I get it that a lot of people don’t like seeing land that’s not being cared for. I also get it that uncared-for land can have negative impacts on health and safety. But what gets me riled is when aesthetic objections are cloaked in demonstrably trumped up public safety concerns.
Case in point: the volunteer vegetation (non-natives such as burdock, mulberry, lambsquarters, Chinese elm, sow thistle, along with natives such as goldenrod, New England aster, wild grape, Virginia creeper and the debatably native Manitoba maple) at the long-closed corner store near me.
Before pruning.
The City’s reason for the threatened mowing? That the plants are a safety hazard for sidewalk passage. Hard to argue that, I’d say, if you look at the “before” photo. But to remove any doubt (and the City’s rationale for mowing), I did some guerrilla pruning and left the bylaw officer a note.
(And yes, we could debate at length whether or not this patch would be “better” (for whom and for what?) if mowed down to stubble.)
* BTW: I’m on a mission to resurrect the term “narcing” (snitching to the police about someone having narcotics) for neighbours narcing on neighbours over landscape aesthetics.