City Destroys 10 Year Old Natural Garden

what a shame

Seriously, though. That does just look like she let wild ferns take over her front yard. It is reasonable that a man should be able to walk down the sidewalk without having to check himself for chiggers.

Well, that's pathetic. I hope the city offers her some manner of recompense.

Perhaps this should be added to the Right to Dry campaign momentum. I don't know what it would be called though. Pass the Grass? Right to Rye?

This is a real shame, especially considering the time she put into it.

My question is, how does the application process for a natural garden go? Did she inform the government of her intentions before the complaints started coming in? Did she inform the neighbors? I'm not saying that what they did was right, I'm just curious as to how this came about.

My sympathies to Ms. Dale. I hope she finds some kind of reimbursement for this.

I like the wild look, personally.

However, I'd like to point out... the white balance in the photographs have been adjusted to make the top photograph look more warmer and the bottom one colder (pleasing / less pleasing).

Even if it was an eyesore (and it's hard to tell from just that one photograph), she should have been notified in advance about any complaints lodged against her and then she should have had the chance to address the city's concerns. Just showing up at someone's house in the middle of the day without warning, destroying private property, then leaving without some official notice of action taken sounds criminal behavior on the part of the city to me.

While in college 20 years ago I worked summers for City of Toronto property department. Our job was to cut overgrown property. We never acted unilaterally to cut private property and we saw many natural gardens. Problem is, it only takes one complaint whether it's impeding the walkways or pollen allergies to set the (cutting) wheels in motion.

one more thing....we ALWAYS gave property owners 2 or 3 notices about complaints before proceeding with cutting.

Just out of curiosity...

Does she own the strip of land on the street-side of the sidewalk? (with the utility pole on it)

I cannot believe how awful this must have felt.

I also cannot believe that there is a lawn height bylaw.

This needs fixing, right away...

The garden was very beautiful. The one photo says so to me. I get so pissed off when I hear that some retarded SOB decides that things like this are an eyesore.

Maybe the city had a right to cut by the street, but they certainly do not have the right to trespass.

That's no garden. In Texas, we call that weeds, and this idiotic woman is just plain lazy. There is a whole world growing wild, people don't need to do it in their front yard.

This really is too bad. Natural gardening is such a wonderful undertaking. There are several of these gardens that grow very close to where I live (uptight suburbia) and nothing but praise is spoken! I can certainly understand and appreciate the city's concerns about aesthetics, however, sending a letter before taking action might have been a bit more civil than taking such destructive actions. Grr!

That is just awful.

Post by Brad "It is reasonable that a man should be able to walk down the sidewalk without having to check himself for chiggers."

The plants were actually not impeding the sidewalk too much, from what that picture shows. If they WERE, why not just trim it back a foot or two (after giving fair warning to the owner). There is no need to destroy the entire yard.

Really there should be a law that you can only cut a maximum 20% of your yard to encourage biodiversity in the city. This is ridiculous.

and Brad what do you think gives you the right to expect to walk down the sidewalk without having to check for "chiggers". Art though holier than thy fellow earthly life forms?

Are there any lawyers reading who can speculate on this?

What a tragic and terrifying crime! Not just for this womans life and the environment she was supporting, but as a symbolic act against the community as well!

I hope that at a minimum she wins some recompense and the corrupt law is reversed.

In my city, the "Weeds" are specifically prohibitted by species, although I don't know how they decide that a dandylion is a weed and a tiger-lilly is not.

Has anyone seen the movie/cartoon "Over the Hedge"? This reminds me of that hysterical fanatic Gladys Sharp woman (President of the Homeowners Association) that phones her neighbours when their lawn is 2.5 inches high instead of 2 and who wants to kill every little furry thing (except her cat) that crosses her lawn.

It's pathetic and so narrow-minded. Life isn't perfectly square and clean and we don't live in a robot world yet.

Dee Lightly commented:
"the white balance in the photographs have been adjusted to make the top photograph look more warmer and the bottom one colder (pleasing / less pleasing)."

I don't actually think that's the case - in the top photo, the road is wet as if after a rain. As far as I can tell, that's the only difference. Perhaps the bottom photo would look warmer and more pleasing after a light rain...? Nah, it would still look awful.

This is a tragedy, and my sympathies go out to the gardener whose work and care was so brually violated.

