Not content with razing the natural garden Deborah Dale maintained for over a decade in front of her Scarborough residence, the City of Toronto is reportedly now going after the woodland garden the horticultural expert maintains in her backyard. As a follow-up to Tuesday's Reading Toronto post on this subject, Dale writes,

I could use your help as the City is now threatening my backyard woodland garden…referring to baneberry, wild ginger, various ferns, bloodroot, tall coneflower, hoary vervain, etc. as “thick undergrowth”.

In her note, posted here (scroll down), Dale invites readers to contact Mayor David Miller's office "before City staff destroy more natural gardens."

The Toronto Star reports this morning that Bill Blakes, the Scarborough District manager for Municipal Licensing and Standards whose office brought out the lawnmowers, affirms the City's decision to destroy the wild garden, observing that "a properly tended natural garden would never be razed" and referring to a dead raccoon he alleges had aroused neighbour antipathy. In response to what the Star describes as a growing sense that the City is "waging war against natural gardens", Blakes cites procedural dictates: that the City had sent two notices asking Dale to "remedy" her garden; that she could have applied for a "natural lawn exemption." For her part, Dale claims she never received the second notice, and suggests that her response to the first letter was ignored by City staff.

Bill Blakes sounds like a nice guy. He seems genuinely perplexed by the uproar. In the media reports I've seen he comes across as a hardworking, conscientious manager. I have no doubt that he is.

But that doesn't mean he's not, metaphorically speaking, talking out of his ass.

I have several problems with the City's expressed position on Deborah Dale's natural garden(s).

First, the raccoon. As I wrote yesterday over at the Spacing Wire (where a similar discussion has occurred), there are raccoons living -- and dying -- under people's eaves all over this city, but we don't tear down entire houses in order to remove them. Nor should Deborah Dale's entire garden have been destroyed in order to remove one (alleged) dead raccoon. A shovel and box would have been sufficient.

Second, by seeking to protect itself behind a paper wall of procedural requirements (notices sent, an "exemption" Dale could have applied for), the City exposes how untenable its position is. Blakes' own admission -- that had Dale applied for such an exemption, "all action against her would have been stopped" -- underscores the reality that there was nothing inherently objectionable about Dale's garden.

Third, in the context of the City's other policies encouraging Torontonians to maintain natural gardens (see the City's Guide to Natural Lawn and Garden Care), the idea that residents must apply for a special exemption in order to do so is ludicrous. In the interests of fulfilling its own policies, the City should instead require residents to apply for special exemptions if they want to grow conventional lawns (monocultures requiring costly overseeding, clandestine applications of pesticides, aggressive fertilizing, and wasteful applications of water).

For these and other reasons, the City of Toronto needs to settle with Deborah Dale and restore her wild garden. At the same time, it must re-align its policies to fall in line with its overarching principles espousing ecological sustainability. We'll follow up here at Reading Toronto when there's more to report.

[Amy Lavender Harris usually writes about Toronto literature and the imaginative qualities of cities in conjunction with the Imagining Toronto project. She grows tall grasses, wild violets, sumac, coneflower, and columbines all over a west-end Toronto property and accordingly is keeping an ear out for the City's encroaching lawnmowers.]

[The 'before and after' images of Deborah Dale's garden are reportedly by Deborah Dale and have appeared in National Post coverage of this issue as well as at the Spacing Wire (which credits them to Treehugger).]

1. Thanks for another great article. Please keep up the protest for all our sakes!
   Points to ponder:
   1. if the buried racoon was a problem…why was it never mentioned by the City previously…and why was it left behind following the garden demolition? I have once again buried the remains…lets hope it’s allowed to stay buried this time.
   2. If natural gardens require a permit (and according to media reports, they are “seldom granted”) why is that not mentioned in any of the City’s extensive advertising promoting them?
   3. Why would you need a permit to plant commercially available species on private property in any case? That leaves every gardener in the City open to this type of harassment…especially given that ferns, plants in flower, shrubs and trees removed in addition to plants that were either setting seed or had yet to flower.

   Posted by Deborah Dale  on  08/31  at  09:54 AM

2. I emailed to express my outrage, and to express my concern about such outdated bylaws:

   “The city’s 20-cm maximum height bylaw is clearly outdated and pathetically ignorant of the realities we face today.

   If Torontonians are to gain consciousness of issues about environment etc., the City needs to lead perception of how to encourage greenness, rather than enforce outdated ideas which lead to reduction of biomass inside the urban zone. I urge you to meet with those who are responsible, and encourage them to change how they see the world we live in so such travesties cannot happen again.”

   I got back a canned response in a very few minutes from Mr Bill Blakes () which basically justified the “Long Grass & Weeds by-law”, and which in no way addressed the broader concerns I have put forward.

   It would seem that the Mayor’s office is far more interesed in “damage control” rather than real issues. They talk the talk, but they certainly don’t seem at all able to walk the walk.

