[Communications] CCGA - Native Plant Registry info - follow up

[M Toy]

Thanks Amy, that sounds good.  - May

The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient
specified in message only. Do not share any part of this message with any
third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you received this
message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with its
deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur again.



On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 2:47 PM Amy Olson <akeo at me.com> wrote:

> Hi May,
>
> We just sent out the newsletter and decided to hold off posting anything
> about the Native Plant Registry so that we can mindfully craft our
> messaging.
>
> We will have another email going out probably late next week or early in
> the week of the 8th. We could include a story on the registry then and
> perhaps also offer a breakout room at the conference to discuss this issue
> in more detail.
>
> Below are some links and notes about the issue provided by you and also
> from the recent CCGA meeting. Lorraine mentioned having some discussions
> about this with Breanne and others as well.
>
> Let’s a strategy including the goal of sending a letter to all the
> alderpersons!
> Amy
> …..
>
> *Block Club article:*
>
>
> https://blockclubchicago.org/2020/03/09/the-city-slapped-a-native-plant-gardener-with-a-600-fine-but-he-fought-back-and-won/
>
> *Press release by the Illinois Environmental Council:*
>
> https://ilenviro.org/chicago-city-council-to-take-up-native-gardens-protections/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=chicago-city-council-to-take-up-native-gardens-protections
>
>
> *Your email to Lorraine (with attached proposed amendment to ordinance):*
>
> Hi Lorraine,
>
> Thanks for bringing the proposed native garden registry for the agenda for
> tonight's CCGA meeting. Attached is some information for the meeting
> tonight.
>
> I pulled up info on the Chicago weed ordinance and after reading &
> thinking about it...there is no value to the native garden registry.  It's
> basically an out for the City to continue to erroneously ticket gardners.
> The current "weed" ordinance already states that if a plant (or garden) is
> managed and maintained then it's NOT a weed...which is the same language as
> the registry.
>
> The weed ordinance does not require gardeners to adhere to the additional
> restrictions (10 inch height and 3 ft property line and parkway limits.)
>
> There is a "false/misleading" benefit referenced in the registry ordinance
> by saying that gardeners will be exempt from the weed ordinance because
> they already are exempt as long as they maintain their garden.  They are
> basically asking gardeners to sign away their rights without any benefits
> in return..  The problem is really in that the City is erroneously
> ticketing gardeners in some cases.
>
> Thanks - May
>
> *JW's notes from recent CCGA meeting:*
>
> Next the new proposed *Managed Native Garden Registry Ordinance *was
> discussed. May Toy outlined the particular problems with the ordinance as
> written especially for community gardens but many other growing scenarios
> as well. May then led the discussion of the main flawed parts:
>
> • issues with being owner occupied and the owner knowing and being able
> to identify plants in the garden and then what about native gardens that
> don’t have owners;
>
>    - issues with only native plants making a site eligible for the
>    registry, which doesn’t account for seasonal pollination scenarios, special
>    flowers and growing food in a potential permaculture type model;
>    - issues with height and distance rules of plants, taking into no
>    account pathways, special butterfly gardens,
>
> May Toy presented the traps of the ordinance being in essence that this
> creates a false sense that it is positive for the environment when it is
> not. May stressed that there was no input from community gardeners and that
> CCGA should take the lead in rejecting the existing language.
>
> In summary May indicated CCGA should take the following action:  1.) react
> and press for input into the policy directly- and 2.) stop the false
> narrative already being disseminated as one voice.
>
> *The entire group was behind sending letters to all 50 aldermen stating
> our position and offering to assist in crafting a more acceptable policy. *
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://chicagocommunitygardens.org/pipermail/communications_chicagocommunitygardens.org/attachments/20210224/0cf0e732/attachment-0002.html>