Florida Court Strikes Down Front-Yard Edible Gardens for Miami Shores

By Jason Erickson

Apparently the right to feed yourself and your family is indeed not a fundamental one, as a Florida attorney previously declared.

A longstanding battle between 17-year homeowners at the Village of Miami Shores, Tom Carroll and Hermine Ricketts, appears to have reached its sad conclusion. In 2014, the couple was advised by town officials after a re-zoning plan that they would have to dig up their front-yard edible garden or face fines of $50 per day for the newly created infraction. The couple subsequently sued based on a constitutional infringement upon their right to use their own private property as well as a violation of the equal protection clause.

Now, according to the Institute for Justice which had been representing the couple, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal actually has agreed with the opposing attorney who stated: “There certainly is not [a] fundamental right to grow vegetables in your front yard.”

The Institute for Justice is rightly calling this “a major blow to property rights.”

In today’s decision, the court upheld the vegetable ban, concluding that it is rational for government to ban “the cultivation of plants to be eaten as part of a meal, as opposed to the cultivation of plants for ornamental reasons.”

“If Hermine and Tom wanted to grow fruit or flowers or display pink flamingos, Miami Shores would have been completely fine with it,” continued Bargil. “They should be equally free to grow food for their own consumption, which they did for 17 years before the village forced them to uproot the very source of their sustenance.”

The case has brought international attention to an issue that affects all Americans: our food. Michael Bindas, an IJ senior attorney and director of IJ’s National Food Freedom Initiative, said “the Institute for Justice will continue to fight until courts make clear that all Americans have the right to peacefully and productively use their property to feed themselves and their families.” (Source)

This is not the first case of government’s haphazard rewriting of code in order to deprive people of their property rights. Jason and Jennifer Helvenston of Orlando were ordered to destroy their 25 x 25 front-yard veggie garden or else pay $500 per day in fines. Fortunately for them, after an online campaign and fierce resistance, Orlando did relent – with conditions:

City Council pre-approved rules for veggie gardens on up to 60% of a front yard (water conservation cited as the reasoning), set back 3 feet from property line, screened in with fencing or shrubbery and not in public right-of-way.

While the Helvenston’s felt fortunate, given the alternative, it is still a demonstration of the very worst that bureaucracy can offer up. The creation of codes and regulations that can end-run inherent property and constitutional rights is anathema to self-ownership and living in a free society.

As for Tom Carroll and Hermine Ricketts, they appear to have become an unfortunate precedent that is being set.

Jason Erickson writes for NaturalBlaze.com. This article (Florida Court Strikes Down Front-Yard Edible Gardens for Miami Shores) may be republished in part or in full with author attribution and source link.

Top image credit: Pixabay


Activist Post Daily Newsletter

Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
Free Report: How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription

9 Comments on "Florida Court Strikes Down Front-Yard Edible Gardens for Miami Shores"

  1. police states are erotic

  2. Okay, so a city absolutely can re-zone to exclude gardens but…for those who owned the property before the change and are losing the use of their land because of it its pay up time. Eminent Domain, baby. (“Reverse Condemnation” when the city refuses)

  3. “The Institute for Justice is rightly calling this “a major blow to property rights.””

    Pay taxes on the property? If so it is registered. (propria concessione regis usus Latin king’s grant of use for property) You don’t own a home or land. You are stateless people who reside there and pay taxes on it each year, possibly pay mortgage (an oath sworn on your life to pay back a loan at usury to the bank). The king / STATE owns the land and house.

    I dislike that idea but it has “been on the books” quite some time. It is also why you register to have a license to drive vehicles, register vehicles. You pay taxes on fuel, cars, pickups, roads. This is all done via maritime law or Law of the Sea. It and Law of the Land must submit to Law of the Air, which is Supreme & Divine Law. So, while not liking the status quo, I can see how it is and continues functioning.

  4. Venenum in luce, venenum tui picem.

  5. I’ve lived in fluorida for the last 13.5 years and it is still ruled by dammed carpet baggers. You can plant pretty, poisonous, plants all day
    long; but nothing good for you. What a bunch of losers.

  6. Free Man (NOT) | November 14, 2017 at 4:24 pm | Reply

    There is only one word for this ruling.
    .
    STUPID!

  7. Screen that garden off. We don’t want to expose the public to the sight of growing vegetables.

  8. “water conservation cited as the reasoning” Yeah! I recognize that issue from the country of the free! That’s the thing the dumb-ass try to put on table, you vegetables drink too much water! And is no joke, is a deadly problem! Ask the LA neigborhours how that war on water sources was ended! Very deadly!

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*