'Natural' yard could land owner in jail

Houston Chronicle ^ | March 24, 2003 | By TERRY KLIEWER

[Old Professer]

I read all your posts, you're a self-assuming snob who has no respect for real property rights and properly belong back in kindergarten until you graduate.

[lodwick]

Good night nurse - go to LP and check yourself out.

Cheers!

[Rebelbase]

hundreds and hundreds of bean sprouts growing 3x as fast as the grass temporarily trashes any lawn.

[Rasputin_TheMadMonk]

She should have 300 pounds of rock salt delivered and then spread it all over the entire yard. A little water and no one will ever have to worry about her nonconforming vegetation again.

If there are no preset rules that define what can and can not be in her yard, then these fools should STFU. She could always make things MUCH worse and really lower property values.

Judge Block seems to be one of those judges who follow the money. Put money in his pocket and he will follow you all day long. Contempt of court is a judges way of punishing you for not kissing his arse

[Carry_Okie]

I said > "Certainly the wood sorrel is invasive, other species she has may be also."

Hardly nasty, was it? Now, how could I have known that other than by personal experience or other expertise?

He responded: Wood sorrel (oxalis) is a domestic plant that is probably better suited for her ecological niche than lawn grass.

As if I didn't know what oxalis is. Then he goes on with more explanation characteristic of the usual "native plant" snob. He demonstrated a lack of respect for the wishes or preferences of the neighbors without an expressed caveat to the governing covenants of the neighborhood. Those people have property rights that deserve respect, whether anyone likes it or not.

He continued with the usual glib disdain:

I realize that some people love lush green lawns that can only be achieved by poisoning everything else.

"Poisoning everything else"? As if everyone who uses a pesticide is an ignorant, destructive and thoughtless boob. IMO, that deserved a rebuke. It is total garbage and I don't give a crap what you think about it. To back that up, how about a quote from the California Native Plant Society:

“Plants can sometimes by removed by hand, especially where invasions are freshly started.” “Piecemeal removal simply does not work.” “The only answer seems to be chemical, and there are some relatively benign herbicides (RoundUp®, for example) that seem to do the trick. Herbicide should be used with caution, but in many cases there are seldom viable alternatives with the limited labor pools and finances of the conservation organizations. Source: Note 182. ” How about what the Nature Conservancy thinks? “We encourage preserve managers to include a number of tools in their tool-boxes. Sometimes weeds can be best controlled by hand pulling, other times by pulling with mechanical tools. Sometimes a pulled weed rapidly grows back from the rootstock, presenting an even worse problem the next season. Judicious applications of an appropriate herbicide is often the best remedy. Many habitats are best treated by using controlled burns, flooding, or other habitat events which were natural, but which had been previously suppressed. Biocontrols have also been used with success.” (The source on this quote is dead.) You can go here though and get a general idea how important herbicides are to the TNC program (as much as I can't stand their raid on property rights, they occasionally do some good science).

Here are some of the herbicides TNC uses: 2,4-D, Clopyralid, Fluazifop-p-butyl, Fosamine Ammonium, Glyphosate, Hexazinone, Imazapic, Imazapyr, Picloram, Sethoxydim, and Triclopyr.

Finally, I'm going to add a quote about my book that encompasses this very topic from Dr. Jennifer Nielsen, a director of the USGS Biological Research Division in Alaska:

Clear, concise, and forward thinking in a manner seldom seen in the current literature on this topic. The vision of resource management presented and the sea change of consciousness, necessary for the implementation of sound policies, deserve a broad readership. I guess that qualifies me as something of an expert, doesn't it? If you still don't get it, you might read some of the others.

Finally, if you still think my tone was unwarranted, once he had tacitly acknowledged he'd gone over the line, I responded with a measured explanation of why his earlier response was a problem. Why would I bother if my sole purpose was to be crappy? If you (or he) understood or had witnessed how destructive this bias against pesticides has been to natural habitat, you wouldn't have called my reaction rude, you would have been surprised at my forbearance.

