tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-189043384158652063.post212598413093586234..comments2024-03-26T12:12:09.501-04:00Comments on Florida Native Plant Society Blog: Are Natives the Answer? Professor Cregg, Why Are You Asking?Florida Native Plant Societyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00395935687729160107noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-189043384158652063.post-49369155087925923162012-08-29T11:02:49.437-04:002012-08-29T11:02:49.437-04:00Seems to me, the FL law you want would be somethin...Seems to me, the FL law you want would be something like: 'HOA landscaping covenants shall be unenforceable If no provisions for native species substitutions are provided.'<br /><br />It's worth noting though, that this would likely cut both ways and preclude our hypothetical 'Native Acres Community and Habitat' development, since excluding all nonnatives wouldn't be very diverse would it...<br /><br />Cheers, <br />Jasonjasontgordonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-189043384158652063.post-9723670281710539022012-08-28T21:06:45.995-04:002012-08-28T21:06:45.995-04:00Ooops! Thought I proofed what I'd written bett...Ooops! Thought I proofed what I'd written better than I did. In my 1st comment about landscape codes, it should read "...these rules should be subject to frequent review by a diverse group of people in the community so they can be amended when they no longer serve the purpose for which they were intended." I apologize for any unintended befuddlement.Taryn Evansnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-189043384158652063.post-18126270416174015552012-08-28T20:45:26.869-04:002012-08-28T20:45:26.869-04:00Finally, before I completely walk away from this d...Finally, before I completely walk away from this discussion, let me try to answer Jason's question about HOA's and what he sees as a "gross violation of your property rights" if a state or local ordinance has the ability to override or modify the homeowner's agreement." He asks me how I would react if it was me whose right's were being infringed upon.<br /><br />OK. I don't like gated communities and wouldn't live in one for a number of reasons, but let's go ahead and suppose this. I would want to know why the state or local government is wanting to override this agreement. Knowing as I do that they wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on in court, if they were challenged, I would have to assume that there is some compelling reason why they would seek to do this. If it was a reason that they can convince me is necessary, I would hope that I would be on the side of the angels and work with the local people to comply. Because just the fact that it is "government" wanting this, doesn't make it "bad" in my book. Then again it doesn't make it automatically "good" either. So, maybe I don't agree, with their conclusions, and choose to fight. I take them to court and they lose, because in general in Florida, you don't mess with real estate developers, their HOA's, or their covenants. Even when you have a new state law on your side, there's no guarantee that the HOA won't come out on top. And that should make you happy, Jason.<br /><br />Taryn Evansnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-189043384158652063.post-3514031814192655052012-08-28T19:44:42.363-04:002012-08-28T19:44:42.363-04:00You know Jason, I think I have a good understandin...You know Jason, I think I have a good understanding that anything I say to you in response on this topic is going to be twisted by you to fit the picture you have of me and what you think are my "true" opinions. See...I'm doing it also. I believe I know who you are and what your belief system is just by reading a couple of entries in a blog. So...I think we are probably at an impasse on this. And I think this is sad, but also an illustration of why this idea you have that everyone unhappily subject to property covenants or outdated city ordinances should just sit down with the other side and work something out, though a happy notion, doesn't always work out so simply or easily.<br /><br />But for those who have read this discussion up to this point, let me say this.... I am a person who believes that the "middle way" is often the best, that moderation in life is a good way to live and that compromise is a positive behavior in general. And I think I line up with the vast majority on this. Maybe Jason even believes in these values.<br /><br />This is what I think about this whole question of whether government should at anytime be in the business of dictating landscape choices (remembering that this should not be written in stone): YES and NO. I think that there is a need for standards and landscaping codes in places where they are appropriate, as determined by the people who live in those places, be they city neighborhoods or gated communities. But that these rules, should be subject to frequent review by a diverse group of people in the community so that they no longer serve the purpose they were intended for. They should be flexible and reflect a broad aesthetic, not a narrow one. And they should promote bio-diversity, because I personally believe it's important. Rather than a restrictive or limiting position, I think of it as expansive, open, inclusive, creative, and smart. And I think a lot of other people are starting to agree. <br /><br />Taryn Evansnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-189043384158652063.post-31282371651670975602012-08-28T11:12:19.296-04:002012-08-28T11:12:19.296-04:00As odd as it must seem, your "clarification&q...As odd as it must seem, your "clarification" only bolsters my characterization of your remarks.<br /><br />Firstly, I live in Jamaica Plain, a neighborhood of Boston proper (home of the Arnold Arboretum), where no public overseers dictate to me what I may or may not plant -- anywhere -- on my property. If your position is that my situation, i.e., no governmental interference with my freedom to plant either natives or nonnatives, is optimal, then why not just say "get government OUT of landscaping"?