Woman Arrested for Not Watering Lawn

[HURAKAN]

Here in South Florida people don't have to worry of being arrested for not watering their lawns, but the opposite.

Just one argument: What is happening with your human rights??? No one can tell or FORCE you to water your lawn if you don't want to.

[Ptarmigan]

Definitely disturbed at the waste of tax dollars but, not as outraged as anyone being daft enough to tie up money and resourses to pursue a $54 million lawsuit over lost pants!!

Nothing seems to suprise me anymore. America the bored senseless!

The $54 million pant lawsuit is the worst I have heard. I heard he is going to appeal it.

[TreasureIslandFLGal]

Yeah, I heard that appeal rumor too. I'm not even sure that they should allow this guy to remain on this planet anymore!

[Kelarie]

Should she have been arested? Maybe not.. Should she have cooperated with the Officer? FOR SURE!!

Also did you look at her yard? http://media.bonnint.net/slc/161/16135/1613558.jpg

You wouldnt care if you were a neighbor and trying to sell your house or something? She violated an ordinace.. she deserved the ticket. P.S. they dont usualy ticket the first time out.. and seeing that she hadnt watered in a year I would bet she had received warnings

I wouldn't care if my neighbors yard looked like that. In fact I would prefer it. People think that water is a renewable resource. Hate to break it to you kids, it isn't. Probably in the next 10 years (if not sooner) you will see major water wars breaking out. Watering yards, car washes (separate issues somewhat here), swimming pools, etc., are all a waste of water.

I can say all of that with a great deal of knowledge. It is scary how some people take for granted that water will always be there.

[Ptarmigan]

Yeah, I heard that appeal rumor too. I'm not even sure that they should allow this guy to remain on this planet anymore!

People like him wouldn't have lasted.

[chadtm80]

Water wars? with in the next ten years?

[Kelarie]

Water wars? with in the next ten years?

yep, especially in areas that are desert like

the strain on the aquifer systems, surface water bodies, is greater than the recharge capacties. In some cases water bodies are polluted and not being cleaned up. New technologies are being looked at, such as desal plants and drinking reycled waste water. In some areas of Texas and Cali the reuse of recycled waste water is already in place. But at some point the polluted water bodies will have to be cleaned, probably at 2 to 3 times the cost than had it been done orignally.

[Cyclenall]

Seems like you can get arrested for anything these days.

It's called a Police State.

Just one argument: What is happening with your human rights??? No one can tell or FORCE you to water your lawn if you don't want to.

Exactly, and this story should be put all over the place so more people can see the insanity of it.

Usually, it would be the other way around because during droughts they want you to conserve water and they have watering days. Sometimes even full water bans are put in place.

Water wars? with in the next ten years?

I know, I heard the same thing around some other people who think the next big wars will be over water and not the typical other reasons.

[CajunMama]

Why didn't the woman just tell her name to the police? None of this would have happened. If a policeman asks me my name you bet i'm going to answer him, no matter what i did.

As for someone being forced to water their lawn...if it's a city ordinance or law, yes you can or be fined...you have a choice there. I would think that the ordinance that required lawn watering was voted upon by the elected officials. If you have a problem with that, work on getting finding another candidate for the next election or run for that officials office yourself!

Looking at her yard, it doesn't appear to be a big yard. She could have watered it every couple of weeks and it wouldn't have made that much difference to her water bill. Hopefully she won't have any damage to her homes foundation with the ground being dry.

[Terrell]

Why didn't the woman just tell her name to the police? None of this would have happened. If a policeman asks me my name you bet i'm going to answer him, no matter what i did.

Why did the city find it necessary to send an officer to deliver the ticket when a certified letter could have accomplished the same task, including proof of receipt, when sending an officer wasn't really necessary? People get tickets in the mail all the time, for running red lights or speeding in the case of the red light and speeding cameras, that take your picture. Sending the offficer to her home wasn't really necessary when there is a perfectly good alternative to doing so. Not to mention, people do have a right to remain silent, and simply not talk to law enforcemnt officers. Having to show ID for anything other than driving, anytime an officer requests it, does sound a bit like someone saying "papers please"?

As for someone being forced to water their lawn...if it's a city ordinance or law, yes you can or be fined...you have a choice there. I would think that the ordinance that required lawn watering was voted upon by the elected officials. If you have a problem with that, work on getting finding another candidate for the next election or run for that officials office yourself!

The point is what business does the city have telling me I have to water my lawn if I don't want to? Has the city council solved every other problem that the city may have. so that it's bored and are busting the balls of people who don't keep their property exactly the way someone who doesn't even know the homeowner wants?

Looking at her yard, it doesn't appear to be a big yard. She could have watered it every couple of weeks and it wouldn't have made that much difference to her water bill. Hopefully she won't have any damage to her homes foundation with the ground being dry.

If the city insists on her lawn being watered, then they should pay for it. What's wrong with people spending their money on the things that they want to spend it on, rather than having it dictated to them that they must spend money on this whether they want to or not?

[Regit]

Why did the city find it necessary to send an officer to deliver the ticket when a certified letter could have accomplished the same task, including proof of receipt, when sending an officer wasn't really necessary? People get tickets in the mail all the time, for running red lights or speeding in the case of the red light and speeding cameras, that take your picture. Sending the offficer to her home wasn't really necessary when there is a perfectly good alternative to doing so. Not to mention, people do have a right to remain silent, and simply not talk to law enforcemnt officers. Having to show ID for anything other than driving, anytime an officer requests it, does sound a bit like someone saying "papers please"?

This was a waste of resources by the city. It should be handled through the mail. But, since it was handled this way, a citizen is required to cooperate.

