City To Start Inspecting, Fining Those With Overgrown Lawns

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Everyone who neglects their lawn is crippled?

Why not hire someone to mow it then?

did i say that? i wasn't alluding to that. i was simply stating another possibility.

there are some people (disabled/elderly) who rely on others to do yard maintenance for them. sometimes, those people (the people who volunteer to do the work) aren't always available and some time can pass before the job gets done leading to tall grass, etc. the elderly and disabled don't always have the funds to hire someone to do the work and are on a fixed income, an income that just barely pays for food, utilities, taxes, etc. i don't think it's fair that they be financially punished and i think they should be exempt from city fines for these offenses.

i know that some will say that if they can't afford to cut the grass, they should sell their homes and move into something smaller and without grass to maintain but sometimes there is big emotional connection to these dwellings and detachment would invoke a feeling of "what little shred i had left, my memories, are all gone" or something along those lines.


i don't care if the city wants to fine able bodied lazy homeowners who just don't care but they should exempt from punishment those that can't manage due to physical issues.

 

[adma]

I think homes with big lawns are becoming something of the past. In an age where many people have no time or no interest in maintaining their lawns, many residential developers have eliminated big lawns from their subdivisions. Go to any so-called "new urbanist" subdivisions (such as Cornell) and one thing that you'll notice is the lack of big lawns. There is a small patch of grass in front, and a small yard in the back, but land that in older subdivisions would be take up by more grass is instead taken up by garages and back laneways.

I like this trend. Personally, I'm one of those lazy people who would rather do anything but mow the lawn. From an urban planning perspective, eliminating the lawn would allow low-density residential areas to be built with more density.

Actually, going through a big swath of modern Markham lately, I was appalled by the barren forlornness of most of those token front yard patches. They were oppressive and seemed to inspire no care whatsoever--no planting, no maintenance, nothing...

 

[Urban Shocker]

Who grows and manicures lawns these days? That's so Pleasantville - if it happens at all. The transformation of the front lawns on my street, for instance, into nicely landscaped flower gardens was gathering momentum before I moved there in '90, and it has changed the character of the neighbourhood in summer months. The same process is happening, here and there, all over town.

I agree with Supremo about exemptions for the elderly, the disabled, and the insane. The City makes arrangements to ( supposedly ) clear the snow from the sidewalks of elderly people in the winter; why not cut the grass on the part of their lawn that is City property in the summer?

 

[TonyV]

Can residents of Toronto fine the city for an unkempt "front yard" i.e. Nathan Phillips Square?

I just couldn't resist that! There seems to be some unabashed hypocrisy going on here. Or conversely, I wish the city administration would get a little bit "house proud".

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Can residents of Toronto fine the city for an unkempt "front yard" i.e. Nathan Phillips Square?

I just couldn't resist that! There seems to be some unabashed hypocrisy going on here. Or conversely, I wish the city administration would get a little bit "house proud".

Good one. You can always start a Facebook protest page, I'll sign it and forward it on

 

[adma]

Who grows and manicures lawns these days? That's so Pleasantville - if it happens at all.

But my point re the mutant spawn of Cornell is that *nobody's* doing *anything* with their miserly patches up front. They might as well eliminate the token green frontage altogether, and leave everything to the backside...

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

and with the the green hysteria these days, you'd think they'd be encouraging people to have long grass. surely there is an environmental benefit to having long grass and using lawnmowers and maintenance equipment less often.

 

[TonyV]

Good one. You can always start a Facebook protest page, I'll sign it and forward it on

Lovely idea but I don't do Facebook or any other online stuff--just this fantastic UrbanToronto forum --- that 's the whole schmeel. I spend a lot of time going out on the town and I spend my spare time practicing music ...

Please take the initiative if you will.

 

[Urban Shocker]

The City has been proudly allowing our parks to go "wild" over the past ten years or so ( witness the back-to-nature, weedy, transformation of Riverdale Park - especially the north end ), so the hypocrisy already mentioned rings true enough.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

The City has been proudly allowing our parks to go "wild" over the past ten years or so ( witness the back-to-nature, weedy, transformation of Riverdale Park - especially the north end ), so the hypocrisy already mentioned rings true enough.

but surely when they do it, it is because they're helping the environment. the long grass helps deal with water runoff, it provides oxygen, discourages weeds from growing, provides a habitat for wild butterflies and dwindling populations of honey bees and reduces the amount of pollutants released into the environment from grass cutting equipment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejvyDn1TPr8

