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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Anonymous wrote:Isn’t that why we had a revolution 240 years ago - to get rid of English Ivy?
Anonymous wrote:I love English Ivy and Bamboo. I believe in freedom too.
Anonymous wrote:All landscaping, native or not, should be heavily, heavily taxed.
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.