Yes, Your Home Garden Is Against The Law--If You Try to Sell Any of It
Here's one for my left-libertarian brothers and sisters, who like to emphasize how government crushes potential self-sufficiency and forces us into the heartless maw of wage slavery and corpocracy.
Bob Dylan, prophet for his generation: even your home garden absolutely is against the law--at least if you dare let any of its produce exchange for cash with a fellow inmate in the open-air prison of America.
From Sfgate with bad news from Oakland for those who seek self-sufficiency, in food or anything else:
Novella Carpenter took over a vacant lot on a hardscrabble corner of West Oakland eight years ago and turned it into a working farm of vegetables, goats, rabbits and, sometimes, pigs.
Carpenter milked goats, made cheese and ate much of the produce. She also wrote a popular book, "Farm City," about the experience and became an icon of the Bay Area's urban farming movement.
But the future of her Ghost Town Farm is in question. This week, Oakland officials suggested it may need to close. The reason: She sells excess produce and needs a costly permit to do so…..
The news stunned the region's urban farmers and their supporters, who questioned how a fundamental human task that goes back millennia could become illegal…..
The city planner who visited Carpenter's 4,500-square-foot plot at 28th Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Way said he sympathized with Carpenter, but the rules are clear.
Carpenter "is raising these things for a profit," said Chris Candell, a planner in the city's building department. "If you're doing this for your own home consumption, this would not be applied."
Though his report is not final, Candell said Carpenter probably has three options: pay for a conditional use permit, shut down the farm, or not change anything and face sanctions from the city.
The permit would probably cost several thousand dollars, Candell said, and Carpenter also would have to pay penalties for operating without such a license as she is now. Carpenter works about 25 hours per week at the farm and takes in only about $2,500 a year, before expenses……
Oakland is considered the center of the urban farming movement, with numerous nonprofits and individual farmers devoted to the cause. Sunset Magazine featured Oakland last year as a "town of the future" because of citizens' passion for the movement. Carpenter's farm was featured in the article.
But zoning regulations haven't quite caught up, planners and urban farmers say.
A conditional use permit might make sense for 40-acre farms, Finnin said, but not when the farm occupies one-tenth of an acre and beets sell for $2 a bunch.
Candell agreed that the zoning is outdated. But he said the rules nonetheless have to be followed.
"We've had (these rules) for 50 years or so, but we're stuck with them until they're changed," he said….
It pays to stay underground:
Carpenter said it has all been a learning experience. After starting out as a "squat farmer," she bought the plot for $30,000 in December. The previous owner sold it to her as a favor.
"It was so great squatting," she said. "I didn't have costs. I was a total renegade doing something totally illegal, but now that I'm a property owner, that's when they actually come down on me.
See for more on this kind of crap Reason magazine's April feature story on the war against food vendors.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Don't you know we have a budget gap to close?
Well if they're going to try and close on the back of Novella Carpenter that farm is going need to cover most of the northern hemisphere.
Moderate latitudes only of course.
Well, boo hoo to that quote anyway. It sounds like college leftist who whines the first time they see all of the taxes taken from their paycheck.
It was so much easier when you were trespassing on someone else's land? No shit. Rent was a lot easier when I was growing up in my parents' home.
I may be jumping to conclusions because this story comes from the Bay Area, but do you think we are seeing a libertarian in the making here, or someone who is going to call for another layer of government, perhaps advised by local "peoples comitees" in order to get her vision for what the city should be imposed on everyone?
Who tends the rabbits?
Goerge says I git to.
The city planner who visited Carpenter's 4,500-square-foot plot at 28th Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Way said he sympathized with Carpenter, but the rules are clear
The last refuse of every statist fascist. It's the rules, the rules, I can't apply judgement, the rules....
did I mean refuge? I'm not sure.
gardening without a permit, no way. basketball pole on a cul-de-sac, dangerous.
the law iz the lawz.
i brew beer at home and give some to my friends...do i need a permit since I am trading beer for their good will? am i participating in commerce?
If you abstained from doing so, this goodwill would be directed elsewhere; so either way, the modern answer is: yes you are.
