Illegal Front Yard Garden: Canadian Couple's Kitchen Garden Targeted By Authorities

Beautiful garden

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/illegal-kitchen-garden_n_1687558.html

Oh my gosh. What's next? Hope this couple wins. What a lovely garden. What would make someone mean enough to start this? Politics?

Wow That's crazy. They certainly did a lot of work and have made such a huge investment in their garden. I pray everything works out for them. Maybe they could put up a wall around the property so no one can see it. Then it wouldn't be an "eye sore" to those who cannot appreciate what they are doing.

They can change it a little and not have it so obvious by putting up maybe a picket fence (about 3 ft. tall) around all of the garden set back into the property 2-3 feet and have some shrubery in front of the picket fences. Then they could intersperse some smaller vegie plants between the shrubery. Up by the house have a few taller shrubs that would draw the eye away from the beds. Boy this is beautiful and I would love to have my beds looking like that!

I like the way they have done this and would rather look at their gorgeous garden than a yard left to fend for itself.

Hmm..read a similar story from Michigan earlier this year. What regressive city planning ! As regressive as not being allowed to have and use a rain barrel. Or not being able to hang your laundry on a clothesline to dry.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/vegetable-garden-brings-criminal-charges-oak-park-michigan/story?id=14047214#.UA3QQmFO9IE

If they have attached bottoms, they can pick it up and move.

Shame, though, as it is lovely.

A lot of properties have front yards and no back yards, which is limiting!

I couldn't imagine anyone being against such a beautiful garden, it's just sad. Best of luck to them.

I wonder if a sympathetic neighbor or two would be willing to let their front yards grow out of control? Perhaps the contrast would convince the authorities that the vegetable garden is far superior.

I think that this is something that everyone should do to change the world of front yard lawns into something that can be eaten.
Too many cities seem to require people to stick to lawn, yet it serves no purpose and creates havoc with the environment.
Good for them! ...

And read the edible front yard.

No_Such_Reality wrote:
And read the edible front yard.

Did you mean this: http://www.amazon.com/The-Edible-Front-Yard-Grow-More/dp/1604691999 , or
perhaps this: http://www.amazon.com/The-Quarter-Acre-Farm-Patio-Family/dp/1580053408/ref=pd_sim_b_3 ?
This summary sounds just like what the OP-family this thread is about, did.

Are people stupid or what, this kind of thing makes me so angry
I live in London uk and there is an elderly gentleman growing veg out of site in his front garden which I might add is the size of a postage stamp. Its beautiful. He's just had a letter from the council to remove it all, because a mindless old biddy 2 doors away doesn't like him growing veg . She says its unsightly ???????????? He is trying to feed himself in this recession

I guess it's understandable we find stories like this a bit "frustrating." I mean we're all gardeners here so of course we like the front yard garden and the homeowners efforts. The fact remains however that they broke the law. I would venture to say the homeowners knew that going in and perhaps this is their way of fighting back. Either way, they had to know there would be opposition going in. Whether we think it's a dumb law or not, fact remains...it's still a law.
I would also venture to say, there are neighbors that do consider this lawn an eye sore. Like I said, we are gardeners here. Nothing could be farther from the truth in our opinions. But maybe some neighbors don't like the bugs it attracts, or some of the foliage or appearance? I know, hard to believe.
I usually have a hard time with a lot of what the media throws at us. There could be (and usually is) more to the story. I would guess there are plenty of details left out of this story. I am also going to take another guess and say these photo's are what the garden looks like in an eye appealing stage.
Here are a few updates to the story:
http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Give+peas+chance+catches+attention/6978121/story.html

There's a petition so save their garden, http://www.lepotagerurbain.com/p/petition-potager-cour-avant.html

I realize not everyone reads French, just click on the link right above the young girl "Signez ici la petition"

thanks for the link to that News article! what a load of BS ..... sigh

I also took a look at their blog which is great and the time lapse video is awesome too!

I guess they could squeeze in a little lawn. somewhere.

I just cannot wrap my brain around a ruling that says you HAVE to have lawn. It is obviously a HUGE business, lawnmowers, seed, fertilizer, etc etc....
I have not had lawn in about 25 years and somehow it seems like it would be a personal violation to be told I HAD to have lawn.

LittleGardener wrote:

No_Such_Reality wrote:
And read the edible front yard.

