A news headline on my Yahoo homepage said that a woman in Lakemoor (a village along the Lake/McHenry county line) was granted a courtdecision in favor of the unusual planters that grace her front yard. The planters are apparently a pair of old toilets and a bathroom sink. She has fake poinsettias in them for the holidays. This gave me a lot to think about.

It's not like I don't have enough to think about. There are much larger, much more pressing issues that I deal with daily. But as a garden writer, a gardener,a homeowner and taxpayer, this issue had legs. I found myself pondering the court’s decision and all that it implies, long after I had read it.

 
As a long time member of the local Planning Board, my first consideration was the law that got her into trouble in the first place and most importantly, the intent of the law. There was little question in my mind that the town had pressed an ordinance into service that was intended to prevent junkyards from forming in neighborhoods. I don't know of any ordinance anywhere that regulates the tastefulness of lawn decorations. It seemed unfortunate to me that a town official was willing to use this kind of power to make him or herself the arbitrator of taste.

Cooler heads prevailed in the courtroom where the judge, albeit admitting that he found the decor distasteful, decided that the property owner had a right to be tasteless. Which of course, begs the question: what constitute a merely tasteless display in contrast to a display that infringes upon the rights of others?
 
I am not fond of the ugly plastic baskets with their coat hanger wires that my neighbor hangs along my property line. I may resent the fact that my carefully orchestrated bed of roses, clematis, hosta and geraniums is spoiled by the cheap plastic baskets hanging overhead. But do I have the right to say no? And is it such an affront that it is really worth feeling resentment toward the people who have enriched our lives for ten years? 

There are much worse examples. I know a woman who moved into a pricey planned development that has such a stringent covenant that she must have a panel of neighbors approve her paint colors and mailbox style. But oops, someone forgot to put it in writing that a PlaySkool village of fading plastic toys may not be allowed in the neighboring yard. These large, ugly toys are not permanently placed structures, so she has no recourse and must sit in her lavish sunroom and gaze at them every day. I think she may lose her mind.

I am finally coming to the conclusion that the laws, carefully vetted and placed by well-intentioned public servants, are sound. And the system of appealing those laws works well in most cases. The health, safety and well-being of the neighbors is not threatened by the toilet display. And the right of neighboring property owners to freely enjoy and use their property for its intended purpose is not at stake.

It would do us all well to embrace the notion that diversity and freedom of expression is one of the reasons we love America. And by flushing the Lakemoor woman’s rights down the toilet, we watch our own disappear as well.

— Deb Terrill