My deepest sympathies for your loss. I live to the south in Minnesota and have had neighbors always complain about what they think are weeds. A little gardening knowledge of these morons astounds me.

We live in a rock mulch and HD shrub world. What about all the bees, birds, and butterflies that depend on that ecosystem.

Shame Shame on your city and neighbors.

"[...] In Texas, we call that weeds [...]"

So much for avoiding stereotypes about Texans.

Bob said: "That's no garden. In Texas, we call that weeds, and this idiotic woman is just plain lazy. There is a whole world growing wild, people don't need to do it in their front yard."

Well Bob, sad to hear that nature offends you so much. I'm in Texas too and I see nothing wrong with natural growing gardens.

And as for "lazy," she was growing specific plants for the North American Native Plant Society. The garden had purpose.

What makes green carpet so right and greens growing to their natural height so wrong?

CITY DESTROYS VALUABLE NATIVE PLANT GARDEN

For the past ten years, Deborah Dale, a director and past President of
the North AmericanNative Plant Society, has cultivated a native plant
garden, both on her private property and on the city-owned boulevard
in front of her Scarborough home. Tuesday evening, August 21st, she
returned home to find that the
entire garden had been destroyed and the plant material removed from
the site. She immediately called the Toronto Police Service to report
the vandalism, but to her surprise has since learned that City of
Toronto staff were responsible for the destruction.

Ms. Dale has spent years acquiring unique and rare native plants which
she has grown in her garden, in addition to promoting the use of
native plants to gardeners across North America. Some of these plants,
like Butterfly Milkweed, took years to reach the blooming stage, and
many may not be easily replaceable.

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 - a sign which Ms. Dale had purposefully placed
in her garden to educate the public and communicate her strong
environmental beliefs.

This destruction happened without any notice from the City. Ms. Dale
had received an advisory of a neighbour's complaint in the spring of
this year and at that time advised the by-law officer that her's was a
native plant garden, and therefore she was entitled by law to tend it
under the exemption given to natural gardens under the City's Grass
and Weeds By-law, Chapter 489-2, section B(2). At the time of the
spring 2007 complaint, she offered to show the by-law officer the
garden, but has subsequently not heard anything further from him.

There was no long turf grass in the garden, and none of the plants
were noxious weeds under the Ontario Weed Control Act. In fact, there
were no grounds whatsoever for destroying Ms. Dale's garden under
Chapter 489 of the Toronto Municipal Code or any other laws. The
City's actions were contrary to their laws, and even to their own
policies which encourage the growth of natural gardens as an
alternative to traditional lawns.

Despite this stated policy, the City has a history of threatening to
destroy homeowner's native plant gardens. A recent precedent-setting
court cased launched by a Toronto gardener against the City of Toronto
resulted in the Courts affirming the Charter-protected rights of
gardeners to tend natural gardens on the city-owned street allowances
in front of their homes. The City of Toronto has flouted this recent
court decision in destroying Ms. Dale's garden.

It took years to build the garden, and much of it is irreplaceable.
Ms. Dale is now considering legal action against the City for its
unwarranted and illegal action.

alex says: "Art though holier than thy fellow earthly life forms?"

Yes. Humans are more important that any other life forms. Other life forms should be reasonably respected, but placing other creatures/plants as equally as, or more, importnant as/than humans makes environmentalists seem to have bad judgement.

No matter that, the city should not have trespassed past the standard easement without a court order, no matter what laws the city might make. If city employees came past the easement and started tampering with my property while I was at home, they would be told to leave, at gun point if necessary.

Those people should be ashamed of yourselves.
Are they going to send Ms. Dale a bill for destroying a beautiful natural garden?
This reminds me of a Radio Canda piece I heard on 95.1 today. A rural town in Kamouraska
has decided to remove the Hydro and Bell poles and bury the utility cabling. An opponent's
comment was: "Where will the birds perch now?" The answer is, in the trees that will be
replanted which were cut down to make room for the utilities.

It's the freaking city. If she wanted to grow a forest then she should have lived in the countryside or something. Be a little more reasonable, her house isn't the only one there. People have to walk through that all the time.

There's also something called a greenhouse. And um, how about trying to grow a natural garden in the backyard? Where you're the only one who needs to deal with it.

I would think twice before attempting to go through that.

Again, it's the CITY. There's really only space for trees, grass, and parks.