Did you mean this: http://www.amazon.com/The-Edible-Front-Yard-Grow-More/dp/1604691999 , or
perhaps this: http://www.amazon.com/The-Quarter-Acre-Farm-Patio-Family/dp/1580053408/ref=pd_sim_b_3 ?
This summary sounds just like what the OP-family this thread is about, did.

I mean the first and not the second.

The titles though are pretty appropriate. Edible front yard versus Farm. Which is what covenants and laws like this is about.

In the end, it's about looking like a maintained landscaping and not a factory. Although one could argue we're only a few years away from needing this level of intensity to feed the growing world population.

To be honest, I'd be thrilled with that level of build out in my backyard. However, in Quebec, Canada, I can imagine the SFG looking pretty barren and haggard 6 months of the year.

But then again, half my neighbors have half dead lawns in front of their house so...

If I wanted to build in my front yard like that, I would make sure before I expend all that time, energy and money that it was within the rules first. If not, see if I could get the rules changed.

I notice that there are trees behind the house, so it made sense to locate the beds in front of the house. They really are beautiful.

I assume that the 30% of lawn would cover things like water, sewage and electricity in case they had to be repaired.

My first three beds are in the front yard right next to my property line because that is where I get most of my sunshine. They are backed by a planting shrubs so that they are mostly hidden from passerbersby. Then there is a city frontage of about 100ft x 30ft that I keep mown. About twelve years ago the city had to dig it up to replace water lines and it was a real mess: they did not touch anything on my property. My newish neighbours have large rocks lining their driveway right to the roadside and they had to remove some of them because of snow plows. I know that if anything happened to the waterlines again, there would be a huge expensive mess with the rocks having to be moved, plus the blacktop and the expense would be borne by the houseowner.

I feel this homeowner should redesign the garden to allow for the proper percentage of lawn. It could still be a beautiful and bountiful garden.

It looks to me that if they took up the mulch in the paths and seeded grass, that may qualify for the 30% lawn requirement.

That was a thought that crossed my mind as well. I wonder where the 30% has to be placed? Bet there are rules for that, too.

The city is giving them until September 1st to be able to harvest their vegies which they didn't have to do. The 30% is an easement at the front of the property by the street. There are utilities of all sorts there and if the city has to get to them for any reason, then grass would be easier than planter boxes. We had a water main break in the street in front of our driveway which sent water up our driveway, into our garage and basement. They had to dig up some of the street, some of the easement and some of the sidewalk. When they were done, they replaced everything and very nicely I might add. If we had planter boxes there, some of those boxes would have been destroyed along with the vegies just by the force of the water. Those that didn't get damaged would have had to been taken out so the big equipment could get in there.

The garden is beautiful but would be more appropriate for a back yard or somehow less noticeable from the street. It's one of those good learning experiences!

It's so sad when these things happen. We've discussed several on this forum and no matter the outcome it's a lose-lose situation.

Obviously, we don't have all the facts, but from the article it appears the couple asked the town if they were permitted to have a front yard vegetable garden and were given a verbal OK.

But what they installed is not just a garden, but an over the top GARDEN. Very visible and with lots of permanent structures that will be vacant half the year in their climate. Obviously, this couple and the town weren't on the same page.

Unfortunately, the town has now decided to prohibit any future vegetable gardens in front yards. Even if this situation wasn't the direct cause of that decision, I would guess it contributed to it. What a loss for future residents!

Perhaps, we can take something away from this and, whenever possible, help communities better understand and set reasonable limits for front-yard gardens.

This is like in our town...the sidewalk and on to the street belong to the city. For example, down the block a guy had planted two trees...even though we are not allowed to plant trees on the easement. Sewer got updated this year. Trees 0, City 2...He knew better. If he didn't, he should have.
We can plant any thing but trees, just with the knowledge that they will get tore out if there is a need. Many plant flowers. I can see a garden there. Just not with raised beds.
The city owns the area to get to utilities.
Just as it seems that one does. Only they use percentage.
How would that work on different houses that are set back more or less than others?

Maybe it is set up by neighborhood. Maybe in that neighborhood, all the houses are set back a certain amount of feet. Going by percentage doesn't seem as logical as the city saying ten feet from the curb is the city's easement or something like that. You are right, we probably don't know the whole story and the boxes being empty half the year and in full sight is probably not what the city expected.