allergic to grass, she does not have any in her yard. She does have other plants, which she is not allergic to. The Kansas City Star published this photograph of her yard:
Six years after Ms. Duffner bought her house, the city passed a law that requires all houses to have grass in their yard. After Ms. Duffner told the city that she was allergic to grass, the city threatened her with 20 years in prison and fines totaling $180,000 if she does not comply.
U.S. District Judge John A. Ross recently ruled against Ms. Duffner. Ms. Duffner plans to appeal this ruling. I hope she wins.
There has to be more going on in this case because this doesn’t add up. And the source is a blog . . .
My God, government tyranny at work. I can’t believe the judge ruled against her. Her yard isn’t an eyesore.
Click on her name. The source is the Kansas City Star.
Could this be a April 1st story?
She does not have grass. The code specifically requires grass. A small patch in a pot should suffice.
Not necessarily. Lawn Nazis can get pretty crazy.
There is a link to the source and the story seems to be the same. The only thing I can see left out is that the city complained that she “didn’t exhaust all of her administrative appeals before going to court” but the judge still ruled on the “merits” of forcing people to plant grass in their yard.
http://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article207665734.html
I doesn’t say what kind of grass either.....
Doubtful. People who pass these types of ordinances should have their pee-pees whacked publically.
ordinance is that 1/2 of yard must be grass (although town did offer to settle for 5% for this situation).
First link embedded in the “blog” posted to FR:
http://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article207665734.html
From the story: “The Duffners asked for an exemption but were denied. Instead, the Board of Adjustment in 2014 told them to plant at least 5 percent of their property with grass. They refused.”
The story says that the law requires half, but the board was willing to accommodate down to 5%. It’s a stupid law, but you gotta play along as the cost of living in a society. The neighbors have grass, so if her allergy was that bad, she’d be in shock all the time.
It’s a case of a$$hole vs a$$hole—no good guys to root for.
Pacer documents:
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/20169673/Duffner_et_al_v_St_Peters,_Missouri
I wonder if she could use artificial grass?And was this an ordinance before she moved in? Or did they pass it after she moved in? If it was before, maybe she shouldn’t have moved there knowing she was allergic to grass. Unless she just developed the allergy.
The Garden Nazi’s are in Mo. it seems.
Joe, would it be possible to ping Mo. Freepers? I’d like to know what they think about this. Thanks.
“It’s a stupid law, but you gotta play along...”
No, this is your basic property rights case & just because some idiots passed a stupid law doesn’t mean citizens should put up with it. This is where too many give up, but where they should fight instead. Good on these folks for fighting.
The law was forced upon her, it didn’t exist when she purchased the property. The yard looks well groomed, not messy. She should countersue, this is ridiculous and it wasn’t even an HOA it was the municipality. Does the municipality deign themselves subject to their own edicts? Bet she could find numerous properties that fail to conform, yet aren’t subject to such harassment. Ex post facto regulations dictating the type of landscaping somehow being subject to prison time are just bizarre and I’m sure violate the Bill Of Rights in numerous ways.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.