I don't want to arrest you and take you to jail, but I will!
You're reducing demand for beer, thereby affecting interstate beer markets, so yes.
I don't Dunphy-hate, he seems like a nice guy, but he fell back on this in another thread today (I think it was the abortion one). He had to arrest this guy, because he was selling weed (had bags of it clearly marked for sale, etc.). Someone else immediately pointed out that he could have, 1) looked the other way, 2) found another line of work, 3) spoken with his supervisor about the situation, on and on. The Nuremburg "I'm just following orders" defense wears pretty thin.
sigh. first of all, i didn't arrest him for it. i charged him with it (or more correctly, sent the case to prosecutor's office for charging)...
with that in mind, i've addressed this before. we have relatively broad discretion for misdemeanors. iow, with a misdemeanor (mere possession) many of us DO look the other way for a guy with a couple of buds and stuff like that. in fact, i'd say it's more common than not.
however, with a clear felony "dealer" violation, i do not have that discretion.
but it comes down to this. no sentient cop imo can work as a cop, if they only enforced laws they agreed with. fuck, i disagree with tons of laws. if i catch a convicted felon with a handgun, he gets arrested, even if the felony was check forgery which IMO should not disqualify one from carrying.
part of living under the rule of law means we enforce laws we don't agree with.
the nuremberg meme is stupid. i draw a bright line distinction between murder, etc. and enforcing laws that are stupid as fuck (tm).
again, you have two options - ONLY clueless automatons become cops, OR you accept that if you become a cop you will necessarily enforce some laws you disagree with as a matter of policy, or in situations where you disagree with how they apply.
fwiw, we deal with this FAR FAR more often in "domestic violence" situations than anything else. under VAWA, in most cases even for misdemeanors we have almost no discretion. VAWA, and the war on domestic violence in general has been far more erosive of basic freedoms and fairness than the WODrugs could ever hope to be.
i work with people who run the political gamut. i have one sgt. who is a flaming liberal, for instance, and doesn't believe in concealed carry, and even wants the fairness doctrine brought back. great.
again, rule of law in regards to bad policy is NOT in any way shape or form the same thing as "the nuremberg" defense.
that is beyond silly hyperbole.
"the nuremberg meme is stupid. i draw a bright line distinction between murder, etc. and enforcing laws that are stupid as fuck (tm)."
And yet if he gets charged by the prosecutor and is sent to jail, it may be helping to destroy his life (now he has a record, will face employment discrimination, etc). He may be killed or raped in prison. It is hyperbole, but not nearly as much of one as you make out. The Nuremburg defense isn't strictly tied to genocide; in general it means the "just following orders" defense given as an excuse for any serious violation of rights.
You've explained fairly well (to me) why you don't believe you can only enforce the laws you agree with. But would that also not go towards jury nullification? Seems like the same concept to me. The jury should have to enforce the law as written, not acquit because they disagree with the law?
Additionally, this entire line of reasoning anticipates that you must be a police officer as your profession. I'm curious how you square your stated political beliefs, with the actions you take that violate those beliefs and can ruin someone's life (i.e. sending them to prison for victimless crimes)?
I actually faced this. When I first got out of the army, I wanted to be a cop, because that's what a lot of ex-military guys do. I was accepted to the Dallas PD (in the interest of full disclosure, I failed to get on at several suburban depts. and only applied at Dallas because they take a lot more people). I was supposed to start the academy a month later...but decided, in the end, that no matter how much I'd talked myself up, I just couldn't do it. I couldn't, in clean conscience, recommend someone for prosecution for selling a plant to someone else. That's me. I understand it's subjective. But I am curius to know your thoughts on it.
If Dunphy is holding the line 20% on libertarian issues, that's better than someone that's shitting in the pool, and I'll take it.
You've explained fairly well (to me) why you don't believe you can only enforce the laws you agree with.
You seem to want to argue anyway.
He's right, cops should enforce the law as it exists, anything else will degenerate into the kind of corruption rampant in the 3rd world and ultimately legalized extortion. I'm sure you will point out that we are headed in that direction now. The answer is to eliminate crappy laws, not turn enforcement into a crap shoot.
