Blame George Washington.
America’s first president maintained a lawn at Mount Vernon, copying the style from English manor houses and castles. Being first in war and first in peace also, apparently, made Washington first in landscaping for Americans — at least the wealthier ones.
The love of the turf grass lawn has hardly abated since, so much so that it eventually became encased in law. Cities and towns across the country adopted ordinances to impose the ideal of the grass lawn, and then used code enforcement officers and fines to compel compliance.
This week, though, a Minnesota Court of Appeals ruling exposed a conflict between that standard and the desire by some policymakers and homeowners to swap manicured lawns for native plantings. In a ruling written by Judge Denise Reilly, the court found that North Mankato’s attempt to force Edward Borchardt to cut back his trees, bushes and grasses wasn’t legal.
“We conclude that the evidence presented to the city council does not support the city council’s determination that the vegetation on Borchardt’s property constituted a ‘rank growth’ or that it unreasonably annoyed a considerable number of members of the public,” Reilly wrote.
Borchardt had sought for the court to find that the grass and weed ordinance was unconstitutionally vague, but that didn’t happen. Instead, the court found only that the city council received insufficient evidence that Borchardt’s yard was a nuisance.
North Mankato — like an increasing number of cities in Minnesota — does have exceptions to its rules regulating lawns, grass length and weeds to allow for natural plantings. It says gardens can only account for 30 percent of a yard and says they can’t include “noxious weeds” that go to seed. But the exception for pollinator gardens wasn’t enough for Borchardt, and he proceeded to challenge the city’s nuisance resolution against him.
[image_caption]State Rep. Rick Hansen[/image_caption]
He called it a next-step in the state’s modest but popular Lawns to Legumes program, in which micro grants and how-to advice is given to residents who want to convert some or all of the lawns to native gardens that support pollinators, especially the rusty patched bumblebee.
But the program requires local governments to make sure their ordinances support such decisions. “You do have a lot of cities with ordinances that the traditional lawn is the standard. Having something different and having a diverse landscape is more healthy,” Hansen said.
Not a free-for-all for weeds
The state’s Lawns to Legumes program is less about the money that’s available — the grants are in the $350 range — and more about providing coaching as well as “social acceptance” of deviating from the standard lawn. “People are brought up through how many generations of taking care of a lawn versus how do I take care of a native garden,” Hansen said. “It’s another piece of the pollinator puzzle.”
But Hansen’s bill would not be a weed free-for-all. “Except as part of a managed natural landscape as defined in this section, any weeds or grasses growing upon any lot or parcel of land in a city to a greater height than eight inches or that have gone or are about to go to seed are prohibited.”
Many cities around the state are modernizing their ordinances to allow more diversity in residential landscapes. Minneapolis has one of the state’s most-permissive ordinances, but it also has a place on its webpage to report grass or weeds “taller than 8 inches.”
One city in Hansen’s district, West St. Paul, temporarily suspended its rules on keeping grass shorter than eight inches to provide habitat for pollinators that are emerging from hibernation. They called it “No Mow May.”
[image_caption]Councilmember Wendy Berry[/image_caption]
“No Mow May” was an experiment for the city. “We had a majority to go ahead and give it a whirl,” Berry said. Residents were encouraged to let their lawns grow during the month. “It’s a quick 31 days to encourage pollinators.”
While some residents took part, others complained. Code enforcers spent the month telling callers about the program rather than citing those with long grass.
“Once they explained that, ‘Hey, people are doing it for a reason’ and not just because they are lazy, people seemed to be a little more forgiving of it and not so worked up,” she said. “We had a lot of complaints about it, but also a lot of people who were pretty excited about it. You could tell when you drove down a block who was pro No Mow May and who had had enough.
“Not everyone is on board when it comes to long grass,” Berry said. “I’m sure my dad would have had a fit.”
City regulators often hear complaints
City ordinances on lawn length and weeds are commonplace. One was even the subject of a U.S. Circuit Court ruling in 2015, written by Judge Richard Posner, considered one of the leading legal scholars on economics and commerce. The court upheld Chicago’s ordinance against tall or unmaintained weeds, but not before questioning both the city’s use of average weed height and the claim of First Amendment protections by the property owner.
Dan Shaw is the senior ecologist and vegetation specialist for the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources, the agency that oversees the Lawns to Legumes program. Forty four Minnesota cities have adopted resolutions declaring themselves pollinator friendly cities, but Shaw said he still hears “every now and then” from a resident who wants to convert their lawn but is running up against restrictive local ordinances.
The program tries to head off conflicts by posting model ordinances for cities that allow pollinator gardens and advises residents how to work with cities and neighbors. “We do quite a bit of outreach on thinking about the aesthetics and what we call ‘cues for care,’” Shaw said.
That refers to designing projects so they look cared for, perhaps with layout, edging and signage. “There are various ways so that people know this is an intentional planting; designed and thought out,” he said.
[image_credit]MinnPost photo by Andrew Putz[/image_credit][image_caption]Minnesota's Lawns to Legumes program is less about the money that’s available and more about providing coaching as well as “social acceptance” of doing something different with lawns.[/image_caption]
“We wanted the program to be accessible and not run into issues with compliance with ordinances,” Shaw said, including offering tips on plantings that would be allowed under different types of regulation.