<br /><br />But that isn't your position. You believe that private property use should be restricted -- but restricted by the "correct" set of limitations -- limitations you agree with. <br /><br />Case in point: HOAs. Imagine that you and a group of like-minded folks set up a gated community where the landscaping was limited to only native plants. (Mind you, I completely accept your right to do this with property owned in such a fashion.) It seems odd to me that you would be in favor -- at least in principle -- of the ability of a state or local ordinance (permitting nonnative plants) to override or modify the agreement into which each homeowner voluntarily entered. Would this not be a gross violation of your property rights?<br /><br />Why not encourage homeowners subject to such restrictive agreements to join with their fellow residents to change the terms of the property covenants, rather than wish for goverment to dilute property rights for the sake of your pet cause?jasontgordonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-189043384158652063.post-34249787228928897732012-08-27T19:00:18.945-04:002012-08-27T19:00:18.945-04:00Wow, looks like I picked the wrong week to go on v...Wow, looks like I picked the wrong week to go on vacation! Taryn, thanks for your comments. I’m not sure that questioning the validity of the assumptions used to justify natives hurts the message. If anything, taking a critical look and tightening the rhetoric will strengthen the case.<br /><br />I have posted some additional comments back on the Garden Professors blog site. https://sharepoint.cahnrs.wsu.edu/blogs/urbanhort/archive/2012/08/27/so-what%E2%80%99s-your-point.aspx<br />Bert Cregghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05317748695647664792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-189043384158652063.post-76678794534689002472012-08-27T10:47:10.650-04:002012-08-27T10:47:10.650-04:00Actually, Chris, my reply was meant only to addres...Actually, Chris, my reply was meant only to address the "inflammatory parts and generalizations about native plant enthusiasts" in his post. I actually, pretty much agree with the contention that a building code should be clearly and accurately written, without loopholes or vague language that would allow either side, if there is a challenge, to hide behind.<br /><br />But, as Laurie points out, Professor Cregg attempts to take his issues with the code, whatever they are...and graft them on to a critique of, not native plants, but the people who speak for native plants. I don't live in Washington State and don't know any native plant advocates there, so I can't judge if they are a special type of over-enthusiastic hard-liners, but Cregg specifically judges the entire native plant movement as being a bunch of ill-informed zealots. Here in Florida, I don't believe that is true. The practical result, judging by the comments to his post, is that Cregg has not only "shot the messenger", he's gone a long way towards hurting the message. A message that he claims to believe in and support. Taryn Evansnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-189043384158652063.post-74720873277952573842012-08-27T10:22:25.978-04:002012-08-27T10:22:25.978-04:00I think he misrepresents Dr. Tallamy when he state...I think he misrepresents Dr. Tallamy when he states that "many native activists, including Tallamy, run away from this argument- apparently it doesn't sound scientific enough..." The argument in question is that native plants save resources and encourage a sense of stewardship. I've listened to Dr. Tallamy speak three times and read his book a couple of times and I've never heard him comment specifically about this issue, either in a positive or negative way, and I presume it's because his focus is on another reason to plant natives...their usefulness as food for the insects that support our natural food chain. But on page 12 of the paperback edition of his book, he does mention briefly some of the other reasons you might have heard for planting natives and he implies that these are valid as well. I would say that this does not qualify as "running away". Also Cregg continues in the same paragraph to talk about biodiversity as a good outcome from planting natives and what is Tallamy's whole book if not a compelling plea for more biodiversity in the landscape, both in plant and insect species?<br /><br />As for the specific points that Professor Cregg makes in his post, I agree with nearly everything he writes except for his characterization of native plant advocates as naive liars and the conclusion he seems to draw from this wholesale picture of a diverse group that a "healthy landscape" code is therefore problematic and wrong-headed at best...and also completely unnecessary. I don't even know how they relate one to the other.If this conclusion was not his intention, someone needs to tell the people who were commenting on his post. Taryn Evansnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-189043384158652063.post-37115815886193452422012-08-27T09:54:56.967-04:002012-08-27T09:54:56.967-04:00Anyway, to go on with my reply.... because of the ...Anyway, to go on with my reply.... because of the Florida legislature, I can now respond to those people who want to reduce their water bill or who want to make their yards more attractive to birds, that there is a Florida statute that allows them to install Florida-friendly landscapes (those in keeping with the specific guidelines developed by the University of Florida)even if their HOA or city has contradictory standards. The only caveat is that the homeowner seek to work with the HOA/city so that both sides feel like they are getting what they want or need. With this tool in hand, property owners have more freedom not less, and real sustainable landscape practices can become more widespread, where, in the past,it was unable to take hold. Taryn Evansnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-189043384158652063.post-90228487278197286232012-08-27T09:53:43.468-04:002012-08-27T09:53:43.468-04:00Jason...I'm not sure how you translate what I ...Jason...I'm not sure how you translate what I wrote into some sort of scenario where I, personally, rip out your landscape in order to install my preferred plants. But this is certainly close to the kinds of reactions expressed in the comments section to Professor Cregg's article. And this is why I took issue with his post. He gives the reader the impression that though native plants are in themselves worthy of being installed in the landscape, it's never a good idea to "impose" a good thing on someone who is choosing plants for their own property,there are "too many" problems to be addressed in creating a code and "education" of homeowners will do the trick, anyway. And...also "freedom".