But would that also not go towards jury nullification?
Is Dunphy a judge?
Additionally, this entire line of reasoning anticipates that you must be a police officer as your profession.
Aren't we better with police officers that are attracted to the job for pay and perks instead of the power abuse opportunities?
cops should enforce the law as it exists, anything else will degenerate into the kind of corruption rampant in the 3rd world and ultimately legalized extortion.
Very very important point, and also points out the corrupting influence of the drug laws.
Laws should be simple, minimal and uniformly enforced.
The kind of corruption and extortion we have now in the West is no better.
If you havn't lived with the corruption and extortion in the third world, please do not attempt to compare them.
I actually agree with you about the rule of law. If you and your brothers only enforced what you wanted, it would cause much more injustice than otherwise (one guy gets arrested for pot, the other guy goes free because of the cop involved).
But, I find it a different situation in this story (Or the basketball hoops). These people are "breaking the law" but are not criminals, are not engaging in what would be normally considered criminal behavior. The state comes across as facsistic when it stops people who are minding their own business engaging in activities that are hurting no one and possibly helping someone.
There are many examples of shutting down activity over a rule that may not even been intended to cover this specific activity. A kid selling cookies without a permit, a hoop overhaning a street, a woman growing vegetables. These are good activities and are squashed by a bureaucrat because of some ordinance.
There are many examples of shutting down activity over a rule that may not even been intended to cover this specific activity. A kid selling cookies without a permit, a hoop overhaning a street, a woman growing vegetables. These are good activities and are squashed by a bureaucrat because of some ordinance.
And, as you said those cases are always caused by a power tripping bureaucrat, not a cop.
So, one person jailed for no crime is a greater injustice than two people jailed for no crime???
The people arrested for drug possession/dealing/smuggling/growing are no more criminals than the unlicensed gardeners or basketball hoop users.
The "normal" grotesquely distorted view of what constitutes criminal activity is the cause of vast and outrageous injustices, far worse than the one described in this story.
The State often "comes across" as fascistic because it is fascistic.
What is VAWA?
The Violence Against Women Act.
Guess who it discriminates against? 🙂
The entire premise of the law is that men are evil and beat women. It's essentially based on a quasi-Marxist gender theory.
"...ONLY clueless automatons become cops..."
That's pretty much how I see it.
Exactly.
Dunphy's own posts are empirical evidence that this is already the case.
How is it different, mister?
You just claimed that if you exercise personal discretion that it's bad. That therefore you must follow orders , even if you disagree with them.
How is that any different from the guys in Nuremberg?
Hell, if that marijuana salesman whose name you submitted to the DA decides not to show up at the trial you so helpfully arranged for him, what then? Would you arrest him on the Bench Warrant?
What if he tries to run? Would you use force to subdue him?
What if he resists? Would you kill him?
Honestly, I am kind of tired of your sophistry. The ethical thing to do is to not to participate
You cops have this inflated belief in how critical you are. Society got along with out you until less than 200 years ago. It would function quite well if you guys took up honorable trades like heroin dealing, pimping or being night security watchmen.
Order and peace are in no way dependent on the existence of police. To the contrary wherever law enforcement pokes its nose into things the violence ramps up.
Imagine if your predecessors had refused to enforce Prohibition? Would Al Capone have take over the markets from the Pabst family? Would Adolph Coors' workers and people working for Budweiser engage in shootouts with each other killing innocent people?
Sure, you didn't beat that marijuana salesman with an ax handle while shoving him into a box-car to be taken to a death camp. But you did participate meaningfully in a process that will cause him to be robbed of his property, possibly kidnapped and confined in a concentration camp and possibly even killed. And you did it despite the fact you didn't think your gang should be doing anything to this guy.
As Walter Block pointed out:
Honestly, you may think of yourself as a good guy, but you are not. Your actions are those of a man who hates freedom regardless of what your beliefs are. Quit your job and take up an honorable profession, and I will happily welcome you into the ranks of civilized men and women.
