Garden police: Free their produce
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Wednesday, Jan. 9, 2013, 8:55 p.m.
An Orlando, Fla., couple who sowed seeds of environmentally responsible sustainability in their front-yard food garden are reaping a harvest of pointless government hassle.
The city has no problem with Jason and Jennifer Helvenston keeping egg-producing chickens in their backyard. But if they don't uproot the garden by today and replace it with a lawn, it will fine them up to $500 a day.
After its initial Nov. 7 deadline for removing their garden passed and hundreds of people expressed support for them, the city took a more conciliatory stance, saying its landscape code “never contemplated front yard food production” and creating a sustainability task force.
But Orlando has reversed course.
The self-reliant Helvenstons consider their garden's fate a constitutional issue of individual and property rights. They say they'll fight the city. And the Institute for Justice is interested in helping them.
The Helvenstons share their produce with neighbors and use their garden to educate youngsters about the value of growing one's own healthful food. They have a website, patriot-gardens.com, where supporters can request a free packet of seeds and a small “Patriot Garden” sign to use in their own gardens.
Instead of harassing the Helvenstons, Orlando officials should encourage others to emulate them. For they have every right to grow food in their front yard and the city, in a horrible example of government run amok, clearly is in the wrong.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Junk nutrition
- The secret ballot: Protect it
- Lever A-1: Pot-infused brownies
- The big sting: To what end?
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Keystone caper: Pipeline politics
- Sunday pops
- Easter 2014: Churches’ vital role
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances
- Liquor privatization: Now’s the time