Can a city legally force a homeowner to remove their garden? Hypothetical: a homeowner received a letter in the mail from the city stating that said homeowner is being ordered to keep their lawn mowed such that the lawn did not violate the city ordinance about maximum grass height. This hypothetical letter stated that if the homeowner failed to keep the lawn mowed that the city would have the lawn mowed for him and charge him for the mowing service. In general, I wonder if the city is allowed to dictate how that property should look, but in thish specific case the problem is even trickier... Hypothetically, the homeowner actually uses the plants that grow in the lawn. He considers the entire lawn to be a garden and uses the plants in it for various purposes, including but not limited to a food source. So there are several issues with the order received: The homeowner does not care what the neighbors think of the yard. He likes it the way it is and feels he should be able to keep it how he wants as long as it is not causing the neighbors any injury to their person or property. a. Does the city have authority to make demands based on personal opinions (even if held by the majority) about what looks pleasant? The homeowner wants to keep growing the garden. To him, it very much is a garden. a. Since it is a used garden, does that cause the city to lose any legal authority to do this which they may otherwise have had? The homeowner does not want some mowing service person destroying the garden. a. As soon as the homeowner notifies the city that this is a garden, does the city still have any legal authority to destroy that garden as they have threatened to do? The homeowner does not believe the lawn-garden is causing any injury to the neighbors or their property and not tall enough to harbor critters. Can the city legally compel someone to destroy their garden? This is considered from the point of view of the state of New York. Since that is (sort of) a yes/no question, if you need something broader to provide a good answer, perhaps consider: On what legal grounds can a city compel someone to destroy their garden? Does the city even need to provide a rationale, or are they legally justified by mere fiat? The closest case law I can think of was a case where a man had a sign on his property that a city ordered him to remove, but the court determined that the city had no authority to dictate what he could or could not write on his property. I don't think that case was New York, but I cannot find it again. Also that case may have been a first amendment issue which probably does not apply to gardens. Is there any law (case, state, federal, common, anything...) which could apply to the above scenario?
The city can do any of those things under any of the circumstances mentioned if a city ordinance duly adopted by the city council authorizes it to do so. A city may legislate by adopting any ordinances which do not violate its charter, state statute, the state constitution, or the U.S. constitution. If the city has any "rational basis" for its ordinance, which is an extremely low threshold that will not be found to be violated unless it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that it has been violated, then it is constitutional, since it does not impair any particular constitutional right. Aesthetic concerns are a sufficient rational basis to meet the rational basis test for constitutionality. None of those sources in New York State prohibits a city from imposing a lawn and garden care ordinance, or forces a city to allow someone to grow food at their residence. Destroying a garden is not a "cruel and unusual" punishment for violating a city ordinance under the 8th Amendment to the United States Constitution or its state constitutional equivalent.
In the United States, the government has, multiple times, destroyed homes while trying to catch a fugitive. And the homeowner sometimes makes a claim in federal court that this is an unconstitutional taking without compensation in violation of the 5th Amendment. In Lech v. Jackson, the 10th Circuit decided that the police and city were not liable for destroying a house while trying to arrest a criminal who had fled there. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case. But in Baker v. City of McKinney, Texas, less than 3 months ago, a district court declined to dismiss a case in which police destroyed a home to catch a fleeing criminal. Allegedly, in this case the police were given a key to the door, a garage door opener, and the code to the back gate by the homeowner - and instead of using those, they used explosives on the garage door and used a BearCat to knock down the fence and the front door. I'm not sure to what extent those facts, perhaps showing that the scale of the destruction was unnecessary, matter. To the best of my knowledge the case is still ongoing.
I have bad news. California's vandalism law prohibits maliciously: defacing property with graffiti defacing property with inscribed material damaging property destroying property Chalking the sidewalk probably doesn't sound very malicious, but maliciousness includes “an intent to do a wrongful act, established either by proof or presumption of law.” So the questions is whether you intended to do a wrongful act -- meaning that you intended to do the act, which happens to be wrongful, not that you intended to act wrongfully. So unless you drew on the sidewalk accidentally, the malicious-intent requirement isn't going to help you. So then you have to ask if your conduct is described by the statute. In Mackinney v. Nielsen, the Ninth Circuit said that sidewalk chalking did not violate the law, but California has since amended the law to add the "deface with graffiti" language. I haven't seen any chalk cases since then, but another case, In re Nicholas Y., from the Second District, dealt with someone who used a marker on a window. He argued that it could be easily erased, but the court said it was still vandalism because: it "mars the surface with graffiti which must be removed in order to restore the original condition" the definition of "deface" "does not incorporate an element of permanence" "marring of the surface is no less a defacement because it is more easily removed." Given that language, I'd argue that the vandalism statute includes sidewalk chalking. But one important element here is that most sidewalks are owned or controlled by the government, so any effort to restrict "expressive conduct such as writing with chalk" (Guilliford v. Pierce County) expressive activity" there must comply with the First Amendment. The government has varying degrees of latitude on the restrictions it can impose, depending on the character of the space involved. So in a courtroom, whose function is incompatible with free-wheeling public debate, a judge can set quite a few rules about how people may speak. But sidewalks are considered a "public forum," where the government's ability to regulate speech is a lot more limited. So how does the First Amendment apply? There's a D.C. Circuit case (Mahoney v. Doe) dealing with abortion protesters who wanted to use chalk on the streets and sidewalks outside the White House. Police told them they would be arrested for violating D.C.'s defacement statute, so they brought a First Amendment challenge. The court upheld the law, saying that it satisfied all three prongs of the public-forum test: The law must be content neutral, meaning that it prohibits conduct without reference to what is being said. The Court said the defacement statute was content neutral because people could be prosecuted regardless of what they wrote or drew. The law must be narrowly tailored, meaning that it serves a significant governmental interest and does not restrict more speech than is necessary to achieve that goal. The Court said the defacement statute was narrowly tailored because it served the government's interest in maintaining the aesthetic appeal of the area in front of the White House and didn't restrict any speech that does not deface public property. The law must leave open ample alternatives for communication, meaning that even if you can't express yourself in the way restricted, you still have meaningful opportunities to express yourself. The Court said the defacement statute law allowed adequate alternatives for communication because the group could still congregate, march, speak, hold signs, and hand out leaflets. There's an interesting wrinkle there in terms of whether the interest in aesthetics is heightened because we're talking about the White House, but generally speaking, aesthetic concerns can still justify speech restrictions. So the bad news is that unchaining your inner six-year-old may subject you to criminal liability. That leaves the question of whether you want to unleash your inner teenager and do it anyway. This could help put you in a frame of mind for making the decision.
