We need to fine people for growing Invasive non native plants

[Anonymous]

Mary Cheh would get behind fining people for planting stuff in her front yard. She loves that kind of thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you look up the history of plants in this country, you’d be shocked at how different the local landscape looked 200 years ago.

Everything from the squirrels that were essentially imported to this town by a senators wife in the 1920’s, to the tree of Heaven that were brought from China over a century ago to the Russian olives…it’s interesting sht that no one really thinks about.

That said yeah it sucks, but English ivy is so common.

I always had happy memories of orange day lilies along country roads and I thought they were native because that is literally their name.

Whoops, turns out I was wrong, they’re invasive, and have no benefit to animals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All landscaping, native or not, should be heavily, heavily taxed.

THIS.

Landscaping, regardless of wether it’s “native” or not, reeks of privilege and conspicuous consumption. It’s just a display of wealth. And it should be taxed accordingly. If someone is willing to purchase plants and flowers and ornamental plants just to show off their “grounds”, then they need to also be willing to pay for their privilege. Poor and working families don’t have fancy yards. If UMC strivers want to, then they should be forced to pay extra for their display of wealth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love English Ivy and Bamboo. I believe in freedom too.

You people pronounce it “free-dumb”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t that why we had a revolution 240 years ago - to get rid of English Ivy?

No, that was so rich white men could avoid paying taxes. Everything from 1776 forward has been a crime against humanity.

[Anonymous]

People are such babies.

We bought a house with a bunch of invasive aenglish ivy. I do not know it was bad until a neighbor told me. Once a neighbor told me, the kids and I spent a couple weekends pulling it out (or cutting it with a saw or clippers where it was too thick to pull). It peeks up again from our side neighbor”/ yard and we spend 10-20 minutes a month policing that. Done. I consider this part of the responsibility of home ownership. If I had rats nesting in our yard that were spreading yuckiness to neighbors, I would take care of that as well and not just say “I didn’t put the rats there!” (PS rodents love English Ivy! Another good reason to pull it out.).

We honestly didn’t have a big problem with our neighbor’s bamboo. Our dog pulled out the shoots as soon as they came up. Once he died, we had a few come up and I just cut them down as they grew in to give to the kids to play with. The neighbor did finally pull it all out.

I come from a city (in the US! In the freedom loving West!) that had a lot of restrictions around planting non-native plants, in part due to water shortages. They did grandfather in older plants—for instance we had two olive trees that were grandfathered in and we didn’t have to pull them up after they were banned.

Some scout or other community groups sponsor Ivy pulls in the parks to help get rid of the invasive stuff. If I’m out walking with my dog, I pull it whenever he stops to pee or sniff. I figure it at least slows it down a bit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All landscaping, native or not, should be heavily, heavily taxed.

THIS.

Landscaping, regardless of wether it’s “native” or not, reeks of privilege and conspicuous consumption. It’s just a display of wealth. And it should be taxed accordingly. If someone is willing to purchase plants and flowers and ornamental plants just to show off their “grounds”, then they need to also be willing to pay for their privilege. Poor and working families don’t have fancy yards. If UMC strivers want to, then they should be forced to pay extra for their display of wealth.

+100

Couldn’t have said it any better

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All landscaping, native or not, should be heavily, heavily taxed.

THIS.

Landscaping, regardless of wether it’s “native” or not, reeks of privilege and conspicuous consumption. It’s just a display of wealth. And it should be taxed accordingly. If someone is willing to purchase plants and flowers and ornamental plants just to show off their “grounds”, then they need to also be willing to pay for their privilege. Poor and working families don’t have fancy yards. If UMC strivers want to, then they should be forced to pay extra for their display of wealth.

+100

Couldn’t have said it any better

Nice try, comrades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All landscaping, native or not, should be heavily, heavily taxed.

THIS.

Landscaping, regardless of wether it’s “native” or not, reeks of privilege and conspicuous consumption. It’s just a display of wealth. And it should be taxed accordingly. If someone is willing to purchase plants and flowers and ornamental plants just to show off their “grounds”, then they need to also be willing to pay for their privilege. Poor and working families don’t have fancy yards. If UMC strivers want to, then they should be forced to pay extra for their display of wealth.

Lol.


What's it feel like to wake up every day dumb as a sack of rocks? Planting flowers is now = privilege. Lololol lol.

[Anonymous]

Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All landscaping, native or not, should be heavily, heavily taxed.

THIS.

Landscaping, regardless of wether it’s “native” or not, reeks of privilege and conspicuous consumption. It’s just a display of wealth. And it should be taxed accordingly. If someone is willing to purchase plants and flowers and ornamental plants just to show off their “grounds”, then they need to also be willing to pay for their privilege. Poor and working families don’t have fancy yards. If UMC strivers want to, then they should be forced to pay extra for their display of wealth.

Go away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All landscaping, native or not, should be heavily, heavily taxed.

THIS.

Landscaping, regardless of wether it’s “native” or not, reeks of privilege and conspicuous consumption. It’s just a display of wealth. And it should be taxed accordingly. If someone is willing to purchase plants and flowers and ornamental plants just to show off their “grounds”, then they need to also be willing to pay for their privilege. Poor and working families don’t have fancy yards. If UMC strivers want to, then they should be forced to pay extra for their display of wealth.

Lol.




What's it feel like to wake up every day dumb as a sack of rocks? Planting flowers is now = privilege. Lololol lol.

Taking care of a green space and enjoying nature is one of the best therapies, especially during COVID times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All landscaping, native or not, should be heavily, heavily taxed.

THIS.

Landscaping, regardless of wether it’s “native” or not, reeks of privilege and conspicuous consumption. It’s just a display of wealth. And it should be taxed accordingly. If someone is willing to purchase plants and flowers and ornamental plants just to show off their “grounds”, then they need to also be willing to pay for their privilege. Poor and working families don’t have fancy yards. If UMC strivers want to, then they should be forced to pay extra for their display of wealth.

I respectfully disagree. Poor and working families can start growing vegetables and flowers in containers. Taking care of plants and observing nature is not a display of wealth. Public libraries have resources that teach how to start a container garden and do experiments with kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All landscaping, native or not, should be heavily, heavily taxed.

THIS.

Landscaping, regardless of wether it’s “native” or not, reeks of privilege and conspicuous consumption. It’s just a display of wealth. And it should be taxed accordingly. If someone is willing to purchase plants and flowers and ornamental plants just to show off their “grounds”, then they need to also be willing to pay for their privilege. Poor and working families don’t have fancy yards. If UMC strivers want to, then they should be forced to pay extra for their display of wealth.

I respectfully disagree. Poor and working families can start growing vegetables and flowers in containers. Taking care of plants and observing nature is not a display of wealth. Public libraries have resources that teach how to start a container garden and do experiments with kids.

While I appreciate your sincere response, the PP is just an obvious idiot that deserves to be ignored.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Most people couldn’t name most of the plants in their yard, let alone know if they’re invasive or not.
2. Most people buy or rent homes that already have plants growing there— they didn’t plant them.
3. Many invasives grow & spread without anyone intentionally planting them.
So fining people for having them is a really dumb idea. But educating people & encouraging them to plant native plants is helpful.

+1. I don’t know anyone who has intentionally planted bamboo- but I know of several who have it in their yard anyway and try to keep it at bay. It’s not easy.

I do know people who once planted bamboo to feed the panda bears.