<br /><br />I don't know where you live...but unless you live on a large property in the country, with no near neighbors, you are probably already having other people's preferred plant/landscape choices imposed on you. Whether it's a city ordinance that says your front yard must be a lawn, with grass trimmed to such and such a height and "appropriate" shrubs and trees, and certainly no veggies growing or it's a homeowners association whose landscape standards dictate your plant and landscape choices, most of the public happily submits to these rules and regulations, either because their personal aesthetics match or because they believe that it helps maintain property value to have everyone's landscape be similar.<br /><br />That's all well and good...but what if you decide that you want a veggie garden and the only spot where there is enough sun is in your front yard. You've worked out a plan that makes it attractive and unobtrusive and you install it...only to receive a notice from the city saying that you have a week to remove it. There go your nice tomatoes! Wouldn't it have been agreeable to have an ordinance that was a little more flexible about what constituted an attractive, appropriate front yard? Oh...and whatever happened to freedom? But what to do...the code is the code.<br /><br />I live in Central Florida. Once known for its orange groves, it's now known for its subdivisions and retirement communities. These housing communities attract people from other places with a picture of living in a flowered paradise, warm and GREEN. But all that green comes with a pretty price tag...both in consumed and tarnished natural resources and in people's wallets as they pay more and more with their water bills, etc., for the privilege of having unsustainable landscapes. <br /><br />More and more people want the choice, the freedom to decide for themselves, within limits, what they plant. The University of Florida has gone a long way in educating people about using Florida-friendly plants, both native and non-native, in sustainable ways in their landscapes. And the Florida Native Plant Society also educates about using the best native plants for the homeowner, keeping in mind the principle: right plant for the right place. But education is NOT enough.<br /><br />I don't know how may times I've heard variations on: "Oh...I'd love to have that plant in my yard, or I would like to plant a butterfly garden, or I'd like to reduce the amount of St. Augustine grass on my property, or I'd love to have a rain barrel...but my HOA won't let me." Wow...feel the freedom. I call it the freedom of the status quo. The freedom to not have to submit to the reality of change. Is this what you mean to defend?<br /><br /> Taryn Evansnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-189043384158652063.post-4122657504811240462012-08-26T17:15:10.467-04:002012-08-26T17:15:10.467-04:00Hi Jason. I can't speak for Taryn or what she ...Hi Jason. I can't speak for Taryn or what she meant by this sentence. I will make her aware of your comment.Florida Native Plant Societyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00395935687729160107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-189043384158652063.post-63943045935391243442012-08-26T17:12:41.691-04:002012-08-26T17:12:41.691-04:00Hi Chris,
The "Green Code Provisions" ar...Hi Chris,<br />The "Green Code Provisions" are a work in progress, and were only just brought forward for feedback - I'm certain they will be refined to the nth degree, as most ordinances are. If I was the person to initially receive the invitation to attend the public roll-out for these codes, I certainly would have gone and asked what the rationale was behind the 75% native requirement, which seems somewhat arbitrary (but there might be some sound logic behind it that I am unaware of). Aside from that, it appears that Cregg is either making a poor attempt at comedy, or itching for a fight - maybe both. His contentions with the GCOs are largely ridiculous. It is clearly stated that these codes would only apply to new landscapes or those being completely replaced. We aren't talking backyards here - this is large-scale or commercial grading and replanting (the kind that requires plan submittal to the city for approval). Why does it matter how the contractor removes invasives if everything (aside from the natives, which would be protected by the code) is going to be removed? Anyone who has ever dealt with invasive exotics knows it's rarely a small undertaking to get rid of them - if whatever mechanical or chemical treatment employed is legal, who cares how they go about the business of removing TERRIBLE plants, as long as their method yields permanent results? It's like telling the trash collector that you are concerned with how he/she will take your junk away. As long as the trash is hauled off and not left on the curb, he/she can backflip off of the truck and breakdance the whole time as far as I'm concerned. Obviously if the site is to be replanted, and most landscape contractors are required to guarantee that their plants survive for a certain length of time, they aren't going to douse everything in heavy duty herbicides.