   Feh…

   Posted by  on  08/31  at  12:37 PM

3. Paved over paradise with a parking lot—and now forced destruction of garden spaces – ugh – seems city folk prefer ugly concrete banality to the green abundance of nature. Madame L’Engel was right when she wrote of all the children bouncing their ball in unison…

   Posted by John Penner  on  08/31  at  01:13 PM

4. When will people realize that behind every ‘natural garden’ there are some seriously wonky malcontent home dwellers.
   If they seriously wish to pursue their naturist tendencies, I’ve got a nice tent under the Bloor Viaduct I can show you.
   You will however have to pass an approval process headed by the local homeless society.

   Posted by  on  08/31  at  03:28 PM

5. The following is from the latest “Science Matters” newsletter distributed by Canada’s David Suzuki Foundation:

   “A recent study published in the science journal Biology Letters. The study found that the psychological benefits of urban greenspaces increase with the diversity of life found in them. Researchers interviewed more than 300 park-goers in the medium-sized city of Sheffield, England, and compared their answers to an analysis of the species richness, or biodiversity, of their parks.

   “They found that while the overall size of a park influenced the visitor’s perception of how it made them feel, even more important was the diversity of life. Bigger parks made people feel better, yes. But species-rich parks were even more beneficial. In fact, the researchers report that visitors to the greenspaces were actually able to consciously perceive differences in species diversity – especially with plants.

   As it turns out, when it comes to our health and well-being not all parks are created equal. Simply providing a grass field, for example, is likely to be far less beneficial than a natural area with a greater diversity of plant and animal life. We now know that humans are able to, consciously or otherwise, judge the overall diversity and vibrancy of greenspaces. What’s more, the more diverse and vibrant those ecosystems are, the greater their value to humanity in terms of our own personal health and well being.

   “With three quarters of Canadians now living in urban areas, we must hope that our city planners and municipal politicians are paying attention to this kind of research. It underscores the need to both protect our most diverse ecosystems, and to design our cities to have larger and more green spaces. Ultimately, our health depends on it.”

   Posted by Wild Flora  on  09/01  at  06:49 AM

6. If Bill Blakes thinks the Crittenden Sq. frontage has been improved with his action there,he should develope a heart. Nice action Blakes.

   Posted by Stevenson  on  09/02  at  09:31 AM

7. I recently wrote to Councillor Moscoe, Municipal Licensing and Standards about, amongst other things a disgustingly filthy garbage area with an accompanying atrocious stench in my apt. building, which took 2 and-one-half MONTHS to have 5 containers (only) cleaned (On Aug. 13/07)- one animal carcass. One week later, the inspector turned up. There is a family with three young children living in a unit on the second floor,immediately adjacent to said area. Inspector said area now clean – full of cracks and craters which hold standing water, grease and oil spillage from used commercial cooking oil containers, and just ready for the appropriate ravine mosquitoes to inhabit (Bloor and Mount Pleasant area). Inspector actually had the audacity to say ”... We’ve received many complaints about the garbage area over the summer!” If Deborah Dales can use any of the material in her court case (my original request to City was in May/07,followed by four telephone calls in June/07 and inspector’s attendance, after I contacted Moscoe, eventually on AUG. 20/07), just let me know. I recently requested Councillor Moscoe’s advice re the seeming disparity re Toronto East York and Scarborough MLS application of 20 cm.-high plants. In fact, owing to REIT’s lack of garden shears, unclipped bushes approx. 2 ft. in height (in front of building adjacent to foyer) were vying with sunflowers in height. Shortly after I sent this email to Moscoe, the sunflowers disappeared. Further, given the lack of light in the area, the unkempt nature of the same flies in the face of Police admonitions re loiters hiding in bushes.
   Personally, I adore wild gardens – started one some years ago before I left spouse – but this is an apt. building and really, it doesn’t have a wild garden, per se, it has just been allowed to overrun because of CAPREIT’s refusal to obtain garden shears.

   Posted by  on  10/01  at  09:41 PM

8. I too was outraged that a municipality like Scarborough could wipe out such a wonderful natural habitat while they allow far more egregious ‘pollution’ elsewhere.

   Deborah Dale is AHEAD in her thinking by planting wild flowers.The recent program on PBS ‘The Silence of the Bees’ states that we may be able to get out of the potentially catastrophic loss of these essential winged pollinators IF all of us PLANTED A LARGE VARIETY OF FLOWERS both in our gardens and along motorways and so on.Pristine ( nothing to pollinate) GREEN LAWNS actually are quoted as being A THREAT TO THE ENVIRONMENT from the persepctive of their requiring the elimination of both cultivated and wild flowers.

   Scarborough ought to admit they erred and make good on deborah’s huge loss.

   Posted by  on  11/01  at  05:24 PM

<< Back to main