YT >>Again, it's the CITY. There's really only space for trees, grass, and parks.
You are joking, right? There was PLENTY of room on her lawn for a diverse planting of native wildflowers and they were not doing anything to anyone else. Her land = her garden. Whether in a city, the suburbs, or country - she has the right to plant it as she saw fit.
I personally find turfgrass monoculture lawns to be boring, ugly, and environmentally offensive -- but you don't see me filing grievances against my neighbors with the authorities.

This sad story has been repeated in cities and suburbs everywhere. A Buffalo man was nearly driven out of town for maintaining a wildflower garden in his front yard.

And I'm not surprised that it happened in Toronto. Green is big, but so is CLEAN there. And this would not be a clean look ifor many of the powers-that-be there.

But, really, it could happen anywhere. Gardens like this make a lot of people very uneasy.

Thank you for all your kind wishes! As for the "lazy gardener" comment...who ever said propogating, planting, rescuing, purchasing from ethical local sources was easy? I still had almost 50% of the front yard maintained as turf grass to allow access to the beds for weeding. I had not edged the beds this year...but the plants formed their own recognizable border.
The first photo was taken the week the Complaint Advisory was received by me...sometime shortly after June 29th. The second...at the end of the what I've heard called the worst drought since 1959. It rained heavily just 2 days later, sadly too late for my plants to enjoy.
The City is now threatening my backyard woodland garden...which was in the midst of having a stream/pond installed. It too contains a range of native plants..although confined to areas away from the hardscaping work...including bloodroot, blue cohosh, various ferns, wild ginger, tall coneflower, pagoda dogwood..."dense underbrush"
Please let Toronto's mayor hear your views before more natural gardens are destroyed!
E-mail: mayor_miller@toronto.ca
Mail:Toronto City Hall, 2nd Floor, 100 Queen St. West, Toronto ON M5H 2N2
Phone: 416-397-CITY (2489)
Fax:416-696-3687

Two precedent-setting court cases support Ms. Dale's Charter-protected right to tend her natural garden on both private property and on the city-owned road allowance in front of her home: one in 1997 and one in 2002/2003, both launched against the City of Toronto by Toronto natural gardeners.

Ms. Dale was completely within her rights to tend a natural garden on her personal private property and on the city-owned road allowance (that portion of the garden between her property line and the roadway).

The first (private property) was tested in the Ontario courts when a Toronto gardener, Ms. Sandy Bell, took the City to court for the right to tend a natural garden on her private property. Ms. Sandy Bell won the right in 1997, protected by the freedom of expression clause in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to express her environmental beliefs through the planting of a natural garden on her private property -- a precendent (the first time in Canada that environmental beliefs were recognized as a Charter-protected form of expression).

Ms. Bell's victory in 1997 resulted in the City being forced to provide an exemption for natural gardens in the City's grass and weeds bylaw, the very bylaw cited against Ms. Dale which resulted in her garden being removed on August 21, 2007.

The second court challenge (city-owned boulevard) was tested in 2002 and 2003.

In 2002, the Ontario Superior Court, (and later the Ontario Court of Appeal in 2003), upheld the rights of gardeners, to tend a natural garden on the city-owned road-allowance in front of their homes when my father and I took the City of Toronto to court to protect the native plant garden that we had planted in memory of my mother on the city-owned road allowance in front of our house. This was the first time that the courts had recognized the rights of citizens to express their environmental beliefs on public land -- again, a precedent.

Ms. Dale's Charter-protected right to tend her garden on her private property and on the city-owned boulevard was grossly denied when the City took aggressive action on August 21, 2007, removing her native plant garden from both her private property AND the boulevard in front of her home.

Furthermore, the judge in Sandy Bell's case stated in his decision: "As between a total restriction of naturalistic gardens and causing some offence to those people who consider them ugly or inconsiderate of others' sensibilities, some offence must be tolerated."

Ms. Dale's garden was removed without just cause.