But so long as you ply your dishonorable trade, you'll be nothing but a joke, particularly to the sort of authoritarians who conceived the Violence Against Women act, whose orders you so dutifully carry out.
Your basically saying that if there is ONE bad law you disagree with the only option is to refuse to be a police officer.
That would almost certainly make it impossible to have police at all.
And I disagree with you aboutt he necessity of police.
In order to have laws that are uniformly enforced, you have to have an enforcement system that isn't dependent on the wealth, power, physical strength, or social connections of the individuals the laws are applied to. That's the role of having a professional police force and court system: to separate the rule enforcement mechanism from the victims and perpetrators, so that you can apply rules uniformly. Yeah, lots of time, individuals can exact their own justice through their own social networks and mechanisms, but it won't be "equal justice for all".
And it's not the police that are "sticking their noses" into the drug trade etc. It's the politicians and legislators.
There IS a point where police should step back and refuse to participate, but it doesn't begin at zoning code violations.
"That would almost certainly make it impossible to have police at all."
Then get rid of the laws.. I'm not seeing a problem here.
"That's the role of having a professional police force and court system: to separate the rule enforcement mechanism from the victims and perpetrators, so that you can apply rules uniformly. Yeah, lots of time, individuals can exact their own justice through their own social networks and mechanisms, but it won't be "equal justice for all".
The problem is our current 'rule enforcement mechanism' is made of human beings who will always look the other way or let something slide, depending on the circumstance and the individual. Cops choose which laws to enforce/ignore all the fucking time.
"Candell said Carpenter probably has three options: pay for a conditional use permit, shut down the farm, or not change anything and face sanctions from the city."
Well, to be pedantic, she could probably get away with giving it away.
As a former resident of west Oakland they could use another 100 of Carpenter.
Oakland needs more permit fee payments, eh?
Obviously Brian doesn't read the Morning Links.
I still think the lady looks like the bastard love child of Granny Clampett from the Beverly Hillbillies and Mr. Herbert from Family Guy
If there are more people growing produce/raising animals in Oakland, why not barter with them? That would get around the "selling for money" restriction. And by the very nature of bartering, there's no profit in the transaction.
And by the very nature of bartering, there's no profit in the transaction.
If "profit" by definition has exist as a form of currency, I guess.
Otherwise, you better be damn well sure I'm gonna try and get a favorable exchange for my pickled vegetables, regardless of the form of payment, be it pigs, cheese, etc.
to regulate. Obama's DOJ would enthusiastically prosecute.
The IRS disagrees. http://www.irs.gov/businesses/.....20,00.html
It's probably the same permit no matter how she trades. So she should just scale back her operation to grow just what she needs for her family's food. If she's only grossing about $200/mo., that's probably not much of a change in her operation.
Either that or switch to med mj, which is probably exempt.
And by the very nature of bartering, there's no profit in the transaction.
The gubmint disagrees.
Organized barter schemes are only legally viable if you use cash equivalent accounting for tax purposes.
An not I'm not endorsing that fact.
If she uses cash equivalent accounting, she should easily be able to net 0 if not a loss. She can run a very inefficient operation.
I suspect that is why she is only profiting 2,500 / year but able to buy the property.
I wonder if Ms. Carpenter thinks health insurance needs more regulation.
LOL
Oakland needs more permit fee payments, eh?
Oh, stewardess! I speak Oakland.
"100 of Carpenter" means "white settlers."
"Liberal" California that requires permits and fees just to take a dump. This state sucks.
If she paid $30,000 for the land and works on it 25 hours a week, how the hell can anyone figure that $2500/year before expenses is operating at a profit?
Jesus, talk about your Catch22. This lady was a squatter, then decided to become a property owner, but because of some retarded law she gets hassled by the POs anyway?
Speaking of squattting...
This is a question that's been gnawing at me for a while...what do you guys think of people squatting on government-owned land that is unused or going to waste?
I refuse to answer that question.
They'll have a hard time claiming adverse possession.
They can claim adverse possession...and then they will lose.