 

[Urban Shocker]

I'm helping the environment too - my back garden's a jungle by mid-July and no bee or butterfly or ladybug is ever turned away. Few of my neighbours have much lawn to cut because we're all flower garden wraiths - and those who do mostly use non-polluting hand-mowers ( unlike the City ).

adma's Markham weed patch sightings remind me of the house style of Alexandra Park, which is mostly long grass ( and, in one case, a riot of colour provided by plastic flowers ). I don't find such forms particularly attractive, but they seem to represent a timewarped breakdown of interest in maintaining the old Pleasantville forms rather than adapting the new ones ( fleurs! raspberries! veggies! rhubarb! go green! grow - and eat - local produce!). I think the City should look to the future - promoting the growing of carrots rather than carrying and waving big sticks.

 

[Brian69]

As one who is sorely missing his green space these days, I stand in solidarity with those who promote free and independent use of private green space.

Cities can be too antiseptic at times.

 

[Eug]

Thats nuts...................And to rat your neighbour.

I ratted on the neighbour who let a house fall into ruins. (It was an owner who didn't live in the place.) I see nothing wrong with that.

Have you mowed your lawn yet this year? The amount of rain we've had over the past month has created prime grass growing conditions but take a trip into any Toronto neighbourhood and you'll find at least one - that lone home where the grass is growing like a weed and huge weeds are growing on the grass.

Weeds are a different issue. Once the dandelions have taken over (eg. previous owner) it can be very hard to control dandelions without pesticides. The flowers grow much, much faster than the grass, so even a good mowing means it's controlled only for a few days.

did i say that? i wasn't alluding to that. i was simply stating another possibility.

there are some people (disabled/elderly) who rely on others to do yard maintenance for them. sometimes, those people (the people who volunteer to do the work) aren't always available and some time can pass before the job gets done leading to tall grass, etc. the elderly and disabled don't always have the funds to hire someone to do the work and are on a fixed income, an income that just barely pays for food, utilities, taxes, etc. i don't think it's fair that they be financially punished and i think they should be exempt from city fines for these offenses.

i know that some will say that if they can't afford to cut the grass, they should sell their homes and move into something smaller and without grass to maintain but sometimes there is big emotional connection to these dwellings and detachment would invoke a feeling of "what little shred i had left, my memories, are all gone" or something along those lines.


i don't care if the city wants to fine able bodied lazy homeowners who just don't care but they should exempt from punishment those that can't manage due to physical issues.

Hopefully, they could look at this on a case by case basis.

OTOH, in the neighbourhood nearby, an unkept lawn often means the abode of an undesirable renter. There's one particular house that is in terrible condition, and the renters are always sketchy... and the lawn always looks terrible.

Then there are those who simply can't be bothered to cut their grass more than once a month. I like the colourful flower gardens too, etc., but those who are too lazy to cut their lawns once every two weeks definitely won't be maintaining a lawnless front-yard garden either.

 

[bleeepbluuup]

Weeds are a different issue. Once the dandelions have taken over (eg. previous owner) it can be very hard to control dandelions without pesticides. The flowers grow much, much faster than the grass, so even a good mowing means it's controlled only for a few days.

The dandelion is an awesome plant. Beautiful colour, beautiful when gone to seed, damn hard to kill and tasty in a salad. I love seeing them cover the ground with yellow in springtime; they're so bright and happy looking.

Why this obsession with short manicured grass monocultures anyway? Maintaining such an artificial state requires so much time, energy, water, fertilizers, etc...

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

The dandelion is an awesome plant.

these are nice too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_thistle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Milkweed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdock

and they require absolutely no effort.


i wonder if the human action of removing weeds actually strengthens species of such plants. artificial selection could do that.


you have a lawn with 200 dandelion plants, you remove all but five because their roots were stronger/deeper than the others. they survive and have descendants who inherit the same traits. next year, the descendants of the previous generation populate the lawn, all but seven are removed, their roots were stronger/deeper than the others. they survive and have descendants who inherit the same traits. next year, the descendants of the previous generation populate the lawn, etc. on and on. and it's not just uprooting that drives this. it's also drought, stepping on, chemicals, herbicides, etc.

i think human interference only makes them stronger. and for the same reason, i think grass lawns are so wimpy because of the constant care they are given. i'm sure there's grass species that could be artificially selected to grow a certain height and/or be drought tolerant.