I am a professional landscaper. I moved to this area for work, I live in Harrisonburg, and I plan to make my home here. I am politically active, I vote, I participate in local political organizations, and I knock on doors as a volunteer during election season. This issue is important because status quo lawn care is, in short terms, ecocide, and in my opinion, ugly. There is no aesthetic argument for short lawns any more than there is for shaved beards. That's coming from a landscaper who practices design and community-based art in your community. If I'm wrong, prove it. This is the age of reason and you're a public official dabbling in aesthetics if you support this bill. As for land-use practice, though maintaining a short lawn is justifiable for scant management purposes, it’s a corruption of what nature gave us and thereby what should belong in your very own yard, and it's a disappointingly slothful interpretation of the notion of "land-use." If public officials want to do some good for the land-use in this State and its varied communities, they would legislate against the numerous harmful plant species which, under your very tenure, are openly sold at "reputable" business. (See for example 2017 SB964.) And not to mention the use of chemicals in status-quo lawn care in the State ... eye roll. I dare say, short-lawn advocates know not a whit for nature, beauty, nor reason. People have the right to have a short, boring yard, just as I have the right to have a tall. Actually, for what it's worth, I plan on making use of mine. Frankly, in the age of information, reason, and science, I'm shocked and dismayed that this is even an issue for debate in the state of Virginia. Read a book, go online and look it up. No Mow May. It's three words, less than seven letters, I think you can handle that. Honestly, I would ask of any supporter of this bill, what the heck are you trying to accomplish by diminishing the very meaning of nature itself while simultaneously assaulting the civil liberties of your goodly constituents? I would ask them, what is your goal here, aside from social control? 1) They would be wrong. 2) Not having a rational goal and acting thus disqualifies one from leadership. Is there any takeaway for a good natured, hard-working, politically-active, tax-paying Virginian like myself, except that the supporters, authors, and co-sponsors of this bill are the type that need to be replaced? Oppose.

1) The identical bill was tabled as HB315 and I include all arguements against. https://hodspeak.house.virginia.gov/committees/H07/bills/HB315/comments 2) HB1316 is a strategic blow that undermines state-wide housing and environmental protections. 3) it would thwart many of the Committee's goals. See https://hodspeak.house.virginia.gov/committees/H01/bills/HB407/comments 4) It builds on the "general welfare" erosion of "health and safety of others" guardrails on 15.2-901.1 trash in yard. The facts of the Virginia Farm Bureau Federation's warning of weaponization against farmers have not changed. The testimony of inconvenience to staff is a feature, not a bug. 5) Aesthetic nuisance ordinances HB1316 enables were purpose-built for residential segregation. Today they are "tools" for taking property, not "cleaning up." They drive precarity and destroy generational wealth, contrary to other fine bills by the same sponsors. See https://x.com/newreadjuster/status/2015588802601812104 and https://www.portland.gov/auditor/ombudsman/news/2021/11/3/citys-reliance-complaints-property-maintenance-enforcement and https://comptroller.nyc.gov/newsroom/press-releases/nyc-comptroller-landers-audit-exposes-racial-gaps-in-building-code-enforcement-based-on-311-complaints/ 6) Using nature as a proxy in exclusionary housing practices stigmatizes and has collateral harms to nature. 7) it entrenches and expands 15.2-901.3 authority for tall grass and weed ordinances, a documented barrier to adoption of stormwater and pollinator BMPs. 8) The trend is in the opposite direction. Delegate Krizek's wildly popular 2024 HB528 protecting natural landscapes from HOAs was pulled so bills like this could be defeated and 15.2-901.3 overhauled. New York passed a strong right to garden bill in one chamber that is making its way in the other this session. 9) In Harrisonburg, storwater BMPs adoption is about 3% , pollinator lower, and marginalized communities cut down trees as they age and can't rake leaves for fear of stigma and city enforcement. This drives heat islands and environmental justice disparities. 10) Delegate Wyatt's comments on HB315 that people targeted by these ordinances often are elderly or low income and just don't have the means, strongly argues against hitting them with more enforcement rather than providing resources. 11) The bullying empowered by these ordinances has a chilling effect on civic participation. The abuse enabled by such ordinances is stigmatizing, preventing victims from coming forward. The impact can be expected to be worse for isolated homes on agricultural land. 12) Benevolent staff can't be counted on to keep theses effects in check. Already they have testified to wanting convenience in trashing people's property against their will. Sorting clutter from trash would not be an issue if the victim wanted the "help." They would give permission. 13) Half a dozen independent Harrisonburg surveys concur with results across lawn cultures of more than 90% opposition. The 3% or so who prod staff are powerful and mean, described in research as those who "experienced and exerted social control, through direct and indirect confrontation, with the intent to return nonconforming yards to compliance." 14) Its harms are bipartisan because striking at clarity, property, legitimacy, and democracy, they undermine the rule of law. This is one of the most harmful bills this session. Please oppose.

Opposed to these bills