02/28/2001 Env Bd Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Weed Laws Article on Landscaping (John Marshall Law Review) Page 26 of 27 benign relationship between our yards and Nature: 1. The ordinance should protect the fundamental right of residents to choose their own landscaping; 2. The ordinance should apply equally to all residents as well as the City. County and State. if possible: 3. Any restrictions in the ordinance should have a rational basis; i.e., a legitimate interest in public health, safety or welfare; 4. The ordinance must not legislate conformity or aesthetics nor allow residents of the City to exercise control over their neighbors' landscapes; 5. The ordinance should not require the filing of an application, statement of intent or management plan; and there should be no review or approval process or fees assessed against residents who intend to engage in legitimate natural landscaping; 6. In order to avoid harassment of natural landscapers, the City's "weed commissioners" who will enforce the Natural Landscaping Ordinance, and thereby differentiate between those people who are growing permitted natural landscapes versus those with unpermitted growth, should be able to distinguish between the two; 7. Enforcement of the ordinance should be undertaken through due process of law which guarantees individuals the right to fair adjudication of their rights; and, 8. The ordinance should address the problems of environmental degradation brought about by proliferation of high maintenance monocultural landscapes, and the indiscriminate use of toxic chemicals in landscape management. It should encourage the preservation and restoration of diverse, biologically stable natural plant communities, and environmentally sound practices. This would reduce not only contaminants to the environment such as pesticides, fertilizers, pollutants and noise, but would help reduce the accumulation of yard waste A model for good, fair and workable modified weed ordinances embodying the foregoing guidelines is attached as an appendix. This model is simple, easily understood, and allows natural landscaping consistent with the Land Ethic. But, the law is not proactive in its treatment of natural landscaping. Two versions of such pro - active natural landscaping laws - proposed by Lorrie Otto and College Station, Texas are attached in the appendix. Lorrie Otto's proposed Natural Landscaping Act is the best available model law. It embodies the Land Ethic more directly and is similar to the approaches adopted in Long Grove, Illinois and Ft. Collins, Colorado. The proposed College Station, Texas Natural Landscape Ordinance is similar in its pro- active tone and effect. Any of these three models offer a significant improvement on traditional anti - Nature weed laws many villages still have on the books. The specific wording of any new weed law, of course, will vary from town to town and region to region based on particular climate, geography, and population density, but whatever the final wording, the weed laws of old must be changed to reflect the Land Ethic and thereby enhance, rather than inhibit humankind's chances of survival. VII. CONCLUSION http: / /www.epa.gov /glnpo /greenacres /weedlaws /JMLR.html 2/22/01