© TheFreeThoughtProject.com
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."
Comment: Not if Trump can galvanize support for his stance on illegal immigration: