apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

I read a couple of the articles and it's not clear that the area was posted or marked in any way. As a longtime home owner I would probably have put up some kind of decorative fencing with signs on it. Some of her comments indicate that neighbors had been complaining about the area (which does look like an unmowed field, as it should for the purpose it was being used.) So it sounds like there were some hard feelings to begin with.

Possibly the only way to get this kind of thing supported by neighbors would be to involve them and, more specifically, their children. If one could get the children to feel a sense of ownership and interest in the project, they would "protect" the area, especially against their own parents wanting to clear it out.

I'm sorry to see it go. It would be interesting to do this in my own back yard, where I could probably get away with it. But I'd still do some tweaking to make it look "on purpose."

The Post article mentions that there was indeed a sign indicating that it was a garden,

“The city not only destroyed flowering plants and plants that were setting seed for use by the North American Native Plant Society in their fundraising efforts, but they also removed shrubs, a red oak tree, and even the sign indicating that it was a natural, pesticide-free garden,� she wrote in an e-mail.

Oh boy, this looks much like my own garden, which is a natural flower garden with native species--organic and pesticide free, of course. However, in many suburban neighbourhoods, this sort of look isn't embraced, where manicured lawns with marigold borders are the order of the day.

o.my.god.
what a tragedy!

Absolutely gobsmacked! I can't believe they can do this to private property. And she has to pay to have her own garden savaged in this way? Unbeleeeeeeeevable.

How very traumatic for the poor woman. I would be devastated.

In some neighborhoods, one person's "naturalized garden" is another's weed patch.

But if that's how the city interpreted it, I can't imagine they did this without first issuing a warning or citation.

As for "get the neighbors involved" isn't it possible that a neighbor's complaint prompted the action?

in response to lesley - london, yes, the city can enforce how people take care of their own property. many cities/villages have zoning rules that prevent the kind of garden in this article. i once lived in a neighborhood where you could get ticketed for letting your grass grow longer than 4 inches or installing a basketball hoop over your garage.

Although I feel bad for this woman, maybe she should have done her natural gardening in the backyard and let the front yard be cookie cutter. The stress of aggravating your neighbors and continually fighting the city would not have balanced out the joy she gets from this garden.

I'm not sure I've got the terminology correct, but I think that (at least in the US, forgive my ignorance of Canadian bylaws) the government owns any property, called an easement, within a certain distance of a road. That's the space where you generally see street signs, etc. Within that space property owners don't have full rights to the land. It's quite possible that the owner of this lovely garden will be outweighed by the government's control of that land. If she had kept it back off the street/sidewalk it probably wouldn't have been an issue.

I feel for the lady, however, from the before picture her garden looks like nothing but a lot of weeds. Why, oh why in the front yard right off the street?

When the flora is dominated by one kind of plant (lawn grass,) then even a patch of weeds looks good (or bad, depending on your view.)

Here is another article from the Toronto Star that give a fairer account of the whole situation....

"....a properly tended natural garden would never be razed, he said, pointing out that the city itself is working to naturalize city parks."

"...I'm sure there was some wild grass and stuff like that in it – but there was also a dead raccoon. The people next door were complaining of the stench."

"...Dale received two notices before the city took action...
The letter also explained that she could apply for a natural lawn exemption, and had she done so, all action against her would have been stopped."

http://www.thestar.com/article/251895

red door - Thanks for posting the other parts.

One thing I've learned as a recent home/condo owner is that there are many who do not do their homework. Basic paperwork???

p.s. I wonder what killed the raccoon?

Since I have a friend who had her own run-in with the bylaw enforcement officers in Scarbourough (and who has her own court case against them), I guess I have a different view of this situation. Her experience taught me that there are certain officers in Scarbourough who enjoy "jumping the gun", and so do when they can. My friend hadn't been issued the proper warnings, and so I can believe that this lady hadn't been either.

Here in Switzerland, the city maintains naturalized meadows in many open spaces, and so such a sight is normal here, and people are used to it. It is such a relief to see the beautiful tall grasses here, after the over-manicured over-fertilized turf that defines most cities back home.

If Bob Hunter were still alive (he was the Green reporter on CITY-TV, a Toronto station, and a founding member of GreenPeace), he would be all over this story, fighting for her. One of the last stories of his that I remember was about making a more natural lawn.

How sad.

Even for those of you that call the before picture a bunch of "weeds," do you honestly prefer the deadened land in the after pictures? Really now.

Trygve, yes, as long as there aren't any rotting animals.

trygve: I know you're not suggesting it but it does not have to be either or. Here in Saint Paul, MN, I've seen a number of well-coiffed lawn/gardens.

Unfortunately, the gardener herself seems to have made it "either - or." Surely it's possible to go organic and native without the front yard looking like an untended vacant lot and without making dead animals impossible to grab and haul away. After all, the British heyday of formal gardens in the 18th century involved organic gardening and native plants, simply for lack of alternatives.

How about a "lawn" of an appropriate native groundcover, planting areas edged with local rocks, and flower beds of native flowers and attractive edibles? A little weeding would be required to stop the flowers from seeding onto the lawn, but the result would be orderly enough to inspire any sort of ordinary home gardener who'd just like things to be pretty and relatively low maintenance.

So, let me get this right. You can carry guns, but god forbid your lawn is 5 inches high

And, clearly, it would seem few people in the US 'get' natural gardens. The next big thing perhaps?

The racoon is a red herring. It is a 20 mins job to bury it and any competent council is capable of removing it without laying waste to the surrounding area. And I wouldn't be surprised if I'm not the only one who suspects it was a plant in the first place.

Ripping out 200 native species in an afternoon is something to be contemplated.

also keeping it neatly trimmed around the sidewalk would have helped. The overgrowth on the sidewalk made it unsightly.

Sorry Lesley, I wouldn't want to live next to that allergy infested weed patch. And yes, in some areas, you can carry a gun, and not have your lawn higher than 5 inches. Its why I love this country.

Lesley - Canada = not allowed to carry a gun.

I'm not overly suprised the city cut back the garden growing on the easement - that's municipal land anyway. Some cities, like Vancouver, are experimenting with so-called neighbourhood or urban gardens and will look past nice-looking landscaping on municipal land. Looks like the city of TO doesn't subscribe to the same ideas.

I don't know about Canada, but here zoning laws are a tool of government to infringe on private property rights. Most zoning boards are dominated by decrepit, incompetent old geezers who have nothing better to do than to gripe about high rise condos, or a bunch of cronies of developers who get the zoning boards to condemn private property to then build whatever they want on them. The boards fight for years and years over which Professor of Urban Studies' vision of Nirvana the board should implement by ANY MEANS NECESSARY, with no humility whatsoever that their urban paradise might actually be hell. Get rid of the zoning boards. Send the New Ubranists back to their Urban Studies Departments. Just let people do with their property what they wish and keep the government busy bodies out.

Lesley, you cannot carry a gun, this is not Texas nor the USA, Toronto is in Canada and although I'm all for natural environments and such I doubt if this had occurred in London, it would have been left alone. Her plants were obviously about to if not already encroaching on public property i.e., the sidewalk and boulevard (the boulevard belongs to the city) and from the picture, looks far from a 'natural garden' and more like a situation where the owner just didn't preen their garden or cut their grass. A natural garden where one lets the indigenous growth take hold is one thing, a lawn let run rapid using the "I don't want to, what, its natural" philosophy, is another.

Quite frankly, I’m a resident of Toronto and if I were to walk past this, I would have remarked that the person should perhaps buy a set of shears or something along those lines as it just looks overgrown.

Yes, sorry, I did realise that it was both in Canada and that the gun laws are not the same. It is perhaps unclear that I was responding to subsequent comments in the thread.
I should also probably mention that I meant it as a comment on what I, personally, saw as an absurdity and not as a slur on anyone's country. For what it's worth, the situation horticulturally in an equivalent English suburb (like the one in which I grew up) is probably even worse as the rather barren looking lawns have often been replaced long ago by non-maintenance gravel or slate. (This, as you can imagine, did not help the recent floods any).
But, yes, Dylan, in London or in most of England, this garden would indeed have been left alone. The verge/easement would be the council's responsibility but you could pile your front garden higher than this with old televisions and bedsteads and the council would find it very difficult to act. This is undoubtedly why, in my experience, American towns are much neater than ours.

We all live in democracies, however, and thus the responses suggest that the law makers in this instance maybe had something on their side.
For myself, I genuinely see the first picture as an attractive, if overgrown, garden which does not encroach on the pavement at all and is probably doing important work. I did not see the responses coming. (And I am not someone above asking a neighbour to trim their hedge or worrying about next-door's ground elder). This has been interesting. Vive la difference!

There are homeowners associations and clear rules requiring you maintain your property... this includes the length of your grass and how you clear the snow/ice in front of your home... in Ontario at least.

I lived most of my life in Canada, close to Toronto and the city does "maintenance" when homeowners don't -- including when the neighbors complain. :)

She should have planted the tall stuff in the back yard and kept the growth about knee high in the front yard... the garden probably would have survived in that case.

Wende: always a voice of reason, Hope this issue will help educate people to a better appreciation of natural areas and the biologist/gardener will reach out again in a garden of compromise
The racoon, was most likely hit by a car and found a quiet place to hide and die, I hope he found some comfort in those weeds.
In my drought stricken state, all mowed areas are brown, unless precious water is used, The weeds remain green. I am filled with dread and anxiety.
Thinking about the racoon prompted me to read up on the threat of diseases they carry, which can be a reasonable concern. I will now update vaccines/ worm treatments of household pets and worry less about racoon dangers

As long as we're concluding what she should have done... she should also have had discussions with the city, removed the dead animal, and talk to her neighbours.

I agree with Patrick (the other one) and I suspect that there is more to this story than meets the eye.

As sad and terrible as this "before and after" looks, you'll notice a utility pole on the outside garden. That would represent town property. (I would be interested to know where her property line was.)

Also, you'll notice that the other areas that precede her garden are clear. Maybe Patrick is right- the neighbors may have called in the complaint But if the town did, in fact, clear her own Private Property garden, some fresh hell could certainly be raised.

the property in question (as I live in Toronto and know the bylaws) was city property. The city owns a prescribed bit of everyone's front yard esp. when there is a city sidewalk involved. The law here says you have to maintain the sidewalk infront of your house, and i would guessimate that this was deemed 'unmaintained'. When the snow flies, you are liable if someone slips infront of your house on a sidewalk. If the grass etc gets too out of control, it can hamper the sidewalk and visibility. i prefer what she had in the before picture, but i suspect the City of Toronto is CYA themselves.
The city here has bylaws on trees on your property. If the tree is a certain cirscumference, regardless if it is on your land, you have to have a permit to remove it.
The gardens and green space in TO are extensive, and the city does a fabulous job of planting and maintaining every year. It is my feeling that neighbours complained enough that the city felt they could take action.

Only the boulevard has a city easement; her front lawn is private property and they razed that as well.

As I said, a close friend had something similar happen to her in the same neighbourhood (it wasn't a matter of a naturalied garden), and having lived through her side of the story, I know that they did not follow proper procedure, with adequate notice and warnings, and so am predisposed to believe that proper protocal was not followed here either.

The dead raccoon was surely a plant by a disgruntled neighbour, used as an excuse to call in the authorities who were only most happy to oblige.

It is a shame, and I think the city should have spoken with her or written to her first regarding the strip between the sidewalk and street. The portion that was within the confines of her lawn was hers to do with as she pleased and no one should have touched it, whether neighbors liked it or not, unless there was some health issue being violated, and even in that case they should have discussed it with her first.

While it sucks that the City came in and razed her front yard, it seems that she could have handled it better. I'm imagining her as a non-compromising organic radical. Exactly what does Toronto's city code say about how her property must be maintained?

In addition to other suggestions (e.g., trimming the edges, spending enough time maintaining to discover dead animals, etc.), she could have installed some hardscape (e.g., water feature, paths, bench, etc.) to make it look more like a garden.

Wow. Good morning (and happy post-Labor Day)-

I like hearing different perspectives on this, it has been food for thought as I think about how we all want to make where we live better. I thought this was a good example of how even the most personal of projects still have to find a way to coexist with the community.

I think both the city office and this gardener both want something good for Toronto. It sounds as if there was quite a breakdown in communication. I hope that this can at least be a catalyst for more careful steps on both sides.

What I was thinking about when I saw this was how absolute the city's action was. I do not know what she had planted, but it was possible that there were very important plants growing there. Our native plant species population is shrinking rapidly, and even though some may not be 'pretty' they may be vital for our future - and need someone to advocate for them. And once they are gone, they aren't coming back.

I think gardeners like Deborah have something important to contribute and are preserving plants we need. I hope there can be some way for both sides to learn and adapt in a positive way.

owner of garden appears to be a lazy hippie with a sense of entitlement. it's not too much to ask to remove dead animals, apply for the proper exemption, and have at least a little consideration for your neighbors.

This story reminds me of that nut job in the East Village who built that disgusting rat-infested tower on his little plot in the community garden and refuses to take it down b/c it's "his" land and he can do with it whatever he wants and by gum he's gonna hang filthy rotted stuffed animals and street detritus on his wooden tower of crap if he so pleases....

oh, and if she cared so much about the plants she was trying to preserve, she should not have been so cavalier about the issues she was having with the neighbors and the town. that is irresponsible.

Natural gardens are becoming more and more popular. In Chicago, even about 5 years ago, you hardly saw any, now they are common. There's at least 3 on my block. It's hard to tell from the picture how well kept this yard was--natural gardens can look awful from a distance but very nice up close--my guess is that either it's a lot less common in Toronto, or that the garden was just a mess of unkempt native plants, and the neighbors felt it was a health hazard.

Re natural versus unnatural (ie soulless suburban) gardens ... A friend of mine -- a highly stylish gal whose homes have been featured in The World of Interiors -- once lived in suburbia and had a wild front garden ... it was stupendous, with amazing flowers and grasses, et cetera, and so many fabulous birds as a result ... unfortunately, it was smack-dab in the center of a neighborhood full of telecommunications execs paranoid over their property values ... my friend eventually moved elsewhere, thanks in part to her neighbors' hubbub ... having grown up in various suburbias, I could sympathize, to a degree, with the benighted neighbors, but ... oh, the glory of my friend's front yard, and the back yard too, which was like a meadow, only with apple trees in full bloom ... ravishing ...

I think that selecting one's battles is always a good idea, so I think that being natural and everything is kind of admirable, the result is that it looks like the owner died intestate, and the neighbors probably feared for their own property values.

And seriously, since other people's perception is their reality, the city's view of things may seem harsh and horrible, but it is kind of understandable, even though they're being kind of creepy to just mow down her entire yard.

It's a version of emotional blackmail to make people put up with something that looks that disheveled in the front yard just by calling it natural.

So basically, I think both sides are wrong here; the city and the gardener.

That's shocking and horrible. Why is the aftermath an improvement? Why would ANYONE perfer the "after" picture, even the city?