The Grapevine Prairie Garden

The City Attorney of Grapevine wrote a press release when the media started asking for comment on my yard. I took his press release and responded to it in pieces.

******************************************

“The property at 920 Ravenswood has been on Code Enforcement’s radar for over a year due to a consistently overgrown and unkempt front yard.”

This issue started in August 2023. My mom passed away in June 2023. I also had custody of my kids 90% of the time because my (now) ex-wife was unreliable during our separation. I admit that the yard wasn’t in the best shape, but I did remove all the overgrowth and “reset” it to its boundaries. However, this was not good enough for Code Enforcement. They received a complaint from a neighbor who wanted everything cleared, and Code Enforcement was there to make it happen so they could close out the complaint. You see, all code violations are complaint-based. They have told me they don’t take the initiative to cite yards unless there is a complaint “because this is Grapevine.”

“The city has received numerous complaints from concerned neighbors about the unsightly condition of the yard.”

In reality, the city has received only TWO (2) official complaints. That’s it. These complaints were filed in August 2023, as I explained above, and again in August 2024. I explained to the officer that “yes, I know I need to do some work in my yard, but I have been out of town for the last three weeks, so I will take care of it.” And I did. But still, it wasn’t good enough because, according to Code Officer Adams, “they were curious why I did not get a violation last year. And if [I] don’t get one this year, [they] would go to the City Manager.” This second complaint was completely anonymous because the person “did not want to get involved.”

Just for some context: I have not heard a complaint from my neighbors in over 10 years. No one has knocked on my door and said, “Hey, what’s going on with your yard?” No one has suggested I make changes. For some reason, this is coming to a head now, but instead of neighbors talking to neighbors, they talk to Code Enforcement. Not a very neighborly approach, in my opinion.

“Objectively, this yard is not in keeping with community standards from both an aesthetic and public safety perspective. The front yard at 920 Ravenswood constitutes a nuisance under the code of ordinances and has consistently been in violation of the code for at least the last seven months.”

Objectively? There is no objective definition of aesthetics. By definition, aesthetics are subjective. Even though no neighbor has told me what they think of my yard lately, over 10 years ago, one of them did say, “If you are going to do this [have chickens, garden in the front yard], why don’t you move to the country?”

Nuisance? Is my front yard an open well? Does it emit loud noises or bright lights? The answer to all of this is no. If anything, my yard is quiet since I don’t have turf grass, so I don’t run a lawnmower or other loud yard equipment every week. The City Attorney fails to define how my yard is a nuisance and provides no evidence to substantiate this claim.

“Code Enforcement has sent multiple written notices to the owner regarding these violations. The city’s efforts to achieve correction of these deficiencies have been unsuccessful due to the failure or refusal of the property owner to bring the yard into compliance. Consistent with state law and the code of ordinances, the city has now notified the owner of its intent to take corrective action on its own.

At the owner’s request, the city is reviewing its existing code provisions regarding high grass and weed nuisances. There is no question that this yard is in violation of the current code. Most recently, Mr. Yatko indicated his intent to correct these issues this week, and the city will give him the opportunity to do so.”

They sent three (3) notices. The first notice was in August 2023 and led to a court case. The case was dismissed because I met with Code Enforcement in December 2023, showed them a planting plan, and we discussed how my yard was cultivated. They said something cultivated is something that’s cut down at the end of the year. I explained that’s what I do every February. They waited until I did that in February 2024 and then dismissed the case.

The second notice was in August 2024 for the same issue. I could not believe it. Code Enforcement still did not explain what was in violation but suggested we go to court to set a precedent. Fine, I said. Even though I had reached out to the City Council to explain my situation, hoping the code would be updated in 2024 so I wouldn’t have to go through this again. Alas, that was not the case.

So the August 2024 violation notice led to a citation and then a court date. The case was scheduled for January 9, 2025. However, that morning, before ever seeing a judge, I met with the Assistant City Attorney (the prosecutor) and someone new, the City Attorney. The City Attorney listened to me and took notes. I mentioned I had tried getting this ordinance rewritten last year without success. He proposed postponing the trial to review the ordinance, and I agreed. So the case has been postponed until April 2025. I have always maintained that my yard is in compliance and have asked for specifics on how it is not; they have NEVER provided specifics.

In a move that was both unnecessary and characteristically mean-spirited, they came out one week after the trial was postponed and documented my yard. They then sent me the third notice. This really upset me, to say the least. What was the point of delaying the trial if they were going to cite me again for the same offense and then “take corrective action”—i.e., send mowers and charge me the cost? Where is my due process? I filed a motion with the court to inform them that this was happening.

“The city takes residents’ concerns about the integrity of their neighborhood seriously. While we would hope that property owners would be like-minded in maintaining their properties in good order, the code of ordinances provides enforcement options to the city when necessary.

The city’s nuisance and high grass and weed ordinances are clear and in good order [emphasis mine]. The city has heard from residents who would like to maintain more drought-tolerant yards through xeriscape plantings, and that is currently being reviewed. Any proposed changes to the code will be submitted to the City Council for review and input at public meetings where resident feedback will be welcomed.”

This underlined statement is categorically false; the code is NOT clear. And because it is not clear, it is subjective. That is why: The Code. Needs. To. Be. Rewritten.

If it were so clear, why are the code officers unable to tell me what is out of compliance with my yard? Or define what is a weed? When I tell them that my yard is cultivated and intentional, they say it isn’t.

The code states it does not allow residents “to suffer or permit grass, weeds, or any plant that is not cultivated to grow to a greater height than six inches on average upon said premises.” Yet the code does not define “grass,” “weeds,” or “cultivation.” These are three key terms that they are charging me for violating, yet the code does not define them. By default, they become subjective.

Any update to the code should make a clear distinction between turf and ornamental grass because ornamental grasses cut to six inches will never fully achieve their intended ornamental form. Making me cut my inland sea oats to six inches would infringe upon my ability to grow them, an infringement I believe violates my freedom of expression.

Additionally, any code update needs to include a definition of weed that is tied to the Texas noxious weed list. Anything short of that leaves the definition up to a code enforcement officer who may not be a trained horticulturist or may not rely on outside expertise to help identify plants.

Finally, define cultivation. Does it mean agricultural crops only? Are bushes cultivated? What are the necessary steps a resident must take to ensure that the plants they are intentionally growing for water conservation and aesthetic purposes meet this definition, so they are exempt from harassment from neighbors who think only Bermuda and St. Augustine grasses should be grown in front yards?