They didn't really win it. A new law passed exempting gardens. One wonders if the law passed to save the ordinance, and others like it, from being uprooted in higher court.
That's a cool source that contradicts the article posted originally. In yours they say they won't prosecute, but in the article it claims they were low-key threatened into getting rid of the garden. Odd.
I stay in Scotland and had always assumed the right to roam also applied to gardens. I thought it was cool that the law would leave it up to individuals to be respectful, and not have to state obvious exceptions in its wording.
The law still does defer to folk’s common sense and decency (to not leave litter etc.) but today I learned that it does explicitly state you’re not allowed to just parade into someone’s garden!
NYC resident here, this is simply not true. Yeah of course there are gardens and bushes that are fenced off but most of the grass and dirt you can walk and lie on if you wish.
They do that to the vendors at the stalls they licence to sell refreshments, if they break the rules of their license, not to the public enjoying the garden.
In Los Angeles, they imposed fines and even jail time for their use near residences in the late 90s. Gardeners responded by staging a hunger strike that lasted 7 days in front of city hall, and the city walked it back and has not bothered enforcing the ordinance since.
There's a difference between a law that tells you your hedge cannot block a pavement / sidewalk and a law that tells you what plants you can have in your own garden.
Yes, and 'not cutting the grass' laws are frequently ABUSED by governments to basically kick out poor people from their neighborhood and pave it over for redevelopment for cronies.
No, this is the landlord using USDA rules as an excuse to stop her messing up their landscaping. Or possibly a paranoid landlord thinking that a garden really could be considered a "structure" and could get them in trouble.
Either way, what's so outrageous about not being allowed to take other people's land (or public land, if you want to argue that route) for your own use?
Is that really relevant in this case though? The Wikipedia page you refer to specifically mentions that there has to be existing buildings on the property for those rules to apply.
> Freedom to roam does not need to be freedom to enter people's garden. At least in Norway, the law requires you to stay a minimum distance from dwellings, and has a variety of requirements to ensure you're not a nuisance.
But you might still be in violation of the law. There's also the problem that the investigation on the land might take a lot longer than just a couple of months. We had an archaeological finding in our city that took several years before they could use the land again.
reply