[goodnesswins]

Oh...are you the spell checker? Thanks for the reminder.

[bigfootbob]

Say it again, and again.....

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

The woman in the red outfit earlier in this thread is not the homeowner, Lisa Wright, and therefore has nothing to do with this thread. It is a picture of "Ming Zeng, a falun gong practitioner."

That is not the picture we put up originally. The one we posted was apparently replaced with this one.

[kjam22]

I always thought property rights was an interesting term. Obviously property has no rights.... so we are talking about the rights of people who own property. So it would follow that the more property a person owned... then I guess theoretically the more rights they would have.

Your understanding of property "rights" must be a little foriegn to the common understanding of "rights". In your mind the lady has the "right" to do whatever she chooses with any piece of property she owns. Yet our forefathers felt that a persons "rights" only extended to the point that they didn't damage or contrain another persons "rights". So if we have two persons who are you know... property owners with all of those wonderful property "rights" ..... well if one of them manages their property in a manner that impacts the financial aspect of the others.... how do you decide whose "rights" to uphold. Maybe some people buy property to own and make a profit from. And that's their "right". They can afterall do whatever they want with that property and own it for whatever purpose. So why aren't you rushing to defend American citizens "rights" to not have their property value damaged??

Here's what I really think. I think that when a person decides to live in a community that they generally have to choose to give up some of their God given "rights". Lots of times the God given right to the pursuit of happiness... just so we can all get along..... depending on what it is that makes a person happy. I like to drive fast, yet I surrender that pursuit of happiness everytime I drive my car. I like to play loud rock and roll because I'm a musician and it makes me really really happy, but I don't do it at times that it bothers the neighbors. It's life, it's the way it is.

Honestly, I think that most persons who go around "demanding their rights" all the time are selfish, immature individualists who haven't grown up enough to see past their own glorious desires.

This isn't about property rights. There is no way you can argue that it is about property rights and argue fairly and justly for everyone involved. But you'll never understand that.

[Bacon Man]

Bacon's dad suffers from an extreme form of the obsession. He used to mow his lawn three or four times a week.

He still does in the summer time.

[Cobra Scott]

Kudzu is way better.

In Texas, homeowner's associations operate above the law, and inhibit due process. Ask any Texas lawyer with HA experience.

[stands2reason]

That's some lady named Zeng, not her.

[stands2reason]

It's more than just poetry, it's an excellent song by Rush.

[Roscoe]

no respect for real property rights

Doublethink. What do you think CC&Rs are?

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Yeah, I see that. There was a different photo at that URL when I posted it.

[Old Professer]

Evidence of brain damage.

[Ditter]

The ladys front yard sounds just like mine. I live in a 50 year old subdivision in the Memorial area of Houston. We have deed restrictions but apparently there is nothing wrong with a heavily wooded yard. The only difference is mine is really natural & she planted hers.

[strela]

In Texas, homeowner's associations operate above the law, and inhibit due process.

How is it "above the law" and what "due process" isn't being granted when one party to a mutual agreement enforces the legal terms of that agreement? The situation sounds like nothing more than the right of people to enter into contracts with each other, hardly a situation that could be described as being "above the law."

I've said a bazillion times that I personally would never buy into a neighborhood with a HOA on a bet. In my opinion, many consist of busybody little prigs with a raging Hitler complex who polish their jackboots at night and want every blade of grass in their neighbor's yard just so. However, even if the HOA is the biggest collection of bluenoses since Mrs. Grundy, they still have every right to enter into contracts and enforce the terms of those contracts if breached.

As far as I'm concerned, its game, set and match to the little Hitlers.

[Roscoe]

However, even if the HOA is the biggest collection of bluenoses since Mrs. Grundy, they still have every right to enter into contracts and enforce the terms of those contracts if breached.

You're confusing them.