Thanks to everyone for their interesting and often very informative comments and to the author for the original post. A year ago I wrote an article for the online magazine Terrain about some of my experiences as a natural landscaper and particularly about trying to deal with the hostility and fear natural landscapes seem to produce in some people. Believe it or not, the article is funny (and it's not just my mother who says so); if you're interested in these issues you might get a laugh out of it. You can still find it at
http://www.terrain.org/essays/18/johnson.htm
(I'm sure there's a way to make that into a link, but I don't know how, so I'm afraid you'll have to cut and paste. Sorry.)
"Wild" Flora

Me again. (Sorry.) This post caused me to re-read an old article, which made me want to quote this:

"A surprisingly large number of homeowners seem to think that nature wants them dead. This is reflected in a large number of questions that a natural landscaper must learn to answer cheerfully and with a show of sympathy for the anxiety that lurks beneath.

"Will a natural landscape cause allergic reactions, make the home vulnerable to forest fires, or attract criminals who will lurk in the shrubbery and mug/rape/murder anybody who walks by? Will children or pets be scratched by thorns or poisoned by delicious-looking (but deadly) berries? How about venomous yellow-and-black insects (referred to almost universally as ‘bees,’ although only some of them are)? Won’t they sting and, as day follows night, bring on respiratory failure followed by cardiac arrest? How about snakes? Bats? (Snakes and bats don’t have to do anything; their mere existence causes fright.) How about rodents? What’s the name of that disease you can get from mice? Avian influenza hadn’t hit the headlines when I was doing this kind of work but I’m sure that birds have now joined the list of potential assassins.

"Now, the hazards these homeowners fear are mostly real, and a well-behaved natural landscaper is quick to say so. But they are unlikely. Except in rare circumstances, you are about as likely to be killed by a natural landscape as by any other environment in which you find yourself (except possibly your bathroom—which, according to reports, is a lot more dangerous). There is no more reason to worry about being killed by your naturalized front yard than to worry about being run down by a car when you step into the street. Yet even the most devil-may-care pedestrian may blanche at the thought that planting a flower might, in turn, attract a ‘bee.’

"... Let me make just one point before moving on: A manicured landscape can be as hazardous as any other. Many of these hazards involve the very pesticides, herbicides, and power tools used to keep these spaces looking—and I use this word in its most ironic, air-quotes sense—safe."

http://www.terrain.org/essays/18/johnson.htm

I emailed The Mayor of Toronto (mayor_miller@toronto.ca) to express my outrage, and to express my concern about such outdated bylaws:

"The City's 20-cm maximum height bylaw is clearly outdated and pathetically ignorant of the realities we face today.

If Torontonians are to gain consciousness of issues about environment etc., the City needs to lead perception of how to encourage greenness, rather than enforce outdated ideas which lead to reduction of biomass inside the urban zone.

I urge you to meet with those who are responsible, and encourage them to change how they see the world we live in so such travesties cannot happen again."

I got back a canned response in a very few minutes from the bureaucrat who enforced the mowing, a Mr. Bill Blakes (bblakes@toronto.ca), which basically justified the "Long Grass & Weeds" by-law, and which in no way addressed the broader concerns I have put forward.

It would seem that the Toronto Mayor's office is far more interested in damage control rather than the real issues which they have advertised about environmental issues here.

They talk the talk, but they certainly don't seem at all able to walk the walk.

This is so backwards. It's those who keep overgroomed, sprayed, watered grass lawns that should have to seek special permission to do what they're doing. And what a waste of tax dollars to put city staff on a job like this.

"That's no garden. In Texas, we call that weeds, and this idiotic woman is just plain lazy. There is a whole world growing wild, people don't need to do it in their front yard."

In Texas, we call you a redneck, or a dumb hick, or just trash!

"That's no garden. In Texas, we call that weeds, and this idiotic woman is just plain lazy. There is a whole world growing wild, people don't need to do it in their front yard."

You say she is lazy but she spent years cultivating this garden.

We could look at this problem from many angles, but I still think a garden cannot/shouldn't always fit into the same "perfect" aesthetic properties we, by default, give it.

Take art for an example. There is beautiful, clean art styles, that try to reach perfection; like classicism, and there's also bold art style, that depict the natural way of things, like realism or impressionism. Those two styles were depicted as horrible and disgusting in the period they came to be. But now we see them as beautiful decorative and historical wonders.

The leading artists of these movements are now famous because they did something that was different. People did not understand them back when they were alive. But I bet you if they were still alive, they would curse themselves for not seeing the beauty in those art pieces and buying one.

So look at that garden not as overgrown grass. But as something different that puts livelihood in the neighborhood.