I've gone through this enough times in Pennsylvania to paraphrase the law in this state: If a tree falls it's nobody's fault, unless the tree's owner was given credible advance notice that the tree posed an exceptional risk of failure, in which case the owner is liable for damage it causes if it fails. (For purposes of liability, a tree is "owned" by the owner of the ground where the trunk of the tree enters earth.) In the scenario you describe: A tree owned by your neighbor has not yet caused significant damage, but has been so structurally compromised that it poses an exceptional risk to your property. The standard course of action in such a circumstance is to promptly and formally notify the owner of that fact, and for the owner to remedy the risk. (In this case, it sounds like the only practical remedy is removal of the tree.) As a practical matter, the owner might be able to get an insurer to cover the cost of removal before it does more damage. But that's their problem. As a matter of expedience, you might also notify your insurer, since if the tree does end up causing significant damage to your property, you could subrogate your claim through your insurer. As a further matter of expedience: The township may have codes requiring landowners to address hazardous trees. Thus, if the owner does not promptly remedy the peril you could also notify the township.
In Vancouver, this provision is part of the Protection of Trees Bylaw 9958. The requirement for replacement trees is in Section 6 (PDF). In Toronto, trees are regulated under Section 813 of the Municipal Code (PDF). Private trees are discussed in Article III, which says that a permit is required to injure, remove or destroy a tree. Section 10 B says that as a condition of issuing the permit, the General Manager may require replanting or similar alternatives.
Approach the neighbor in your yard and ask him to leave. You are the tenant, you have full rights to do so. Once he refuses to leave he is a trespasser and you can call the police to take care of him, let alone if he makes any threats. Regarding the landlord, just ignore them and take care of the yard and the house as the lease terms bind you. Require them to give 24 hour notice before any appearance as the lease terms bind them.
Generally, if someone asks you to leave their property you have to leave*. Just because a place is owned by the public, doesn't mean anyone can go there any time they wish. Military bases, firehouses, and jails are owned by the public, but many of these have limited access to the public. It may be open to the general public, but that does not mean restrictions cannot be put into place, either on times, or activities, or individuals. For example, public parks often have time and activity restrictions; schools have the power to restrict individuals from their premises, either specifically or by general category. As a general point of law, the owner of any property, or their agent, can order anyone without the right to stay (e.g. not a co-owner or tenant), and that person must depart, otherwise that person is tresspassing. The Social Service Administrator is almost certainly an agent of the controlling entity that owns the property. Thus their demand that you leave the premises is enforceable, unless you have a non-revokable right to be in that space. *As user Justaguy points out there are some exceptions. Most notably, police can some times enter a property uninvited or against the owner's wishes (such as under emergency circumstances or with a warrant).
I am not a lawyer, I am not your lawyer, I am unfamiliar with the jurisdiction I demand you give me your hat! You're not going to, are you? The point of that is that you are not obliged to do anything just because someone demands that you do. Now, if I had a court order that required you to give me your hat ... It appears that there is some confusion over who owns some land in Nebraska. This is a problem; it is not your problem. From my understanding which is entirely based on this: A warranty deed is a type of deed where the grantor (seller) guarantees that he or she holds clear title to a piece of real estate and has a right to sell it to the grantee (buyer). you would be extremely unwise to sign such a deed since it is in no way clear that you (or anyone) does have clear title. Now I take it that you are not interested in owning land in Nebraska and even less interested in getting into a legal battle over it. If that is the case then I suggest that you consult a local lawyer and ask for his advice on the following plan of action: You and your wife will renounce any claim that you may have if: You do not guarantee that you have any claim or title, The person to whom you are making this grant indemnifies you against any legal action that may result, They will prepare the documents, Your lawyer will review them, They will reimburse you for your lawyer's fees. Come back and tell us how this works out. Edit to address subsequent questions Can you be responsible for costs? Well, anything is possible but it would be extremely unlikely. If there was any wrongdoing it was many years ago by someone else! If you approach this in a reasonable way and attempt to assist in reaching a resolution (so long as it doesn't cost you time or money) then it is highly unlikely a court would award costs against you. What about background checks? This would be a civil case. It would not appear in your criminal history. While it is a matter of public record all it really means is that you and someone else had a dispute that required a court to settle; happens all the time.