City Forces Elderly Homeowner To Replace Garden with Grass Lawn Even Though She’s Allergic To It

 A couple in St. Peters, Missouri, learned the hard way that even  though they are listed as the owners of their home, the city they live  in still has the ability to dictate what is and is not on their  property—even if they are allergic to it. Carl and Janice Duffner purchased their house in 2002, and they opted  to plant a flower garden because Janice, 69, is allergic to turf grass.  

Then in 2008, the city of St. Peters passed an ordinance stating that  homeowners must plant at least 50 percent turf grass on their property. 

The Duffners kept their garden and found themselves embroiled in a  legal conflict when they were reported to the city in 2014. The City of  St. Peters Board of Zoning Adjustment granted a variance that reduced  the amount of turf grass required from 50 percent to 5 percent for the  Duffners’ property.

 In response, the Duffners filed a lawsuit arguing that the 5 percent  requirement was still not right, based on the fact that Mrs. Duffner is  still allergic. After their case was repeatedly returned to the lower  court, the Duffners filed a federal lawsuit in December 2016. 

The lawsuit stated that the Duffners believed the city ordinance is “unnecessary for the advancement of any compelling or permissible state objective” and that it “imposes  a permanent obligation on the owner to cultivate and maintain that  unwanted physical presence on their property for no reason other than  that the government commands it.” 

The Duffners’ neighbor, Mark Letko, told King5 News that the people in their neighborhood love the garden and enjoy visiting it. “All of our friends want to walk through it,” Letko said. 

“I don’t know why anyone would want to take this pleasure away from her.” 

Letko also said that he does not understand why the city is putting  up such a big fight against the presence of the garden when it is not  causing harm to anyone—however, the forced creation of turf grass in the  yard would harm Mrs. Duffner. 

“If it was there to harm people or something like that but it’s not that way,” Letko said. “St. Peter’s have just gone too far. It’s not drugs or anything like that. We are talking about grass.”  

This week, U.S. District Judge John Ross issued a 17-page ruling, which stated that the Duffners can be forced to plant turf grass in their own yard. 

He stated that the couple “failed to identify a fundamental right that is restricted by the Turf Grass Ordinance.” 

The Duffners’ attorney, David Roland, said in a statement that he  believes this case could set a dangerous precedent because it proves  that the local government has the power to threaten a family with  thousands of dollars in fines and decades in prison because they refuse  to add something to their property that will cause them physical harm. 

“The court’s ruling is bad for anyone who thinks they  have a constitutional right to use their own private property in  lawful, harmless ways, or to decide for themselves who and what they  will allow on their private property. If the government can force the  Duffners to plant grass instead of the flowers they prefer, there is  nothing that would prevent a local government from forcing property  owners—at their own expense!—to put in and maintain a fence or a  swimming pool or holiday lights. And it is utterly absurd that the  government can threaten its citizens with hundreds of thousands of  dollars and twenty years in prison simply because they would rather have  lawful, harmless flowers on their property rather than a plant that  makes them sick.”

The next step in this case is to file an appeal with the Eighth  Circuit Court of Appeals. Roland said he is committed to continuing to  appeal the case, even if it takes them all the way to the Supreme Court. 

---

 We are the Free Thought Project — a hub for Free Thinking conversations about the promotion of liberty and the daunting task of government accountability. All of our content was created by our team of artists and writers. Learn more about us on our website thefreethoughtproject.com.