The pilot program provided grants and coaching to about 3,000 people and still has money available. A second phase was funded with $2 million, $800,000 of which was to go for grants to residents. Additional use of that money will be for outreach and education as well as for plantings in larger community spaces and “education landscapes” as part of an effort to build pollinator corridors through the state.
Are all the suggested plant types legumes, commonly used to refer to peas, lentils, peanuts and beans?
Lots of plantings attract pollinators, including some native plants classified as legumes such as the partridge pea and prairie clover. Shaw said he isn’t certain of the origin of the name, but it was included in the original legislation that created the program.
“We did consider changing the name but there was so much social media about the program right away that the name stuck. If it’s something that’s memorable to the public, that’s a valuable name, whether people know what a legume is or not.”
So who is final arbiter of native grass or weed? Will the cities have to hire a horticulturist for final say? The best is a piece of 2 million in funding to let your yard go native…. Gotta love Government programs….
Sounds like money well spent to me. Turning yards from the environmentally terrible manicured lawns to native habitat.
It’s ironic that the photo at the top doesn’t appear to include any native plants, and the only obvious pollinator-friendly ones are the zinnias. The planting is dominated by daylilies and some bearded iris. The lower photo at least has some native plants in it, though culver’s root is not a good boulevard choice given its height.
I wonder if garden clubs and Master Gardeners could lend advice in some organized way about what’s a weed and what’s not?
My generic – decidedly non-horticulturalist – understanding is that a “weed” is “any plant growing where humans don’t want it to grow.” A few years back, 3Rivers Parks cut down and destroyed a couple acres of Sumac growing in a meadow at Elm Creek Park & Reserve – a meadow that turned gloriously, flamboyantly red in the fall. Now it just turns brown. When I complained in writing, the rationale offered was that the Sumac was “invasive,” but Sumac is native to Minnesota, including this part of the state, and is relatively short-lived, so might well have been succeeded by something else in a decade or two. What was really going on was an aversion on the part of someone at 3Rivers to seeing a plant they didn’t personally like growing exuberantly, obviously quite happy where it was growing, and basically take over a portion of the meadow. Labeling it as “invasive” was a way to get around regulations and take it out. While not unconcerned about invasives, I’m not as much a purist as you seem to be. I’ve done away with most of my lawn, but the shrubs and perennials I’ve put in place are not all native to this part of Minnesota, though they’re all adapted to this climate.
Ray, Sumac smothers other native vegetation that is why it often warrants removal.
I’m not sure if it’s me you’re calling a purist. I’m just pointing out that the article on native plantings that are good for pollinators is illustrated with a photo of plants that are neither native nor particularly good for pollinators.
I have a big bee garden in my front yard – I have counted over 100 of those big fat bees there at one time. I feel like they are my pets. Working on butterflies now with milkweed plants. Much more fun than the lawn I used to have.
This wasn’t really a reply to Pat Thompson, not sure how it ended up there.
I’m glad to see the state promoting landscaping practices that will support pollinators. Turf grass is boring and bad for the environment.
It’s challenging to find native nurseries that grow their own native plants pesticide free but it’s well worth the effort. They grow naturally & well in their natural habitats, they look ‘natural’, they are far better for the environment and the wildlife (short term and long term), in the Fall you can compost trimmings knowing they can be re-used in the Spring to enrich the soil because again: they weren’t force grown in massive greenhouses where chemicals control the entire process! Lastly, the green grass lawn cut precisely and needing regular waterings, w the same variety of plants in every yard, is both boring..and dangerous. Kids & pets play on the artificially plumped up grass, which pollutes the run-off into our streams and rivers where it harms the fish and sea creatures. HUMANS have created our unhealthy situations and their long lasting and grave harm. We are at a tipping point now and our next actions must be well thought out and effectively turn the tide. The future of the planet–indeed its very sustainability in the future–depends upon it. So educate yourselves on native plantings, then use them and embrace this ‘new’ (actually original!) practice. It can be quite beautiful.
Oh boy – another trickle down, big government mandate.
Its actually the opposite. Its scaling back government restrictions on what you grow on your own property.
Are people going to be forced to do this?
I have seen some very nice “natural” gardens but I have seen plenty of weed infested landscapes. The difference seems to be the amount of time the owner is willing to devote to gardening. Too many people seem to think that eliminating a lawn is an easy way to avoid any maintenance and the result is exactly what one would expect.
A thorough reporting job. Thanks! Lawns are sterile and boring. Every “weed” has a function, and it’s fascinating to learn what it can be, where it will look best and how it can serve our native insects, birds and mammals. Nothing about this ordinance requires government funding, but I do hope the encouragement to plant native landscapes does “trickle down.”
Thank you, Peter, for this important article. While we must, of course, focus on the climate crisis, there is another crisis worthy of far greater attention than it currently gets – the lack of diversity in nature and its devastating results on birds, insects and other wildlife.
I recommend reading “Nature’s Best Hope” by Douglas W. Tallamy. It has convinced me of the importance of providing a variety of native plants to feed wildlife populations.
If you plant a native garden with a good design, such as planting island gardens surrounded with attractive edging and grow no-mow grasses as a path between them, it will look beautiful, purposeful and cared for. Neglect is really what your neighbors object to. With a network of homeowners providing a patchwork of pocket-parks we can help prevent further decline in the disappearance of native plants that wildlife, and as a consequence, we humans, depend upon for our existence. And the more homeowners do it, the more accepted it will become. There is hope.