Posted on 06/19/2012 4:41:21 PM PDT by JohnKinAK
A woman from Tulsa, Oklahoma is suing the city’s code enforcement teams after they illegally cut down her entire survival garden. Denise Morrison, who started the garden after becoming unemployed, had over 100 medicinal and edible plants in her front and back yard.
She told local Tulsa reporters that she started her garden, after becoming unemployed, as a way to feed herself and treat a variety of medical issues. Instead of relying on government handouts, this woman took matters into her own hands and decided to become self sufficient. She filled her yard with things like, fruit trees, berries, nut trees, and a wide variety of edible and medicinal herbs. She used these herbs to treat her diabetes, high-blood pressure and arthritis.
Is the Self-Reliant Lifestyle Now a Crime in America?
All her hard work ended when the local code enforcement team showed up to her house and forcibly removed her entire survival garden. Morrison says that she tried to explain how everything in her yard followed the local code enforcement rules. You see, she had problems with these people in the past and this time she was determined to do things by the book.
She obtained the local ordinances and followed every rule to the tee. She made sure that everything in her garden had a purpose, and that her garden looked its best at all times. Local ordinances stated that no plant could be over 12-inches tall unless they were being used for human consumption.
Morrison made sure every plant in her garden could be eaten, but that didn’t matter to the city. They could care less about what the law actually said, they were determined to take out her garden. “Every word out of their mouth was, ‘we don’t care,’” Morrison said.
Over 100 plant varieties were removed by the code enforcement team leaving her with no way to feed or medicate herself. They took almost everything, including a number of her fruit and nut trees. She told local reporters in Tulsa, “I came back three days later, sat in my driveway, cried and left.”
Government Crack Down on Liberty
While this case is extremely sad, it’s also becoming more and more common throughout the country. From “nuisance abatement teams” that have been forcing Off-Griders in California to hook back into the grid, to the heartbreaking story of Andrew Wordes who took his life after code enforcement teams seized his home, this country is making it harder and harder for self-reliant people to live on their own land.
While some dismiss these cases as localized issues, I believe they’re part of a larger movement to control anyone who dares to live a self-reliant lifestyle. I think evidence of this can be seen in the federal governments attempts to regulate small farms out of existence, their use of the EPA to seize private land, the formation of the Department of Homeland Security’s Green Police Force, their attempts to seize control of the Great Lakes, oceans, and waterways, and their use of organizations like The National League of Cities to take control of local governments.
The community is and it appears that is what happened here.
There was a home on a street where a friend of mine lived and the yard looked awful by any standard.
Enough people in the neighborhood complained and they went to court.
The slob lost and refused to do anything. City mowed the front and back, cleaned it up and left a bill.
This wasn’t Ms. Morrison’s first rodeo.
The code enforcement didn’t mysteriously just show up at her house and mow it for her. This has been an ongoing issue.
“Morrison said she had a problem at her last property with code enforcement, so this time, she read the ordinance, which says plants can’t be over 12-inches tall unless they’re used for human consumption. She made sure everything she grew could be eaten, which she told the inspectors.”
She has a history of taking her hobby to far and out of sync with the neighborhoods she lives in.
I’ll admit she has a real nice angle to her story though but it’s slanted.
You haven’t seen an REO that wasn’t an unsalable pile of grief?
We’ve had some but for the most part they come through our portfolio and are sold on average 4 months after we receive them.
The woman’s property was a mess and I really can’t believe you, as homeowner, wouldn’t find it objectionable.
Or is just about anything one does to their home in a neighborhood pretty much no one’s business?
Word Bruthuh....
bflr
I’m unemployable.
I have three companies.
I used to have your confusion. After a few long legal battles with our local township and county, I have learned one thing. The America that I was taught to believe in no longer exists. Once you figure out that America no longer exists like you were probably taught, a whole bunch of crap falls into place.
Until reasonable people (citizens) stand up and say, "Enough already!", we won't get our country back.
Agreed.
When will Tyranny start to bleed?
You forgot to add "and make good fertilizer," which is appropriate for a gardening thread.
What the hell was the gubmint pigs’ excuse? This makes me sick.
>>Something ain’t right about this story and I suspect something important was left out.<<
Ass-u-me
That statement would be a big ol assumption.
>> “Or is just about anything one does to their home in a neighborhood pretty much no one’s business?” <<
.
As long as it isn’t a criminal enterprise, or a physical danger to the neighborhood, that has to be so, or we lose all of our rights to the thugs.
Loss of rights is far less acceptable than a little shabbyness.
No. She should have exercised her 2nd amendment rights and protected her property.
>> “I’m unemployable” <<
.
So am I. Too old, too cantankerous, too impatient with idiots, too intolerant of illegitimate authority.
.
>> “I have three companies.” <<
.
I only have one; that’s all I have patience for.
.
Some days I want to chuck em all
“In other words, she should sue the crap out of the taxpayers.”
Yep. Voters should be held accountable for electing the idiots that take these actions. Maybe then they will start paying attention to their elected officials.
When a government commits a tort, and it's blatant rather than negligent, and ESPECIALLY if it breaches the Constitutional barrier between the powers of government and individual rights, damages should be multiplied by some large factor, like 10. Also, the damages should pierce qualified immunity and bankrupt any individuals who acted in defiance of the Constitution before being collected from an insurance carrier or from the municipality's coffers in general. Shoot, I'd have no problem with branding the scofflaws.
Negligent???? I'm pretty sure they didn't accidentally destroy her garden, and in the process tell her to go F herself when she objected.
And what if they did? If it's not creating some problem that crosses the property line, why is anyone taking their "complaints" seriously? And since when did complaints, founded OR unfounded, expand the Constitutional powers of any level of goobermint??
I have a nazi neighbor that backs up to my house. One day, I decided to be neighborly and talk to her. She was very short and abrubt so I blatantly said, “It seems that for some reason that you hate me.”
Her, “I do!”
Me, “Why? What did I do that made you think this way?”
Her, “No reason, I just hate you.”
She has called the local police on me on several occasions, and every time they show up they see that there is no problem or laws being broken. I explain that I know who made the call and that we both know it is bogus. They shake their head and move along.
I’ve thought of several ideas that could vindictively respond, but have just decided to leave it alone. She’s been rather silent for the last couple years....
I hate living next to control freaks!
The lady had similar problems at her previous residence.
One time occurrence is one thing, twice is a pattern.
She could have put all the plants BEHIND the fence.
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.