<br /><br />His other points are equally asinine. He asks, "what about existing non-invasive non-natives?" and goes on to ask if a 40-year old maple would have to be cut down. Well, the code says that only the invasives are to be removed, so why is this even a question? Then he asks about who must submit a plan for review, and what happens if the reviewer doesn't like it. Really? He could not make it any clearer that he doesn't know anything about the construction process and the government's role therein. Planting plans (at least in Florida) are always submitted by a licensed Landscape Architect to the city's Landscape Architect for approval, and approval has nothing to do with "liking". The city L.A. reviews the plan for code compliance. Period. Usually planting plans are submitted along with hardscape plans, so in addition to making sure that no one has specified kudzu as a groundcover, the city L.A. will make sure that the slopes of the sidewalks, asphalt, etc will have positive drainage, and are not too steep for someone using a wheelchair.<br /><br />I could go on pointing out all of the nonsensical things that Cregg wrote about, but the bottom line is that here is a man with an opinion that matters to impressionable students, and presumably other faculty members, who has gone out of his way to badmouth advocates of native plants and promote biodiversity through exotics as a way of being ahead of the climate change curve. Quite frankly, his call for "carefully selected non-natives" makes my skin crawl, as I recall the Meleleuca seed that was carefully selected to be strewn across the Everglades.<br /><br />Thank you so much for reading and commenting! I hope that my response, though lengthy, touched on some important topics.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br />Laurie Sheldon<br />(One of the "Jolly Bloggers")Florida Native Plant Societyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00395935687729160107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-189043384158652063.post-63085556485541165372012-08-26T15:49:39.321-04:002012-08-26T15:49:39.321-04:00Hi Jeff,
It's difficult for many of us to forg...Hi Jeff,<br />It's difficult for many of us to forgo our day jobs to participate, but we are trying to at least get one person on board. We'll let you know. Thanks for the invitation!Florida Native Plant Societyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00395935687729160107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-189043384158652063.post-54123520898868271042012-08-26T15:22:09.298-04:002012-08-26T15:22:09.298-04:00Taking this article as it is written you have to d...Taking this article as it is written you have to do some dissection and digging to get to some valid points. If you remove the inflammatory parts and generalizations about Native Plant enthusiasts, there are some interesting questions posed. The ordinance as it is written is very vague, often good intentions and good causes get muddled in the political arena. Although I don't know if this is written in stone, some of his points are true, especially when it comes to interpretation of percentages, removal and biodiversity. I am by no means condoning what he says but the burden lies upon the government and hopefully a well appointed panel to define precisely what these percentages mean and by what ways will the requirements will be achieved. If this is still a work in progress there is a bit of knee jerking here on both sides. I fully agree with the jolly bloggers in that biodiversity is a must in a particular biome or place of origin. Just cause you can create biodiversity in an area doesn't mean it qualifies under "sense of place."`Chris Parisi-FNPS Pinellas Chapternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-189043384158652063.post-75469520152076070212012-08-25T15:45:14.071-04:002012-08-25T15:45:14.071-04:00"Public policy is needed to give those who wa..."Public policy is needed to give those who want to plant natives, or even 'friendly' non-natives, the real opportunity to get approval from those entities that might withhold it otherwise."<br /><br />The above quote by Taryn Evans is rather opaque.<br /><br />Translation: I can't plant things on your property against your will -- unless and until -- the govenment forces you to let me.jasontgordonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-189043384158652063.post-27516693480270736972012-08-24T09:59:29.417-04:002012-08-24T09:59:29.417-04:00Hello,
Over at the gardenprofessors blog we'r...Hello,<br /><br />Over at the gardenprofessors blog we're trying to put together a live discussion of native plants for next Thursday and would love the opportunity to have someone -- or even a few people -- from your group participate. Please go over to our blog to check it out.<br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />Jeff Gillman Jeff Gillmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-189043384158652063.post-62978252006144703722012-08-22T19:25:22.242-04:002012-08-22T19:25:22.242-04:00The third link in the article will direct you to C...The third link in the article will direct you to Cregg's post.Florida Native Plant Societyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00395935687729160107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-189043384158652063.post-16633413129714399972012-08-22T17:31:44.096-04:002012-08-22T17:31:44.096-04:00I would like to hear some remarks regarding the sp...I would like to hear some remarks regarding the specific points that Dr. Cregg makes. I'd also like to know how Dr. Tallamy was misrepresented. For the most part this post seems like someone ranting about a professor who wasn't nice to a cause which they hold dear while ignoring the guts of what he wrote.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-189043384158652063.post-71653788371174195552012-08-21T10:45:32.773-04:002012-08-21T10:45:32.773-04:00Thank you! We think we're reasonable too! ;)Thank you! We think we're reasonable too! ;)Florida Native Plant Societyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00395935687729160107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-189043384158652063.post-54587982725651997992012-08-21T10:10:37.726-04:002012-08-21T10:10:37.726-04:00Very good points. I've always found the FNPS t...Very good points. I've always found the FNPS to be realistic and reasonable. Brava!Distinctly Floridahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14983865214806356249noreply@blogger.com