This is a question that's been gnawing at me for a while...what do you guys think of people squatting on government-owned land that is unused or going to waste?
My view is that government (state, federal and local) should not own 98% of the land they own. If they didn't then the problem of people squatting on it goes away.
Under Locke, you only get property when you mix your labor with the land, provided you leave as much and as good for others. If the land is vacant or unused, I don't see how it's ever been owned, whether public or private. Grow away.
So, owning land to conserve it is out? Assuming it were privately owned, would someone get to claim the grand canyon if the owner wants to keep it pristine because it looks so darned pretty?
*claim the grand canyon to build a parking lot
As long as you are able to defend the boundaries of the property you claim to own, and you got to it first, that should count as ownership under the labor theory. Your "labor" is preserving the land in your vision of its natural state. The key is how much land can you manage? The entire Grand Canyon, probably not.
As long as you are able to defend the boundaries of the property you claim to own
That's not a property right, it's might making right.
Property boundaries need to be defended. Either in court or by force. If you rightfully own the property, you are not the one who is initiating force when someone trespasses on it.
If there was a way to form some kind of "incorporation" of individuals, the entire Grand Canyon probably could be managed by such an entity.
You had me until "under Locke".
16th century philosophical question-begging and 21st century reality don't mesh well.
Will you continue to support your local politicians after this -- the ones who claim to be doing it for your own good?
"I'm a property owner, that's when they actually come down on me."
...those same politicians?
So long as they have a 'D' next to their name, you can almost count on it.
Soon enough she'll be telling everyone how wrong she was for trying to make some money.
The city planner who visited Carpenter's 4,500-square-foot plot at 28th Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Way said he sympathized with Carpenter, but the rules are clear.
Wait until the Health Department shows up. And the FDA. And the Farmworkers Union. And...
...they force her to buy liability and workers comp insurance.
but now that I'm a property owner, that's when they actually come down on me.
She made the amateur mistake of thinking she owns the property she has deed to.
The city planner who visited Carpenter's 4,500-square-foot plot at 28th Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Way said he sympathized with Carpenter, but the rules are clear.
Give me a month of investigation and I can can find a city planner breaking land use and open meeting laws.
Make no mistake to enforce land use regulations and not enforce land use regulations are always choice by land use planners.
They are not simple guardians enforcing the law of the land. If they are after you it is because they choose to get on your ass, and their intent is malicious and never sympathetic.
After starting out as a "squat farmer," she bought the plot for $30,000 in December. The previous owner sold it to her as a favor.
My guess is this is what got the planing department on her ass. She or the original owner of the land probably discovered that the lot was created on some 100 year old plat and now the planning department is supper fucking pissed that the land owner sold it without going through a subdivision process.
She was apparently turned in by some animal rights-vegetarian type neighbors that were appalled that she actually raised rabbits for meat. Eating meat is still legal, so they dropped the dime on her for anything else they could think of.
That would imply planners give a shit about community or neighbor's complaints.
No, sorry, the city planner was motivated.
Fuckers
See, THERE are the shit bags people should be hating on, not the police.
How is this different than if the animal rights activists had turned her over for marijuana possession, say?
No different, but they would still depend on the help of the State's evil minions. Some of us can spare enough hate for ALL kinds of shitbags.
I am appalled that she actually raised rabbits for meat. I am much more appalled by those government actions.
"I am appalled that she actually raised rabbits for meat."
Why?
Candell said Carpenter probably has three options: pay for a conditional use permit, shut down the farm, or not change anything and face sanctions from the city.
Or enlarge her household to include her customers.
Are there no orphanages?
The news stunned the region's urban farmers and their supporters, who questioned how a fundamental human task that goes back millennia could become illegal.....
What, they couldn't think of any other of humanity's oldest professions that have become illegal?
+1
My sense is that Ms Carpenter is perfectly happy to regulate the shit out of everyone else, but now feels deeply agrieved that the Regulator's axe is on her neck.
Allow me to explain 'blowback', Ms Carpenter.
It's more karma than blowback, since the party wronging her is not directly related to the party she wronged.
