This is from a comment thread on Dave Bangert’s piece, Hanna’s past mourned, as $10.2M Right Steps project moves forward
Zachary Baiel
Mar 3
Ha! And now Lafayette wants to aggressively manage everyone’s lawns, too.
Reading through the ordinance, the weeds definition is overly broad and almost impossible to enforce.
“Weeds means vegetation that is not intentionally planted or maintained…”
And the nuisance definition is so broad that if someone doesn’t like the way you manage your landscaping, ten inches in height or no, you could be in violation:
“It shall be unlawful for the owner, occupant or lessee of any lot or parcel…to allow lawn grass, weeds or other unmanaged vegetation to cover any portion of their premises or to grow or mature to a height exceeding ten (10) inches.”
Is this the start of the Greater Lafayette Dandelion Wars?
Angel Valentín, Wabash Township Trustee
Mar 3
I firmly believe that leveraging local experts like WREC, NICHES, Purdue Extension, etc. will make these reworked ordinances very successful. Twps already have, more or less, a blanket mandate to do this as each individual Trustees sees fit anyway. Having more permissive, well-defined rules in place will be effective, and it allows our Townships to align themselves to the City definitions too.
Zachary Baiel
Mar 3
Afternoon, Angel.
How will leaning on WREC, NICHES, Purdue Extension, etc. help answer the question about dandelions?
According to this ordinance, they are a weed because they are not intentionally planted. And yet they are good for pollinators, can be eaten, made into wine, etc. But, in this proposed ordinance, it is unlawful to have any weeds cover any portion of a property.
Can you point me to where these rules make it more permissive? You could already have managed natural landscapes before the ordinance was written. Read section Chapter 8.07 – WEEDS AND RANK VEGETATION in the Lafayette municipal code. It was clear before that managed natural landscapes were allowed:
https://library.municode.com/in/lafayette/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT8STSISTSE_CH8.07WERAVE
Now, in Lafayette, the definition of weeds is so broad that it constitutes all volunteer plants. Ha!
Angel Valentín, Wabash Township Trustee
March 4
We both know that neither city, nor the Townships are going to go out rooting dandelions and other such volunteer “weeds”. This is simply the slippery slope logical fallacy being applied to the smallest aspects of local government.
Zachary Baiel
March 4
Hello again, Angel. I disagree.
Why write the ordinance in such a way if the government isn’t going to want the flexibility to potentially pursue all “not intentionally planted” vegetation, including dandelions?
And my argument isn’t a slippery slope. It’s a plain reading of the ordinance. One classification of weeds is a volunteer plant. They are not intentional.
Your argument, however, is an “appeal to trust” fallacy. You’re asking people to trust the government that they won’t use the full force of the law against them.
I agree that the City may not pursue them on their own, but that doesn’t mean the Public won’t use the letter of the law to force them to.
If Lafayette doesn’t want to go after dandelions, why didn’t they exempt them from their definitions?
No further responses from Angel.