"If city employees came past the easement and started tampering with my property while I was at home, they would be told to leave, at gun point if necessary."

Canada doesn't need American solutions to Canadian problems. That's why the friendly guy at the border asks if you have any weapons before he lets you in.

The city should have undertaken a dialog about the issue. They apparently didn't.

"Take art for an example. There is beautiful, clean art styles, that try to reach perfection; like classicism, and there's also bold art style, that depict the natural way of things, like realism or impressionism."

But I'll bet the Texan's idea of art is Elvis painted on black velvet, purchased at Mall*Wart.

There's one thing missing from this discussion: peak oil and global warming, both of which are going to put a crunch on food supplies in the near future. I'll bet that within 20 years, cities are going to have bylaws requiring people to grow food on their city and suburban lots. The city should be rewarding those who are addressing biodiversity.

More power to you, Deborah! Keep up the good work!

Bob, I am from Texas too. It seems that I have you for a neighbor. You are the one that sprays "Roundup" along our shared fence so that my cucumbers and climbing roses die because you don't want these weeds on the fence line not to mention the brown dead void created by it. You are the neighbor that broadcasts weedkiller and pre-emergents uphill from my yard so that when it rains it goes right through mine. You are the one that is more interested in having the putting green, water guzzling, weed-free carpet of grass than a natural, organic drought resistant garden that is also home to birds, bugs, toads and other critters. So Bob; quit being lazy yourself and open your mind a little.

This stinks of municipal dung.

What kind of law is praticed in Toronto?

Napoleonic Law:Guilty until proven innocent?

British Law: Inncoent until proven guilty?

If the landscape was removed without notice, the municipality should pay the woman for HER work AND to restore HER garden, make a sizeable donation to NANPS, and provide some land at no charge for local NANPS volunteers to grow plants for seed as they had planned.

What the municipality left was BUTT-UGLY!!!!!!!!!

Did she apply for the exemption? It doesn't say she did.

I'm sure some of my fellow gardeners and nature lovers would lynch me for saying so, but that garden does look like an abandoned yard in the first photo.

From the picture it is for sure that Dole didn't take care her plants at all. No matter it is Natural or artificial, you need make it neat and in order. It should not be an excuse for lazybone.

To all these people that call her lazy, and want neatness and order.
Don't you guys understand that human idea of neatness and order is the VERY antithesis of a natural, wild garden?
Or are you just as brainwashed as that redneck from Texas?
Because truly, I don't see any difference between you.

The city has environmental days, wants everyone to plant trees and to have a green Toronto. But when someone takes the time, and effort and cost of helping the enviroment, by saving endangered plants and helping native butterflies and birds, eg. goldfinches and all sorts of beneficial insects to survive. The city comes along and cuts it down.

Then they reward the person who complained by making you plant grass, use fossil fuels to cut grass, and then they complain if you put the grass cuttings out with your garbage.

The city wants you to restrict water usage, but grass needs lots of water, fertilizers and killex to kill the weeds and and insects, and the birds that eat the insects.

I don't see anyone complain about all the signs on the neatly cut lawns do not walk on lawn pecticide use.

The city and most people spend millions of dollars on a crop of grass that is full of cancer causing chemicals, and then no one wants the grass.

What should I do with the corp of grass I am forced to grow each season.

What makes Ms. Dale feel that she is justified in creating a space that is most probably offensive and devaluing to her neighbours and their properties? By chance did Ms. Dale ask her neighbours or foot passersby if they or their children suffered from allergies that may be worsened by a naturalized area prior to planting several varieties of milkweed and other pollen emitting weeds to flourish? Or did Ms. Dale live there prior to any of the other homes and families? Surely she did not implant herself in a neighbourhood that she found unappealing and then attempt to change everyone’s surroundings to please herself…
I'm just wondering where individual "right" outweighs that of the masses.
Personally, I like the cozy feeling of being surrounded by high stances of native species… so I live in the country. When the holier than thou, self serving, pushy attitude of people like Ms. Dole and others like her meet resistance (or lawn-mowers), the personal insults fly. What an unbelievably juvenile thread.

Personally I think her natural garden was was an eyesore. I particularly note that she had 4 varieties of milkweed, that plant spreads to other properties like a wildfire. I am glad that the city removed it.
It is stated she spent a lot of time tending to the garden, bullcrap, it was just an overgrown mess.