I was torn between 'karma' and 'blowback'.
I was thinking more on the level of "you vote for more regulation, you are going to get more regulation", ie: her own choices were part of the cause of her problem.
I always ask my liberal friends what they would do, or how they would feel if the government tried to "control" them. I generally don't get an answer.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess she voted for these morons, if so, fuck her. She wants to vote in such as way as to put the government yoke on everyone else, let her suffer the same fate.
Here's what she has to say about it. Check it out:
http://ghosttownfarm.wordpress...../#comments
I live in East Oakland (A very nice part, yeah they do exist), and I see this little plot pretty often. Basically, MLK and Telegraph between downtown and about 40th St is a shithole, and this little farm is one of the few nice spots in the area. This is a damned shame. This is just one of many examples of Oakland's bad governance. I love this city, but the damn city government is incompetent, damn near malicious and corrupt as hell.
It's been going down the tubes since Jerry Brown left the mayor's office.
The city's governance has only gotten worse, but the city itself is only getting better by the year. Tons of the gangbangers moved up to Antioch and Vallejo. Crime's way down. There are also loads of upstanding professionals coming into these marginal neighborhoods and building some decent communities where they were hollowed out by the drug trade and drug wars. The Medical MJ movement for all of it's silliness, has been a welcome addition to this town. Again, not all of West Oakland sucks, but the area where this garden is is terrible (largely due to the free clinic not 5 blocks from here and all the zombies who hang around it). It's a shame this little place is probably going to get shut down.
The city's governance has only gotten worse, but the city itself is only getting better by the year. Tons of the gangbangers moved up to Antioch and Vallejo. Crime's way down. There are also loads of upstanding professionals coming into these marginal neighborhoods and building some decent communities where they were hollowed out by the drug trade and drug wars. The Medical MJ movement for all of it's silliness, has been a welcome addition to this town. Again, not all of West Oakland sucks, but the area where this garden is is terrible (largely due to the free clinic not 5 blocks from here and all the zombies who hang around it). It's a shame this little place is probably going to get shut down.
Suppose the lady gives away her excess produce for free, but has a cup marked "voluntary contributions".
I seem to recall that a restaurant in Kitchener Ontario Canada tried this a few years ago and by reports at that time it did quite well.
I wonder how the tax department would view this?
That's done in a lot of cases to avoid legally selling stuff. It'd be best if she incorporated as a not-for-profit educational entity, which it appears is what her purpose was anyway. I suggest she get a sec'y and a treasurer for perfunctory meetings and set up a congreg'n of the Universal Life Church, although it may be just as easy in Calif. to start her own church or a secular organiz'n.
What I don't know is if there'd be any problem with the local health dept. if she even gave food away. She might have to label everything as not being for human or animal consumption. Since the idea is to demonstrate how to do stuff anyway, not to actually produce goods for others, that's perfectly reasonable. What they do with it is then their own problem.
A simpler solution for her would be to EITHER acquire "charitable non-profit organization" status, and "contribute" the excess produce to a local charity (which could then make an "in-kind contribution" to HER "organization", in the form of seeds, fertilizer, other farm needs, etc.), OR to convert into a "co-op" form of organization, which in many jurisdictions is exempt from the "for-profit" licensing requirements, and may sell the excess production (beyond the requirements of the co-op membership) to the public at calculated cost of production basis.
Either way, she needs a good lawyer - and quite possibly already has one, would be my bet.
"We've had (these rules) for 50 years or so, but we're stuck with them until they're changed"
Gotta love that use of the passive voice. Who changes the laws? The Great God in the Sky? Oh, what's that, the lawmakers? Also, doesn't law enforcement have an option not to enforce the laws that aren't practical to enforce?
Gardens in urban yards are once again becoming popular. These city gardens are often touted as a way to conserve money. Some enterprising farmers, however, are trying to turn backyard gardens into full-fledged, profitable farms. Here is the proof: Doing the math on urban farming
Your post is really good providing good information. Food for fertility I liked it and enjoyed reading it.Keep sharing such important posts.Natural laxative foods