The point is what business does the city have telling me I have to water my lawn if I don't want to? Has the city council solved every other problem that the city may have. so that it's bored and are busting the balls of people who don't keep their property exactly the way someone who doesn't even know the homeowner wants?

Well the law was passed by ordinance, meaning a public hearing was held. The citizens had the chance to fight it then. If they ignore the will of the people after the hearing, then you vote against the incumbents in the next election if it bothers you that badly.

If the city insists on her lawn being watered, then they should pay for it. What's wrong with people spending their money on the things that they want to spend it on, rather than having it dictated to them that they must spend money on this whether they want to or not?

Giving people a break on water fees in exchange for required watering is a good idea. Again, this is something that could be discussed at a public hearing.

[Terrell]

Why did the city find it necessary to send an officer to deliver the ticket when a certified letter could have accomplished the same task, including proof of receipt, when sending an officer wasn't really necessary? People get tickets in the mail all the time, for running red lights or speeding in the case of the red light and speeding cameras, that take your picture. Sending the offficer to her home wasn't really necessary when there is a perfectly good alternative to doing so. Not to mention, people do have a right to remain silent, and simply not talk to law enforcemnt officers. Having to show ID for anything other than driving, anytime an officer requests it, does sound a bit like someone saying "papers please"?

This was a waste of resources by the city. It should be handled through the mail. But, since it was handled this way, a citizen is required to cooperate.

But why do the choice in such a way as to potentially cause trouble, when it's not really necessary? Again though I don't see any thing in the constitution that says that a person must identify themselves on demand. People's rights are not limited to those specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The 9th Amendment (The enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people) is clear on this. The government's authority should be held in check as much as possible w/r/t the individual.

The point is what business does the city have telling me I have to water my lawn if I don't want to? Has the city council solved every other problem that the city may have. so that it's bored and are busting the balls of people who don't keep their property exactly the way someone who doesn't even know the homeowner wants?

Well the law was passed by ordinance, meaning a public hearing was held. The citizens had the chance to fight it then. If they ignore the will of the people after the hearing, then you vote against the incumbents in the next election if it bothers you that badly.

How is this law justified though? Simply arguing that it was passed doesn't mean that the government has any business doing it. Generally I think that the state should only restrict individual freedom, when they have, and can rationally demonstrate, a compelling state interest in doing so. The burden of proof should be on the state to make such an argument, and a requirement should be that they only be allowed to use rational arguments in their doing so, if they wish to restrict freedoms. The individual should not have to prove that he deserves said freedom.

If the city insists on her lawn being watered, then they should pay for it. What's wrong with people spending their money on the things that they want to spend it on, rather than having it dictated to them that they must spend money on this whether they want to or not?

Giving people a break on water fees in exchange for required watering is a good idea. Again, this is something that could be discussed at a public hearing.

[/quote]

That's a start, but I don't think I should be compelled to spend $.01 on watering my lawn if I don't want to. If it's my property, I should be able to do what I want with it, unless you can demonstrate how my use of my property causes an undue risk to others, causes them to be harmed, or violates their rights. My grass being brown doesn't do any of those things. Same is true if I decide to remove all the grass and replace it with a rock garden, or simply pave it all over up to the property line.

[Regit]

How is this law justified though? Simply arguing that it was passed doesn't mean that the government has any business doing it. Generally I think that the state should only restrict individual freedom, when they have, and can rationally demonstrate, a compelling state interest in doing so. The burden of proof should be on the state to make such an argument, and a requirement should be that they only be allowed to use rational arguments in their doing so, if they wish to restrict freedoms. The individual should not have to prove that he deserves said freedom.

Well the interest that is likely argued is property values which can be lowered by a neighbor's dead lawn.

Regardless, the burden of proof is indeed on the municipality. They apparently made their case appropriately, through proper means, when the law was passed.

As for the authority of the government, the government has as much authority as the people allow it. The constitution can't enforce itself. I would bet, though, that a court would uphold this law as constitutional.

[Ptarmigan]

Water wars? with in the next ten years?

I expect it too, especially in the desert areas and that would include in the Middle East.

[CajunMama]

Terrell, depending on where you live, the police don't send out tickets by certified mail. As far as i know it's not done here in lafayette. She also refused to accept the ticket from the policeman.

Orem, Utah has a law on their books that residents must maintain their yards and also keep them junk free. It doesn't look like she was maintaining it.

[Terrell]

Terrell, depending on where you live, the police don't send out tickets by certified mail. As far as i know it's not done here in lafayette. She also refused to accept the ticket from the policeman.

Which is really silly since it's a much more practical way to do so, especially since this is a minor violation of law. A questionable law IMO.

I don't automatically assume, that because the government passes something into law, that they really had a legitimate interest in doing so. It's very much possible to persuade people to pass laws that restrict freedom, especially if it's sold as restricting the freedom of someone else. I don't think that a majority vote in a legislative body automatically means that it's something that the government SHOULD be regulating. The government may have the legal power to do something, but that doesn't mean that it's something they should be doing. I do favor legislative bodies, as well as executive bodies, practicing a great deal of restraint and have no problem with judicial bodies restraining them when they fail to do so. Who was it that said "the government that governs best, governs least".

On the issue of property values, of other people, I would think that they would have a much better case if she had broken down cars in front of a delapidated house. (an example, but I'm thinking that if it's something minor they should be left alone and only in an extreme case is there any case to be made IMO) A brown lawn seems like being a bit nitpicky to me. I think that a brown lawn is questionable on the issue of property values, especially if it can be brought back with some H2O. Structural and unrepaired damage to the house would be a different story.

[wc is my initials]

Man, now I'm really glad I live in an apartment!