Article Courtesy of The Miami
Herald
By Linda Robertson
Published December 15, 2017
|
Hermine Ricketts and her husband Tom Carroll may grow fruit trees and flowers in
the front yard of their Miami Shores house. They may park a boat or jet ski in
their driveway. They may place statues, fountains, gnomes, pink flamingoes or
Santa in a Speedo on their property.
Vegetables, however, are not allowed.
Ricketts and Carroll thought they were
gardeners when they grew tomatoes, beets, scallions,
spinach, kale and multiple varieties of Asian cabbage. But
according to a village ordinance that restricts edible
plants to backyards only, they were actually criminals. They
didn’t think they were engaged in a Swiss chard conspiracy
or eggplant vice, yet they were breaking the law.
Florida’s 3rd District Court of Appeal upheld Miami Shores’
ban on front-yard vegetable gardens in a recent decision, so
the couple will take their case to the Florida Supreme
Court. They argue, on behalf of gardeners everywhere, that
the village’s restriction is unconstitutional and an
infringement on their property rights.
“That’s what government does – interferes in people’s
lives,” Ricketts said. “We had that garden for 17 years. We
ate fresh meals every day from that garden. Since the
village stepped its big foot in it, they have ruined our
garden and my health.”
Ricketts and Carroll did not face jail time for brandishing
green thumbs, but they did face $50 daily fines after the
village amended its ordinance in 2013. They had to dig up
their garden – which won’t grow in their north-facing
backyard because of a lack of sun. But they have continued
to fight Miami Shores in court with help from the Institute
for Justice, a national non-profit libertarian law firm.
“This decision gives local governments
tremendous leeway to regulate harmless activities in the
name of aesthetics,” said Institute lawyer Ari Bargil. “It
gives government the power to prohibit homeowners from
growing plants in their front yards simply because they
intend to eat them.”
|
|
Tom Carroll and Hermine Ricketts in their front yard
in Miami Shores in 2013. They had to dig up their vegetable garden
as they faced code enforcement fines. Florida’s 3rd District Court
of Appeal ruled that Miami Shores has the right under its code to
control design and landscaping standards.
|
The court ruled that Miami Shores has the right under its code to control
design and landscaping standards to protect the appearance of the village
and preserve “property values and the enjoyment of property rights by
minimizing and reducing conflicts among various land uses.”
Village Attorney Richard Sarafan argued that while it’s popular to blame
big, bad government for being intrusive, municipalities must safeguard their
zoning authority lest they open a Pandora’s box of unsightly exceptions.
Without any arbiter of taste, residents could get stuck living next to a
polka-dot house with pigs taking mud baths by the garage and an Oscar Mayer
Wienermobile on the swale. The couple’s front yard was filled with pots and
cluttered with stakes that belonged in the backyard where they chose to have
a swimming pool instead, the village said.
“It’s all about conformity. Miami Shores wants to be a mini Coral Gables,”
Ricketts said of another tidy, upscale South Florida city known for strict
zoning regulations that at one time included a ban on pickup trucks in
driveways at night. “What is the definition of edible? I can go into any
front yard and find something edible because every plant has an edible part.
“Miami Shores claims to promote green living. What could be more green than
walking out your front door and picking what you’ve grown rather than
driving to the store and buying what has been trucked in, in quantities that
contribute to food waste?”
Bargil also objected to the court’s conclusion 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.”
Ricketts called the village short-sighted for encouraging the cultivation of
“useless grass.”
“By killing gardens we are also killing bees and butterflies, the
pollinators of our food supply,” she said.
The court said that residents who don’t like the village ordinance can
petition the Village Council to change it or vote for council members who
will change it.
But in the meantime, the village has uprooted a source of sustenance and joy
for Ricketts, 62, and Carroll, 59.
Their case is part of the Institute for Justice’s National Food Freedom
Initiative, which includes litigation on behalf of home bakers in Minnesota,
Wisconsin and New Jersey, a skim milk producer in northern Florida, raw milk
farmers in Oregon and craft brewers in Texas. |