Is a man’s home his castle? Not entirely, anymore, in Westerly.
The pleasant coastal town on the Connecticut border enacted a law earlier this month that will hit property owners with fines if weeds on their property stand at a mere six inches or taller.
Westerly’s leaders, aligning themselves with a growing list of cities and towns across the country, deemed the law “necessary” after the town lost a case in the state Superior Court earlier this year when it tried to fine a property owner more than $2,000 because he had large weeds on his property. The weed regulation was not codified, so the fine was tossed.
Enter the Westerly Town Council with its fix. Now, The Westerly Sun reports, “If the weeds on your property are 6 inches or taller you could get hit with a fine of $50 per day.”
Good neighbors keep their properties in shape. That helps maintain property values and add to the quality of life. Weeds can affect people with allergies and asthma, and attract rodents and other critters if allowed to grow unchecked.
But Westerly’s new ordinance does raise some questions.
First is the issue of enforcement. How, exactly, will Westerly make sure this height ordinance is adhered to? Will enforcement officers patrol neighborhoods with tape measures, making sure that all residents are in compliance? Or will a culture of “snitching” be encouraged, in which residents call the police on their neighbors for the great crime of improper lawn care?
And after issuing citations, will enforcement officers return day after day to make sure the matter has been dealt with? What if residents are elderly or infirm — will they get special dispensation? Or what if residents are out of town or have fallen ill, and simply haven’t had the chance to trim their weeds? Will they too be fined?
Though Westerly is a generally peaceful town, we wonder if authorities have more urgent matters to attend to than enforcing, and figuring out the vagaries, of this new ordinance.
Another question, perhaps, is what exactly constitutes a “weed.” Merriam Webster simply defines a weed as “a plant that is not valued where it is growing and is usually of vigorous growth; especially: one that tends to overgrow or choke out more desirable plants.” That’s quite a subjective definition. Will Westerly be consulting botanists to determine what is and what isn’t a weed? And, no matter what they determine, couldn’t a fined resident simply deny that the overly tall plant was a weed?
More profound is the potential disregard for private property rights. The ownership of private property is a foundation of our freedom. The political philosopher John Locke recognized property ownership as one of the few “natural rights” that free people enjoy.
How far should government go in telling people how to live their lives? Is micromanaging their property feasible or advisable?
People should not be permitted to cause serious harm to their neighbors. But the government should be cautious about getting too far into the weeds.
Credit: www.providencejournal.com
