Reader Writes: Dearborn Community Garden Hurdles

Earlier this year, Dearborn announced that residents could create community gardens on city-owned vacant property in their neighborhoods.

The community garden in Dearborn's Aviation neighborhood was one of the first in the city.

While on the surface that seemed like a nice move by our city leaders, it appears city lawyers baked in so many conditions into the required permit that at least a couple of residents in one neighborhood were afraid to sign the document needed to begin a garden.

This resident sent Deepsaidwhat.com a detailed e-mail about their experience with the city when they went to inquire about whether city officials might consider amending the garden permit. Their concerns with the permit centered around several areas including these:

  1. The person who signs the permit is responsible to compensate the city for whatever dollar amount it takes to restore the property to its original condition.
  2. The permit is revocable at any time and for any reason.
  3. Perennial crops are forbidden (e.g. no strawberries raspberries. blueberries, blackberries, or perennial herbs and flowers that attract pollinators, such as butterflies and bees)

Building a community garden takes a lot of time and effort, which is why this resident, an avid gardener herself, was reluctant to sign her name to the permit in its current form.

Her story about the experience she and her neighbor had with our city when they inquired about a community garden begins below.

Earlier this year, my neighbor down the street heard/read about permits available for residents interested in starting community gardens. To inquire further, she was put in touch with a person in the city’s neighborhood services department. She has several years experience gardening and is living next door to a vacant lot (there was a fire in the house that was there and the city later came and removed the remains of the house).

My neighbor was on board to sign the permit and move ahead, however, the permit appeared too risky and she decided against signing it. I heard about her desire to do this project, several months later, and I, also an avid gardener with an interest in community gardens, was interested in this project, too. I was enthusiastic about going ahead with a garden here until I too saw the permit.

In a nut-shell, I appreciate that Dearborn is, at least, allowing community gardens here and that Dearborn seems to be in step with a trend that is happening on a regional and national scale. I think greater self-sufficiency, appreciation for where things come from and how they are grown, experiential learning, and business ventures that, instead of providing a product, teach people how to do and make things themselves are elements that will be more prevalent in the future.

Full disclosure: I love gardening. I also appreciate teaching people how to help themselves. I do not see myself remaining in Dearborn much longer due to the economic climate, but my neighbor, her husband, and their sons, will be remaining here, and I suspect many of the other young families on this block will too.

Earlier this summer, I contacted the same person my neighbor did in the city’s neighborhood services department on behalf of myself and the neighbor that initially wanted to start the community garden here. Given my interest and experience with gardening, I felt confident enough to speak up about our concerns with the permit. The person I spoke to was very encouraging but it was clear to me this person had no idea the actual energy, effort, time, etc. spent interfacing with neighbors, getting to know people, collaborate with them, etc. to facilitate a thriving COMMUNITY garden.

That’s fine – I don’t expect a city employee to know all of this. But I was hoping that the city would consider altering the permit slightly to create rules that would lend themselves to the success of the garden.

The issues I had with the permit were:

  1. It is revocable at any time and for any reason/the city does not have to state the reason (e.g. we could be gardening at any time and be told to pack up)
  2. We would have 10 days to pack up if told the permit is revoked (this window, for restoring the land to its’ original condition may seem generous but it is really not a lot of time given how large and extensive the garden may be)
  3. The permit is annual in nature – it does not seem worth it to cultivate the land, invest money and sweat equity, organize neighbors, etc. for a garden that is only annual
  4. We cannot plant any crops that are perennial (e.g. no strawberries raspberries. blueberries, blackberries, or perennial herbs and flowers that attract pollinators, such as butterflies and bees)
  5. And, finally, it is the person who signs the permits responsibility to compensate the city for whatever dollar amount it takes to restore the property – whomever does this would, at least, have to pay for resodding or whatever charges (I don’t know what these could be) the city may come up with. Also, I do not want to be held accountable for any pre-existing conditions on the property.

Clearly, I do not feel confident getting neighbors to make financial and emotional investments in the garden with such a shaky, risky permit and I think it would take more than a year to establish relationships with neighbors and achieve a flourishing garden.

Per the city employee’s suggestion, I wrote to Mayor O’Reilly in June with my concerns and explained that I think it would be good for Dearborn to encourage community garden projects by tweaking the permit so that it acknowledges the investments residents would be making, especially the person who signs the permit and accepts complete legal responsibility of the property.

A few weeks later, I was contacted by the person in the neighborhood services department. This person asked me to explain my concerns and offer suggestions. I did so in an email that was a few paragraphs long – this message would probably take someone no longer than 15 minutes to read, I wanted to be clear about what my concerns were and why. Soon after, I was contacted by a city attorney and the city employee. They wanted to set up an hour long meeting to discuss the permit the following week. Though I was uncertain what more I could say, because I had tried to be as clear in the email, I agreed to the meeting and was appreciative for their responsiveness.

My neighbor (the one who originally inquired about the garden) and I met the city attorney and the city employee in the law conference room. Suffice it to say, the lawyer seemed bothered by what we had to say, she had not read my email and blamed me (“my email was too long”), implied that I wanted a garden for myself (I have my own garden and if I wanted one for myself, I would not bother to inquire about securing a permit that would lend itself to getting novice gardeners involved), and used leading questions (“how come you two are the only ones that have a problem with this permit?”). Meanwhile, the city employee reminded us that the Mayor’s wife supports community gardens.

I appreciate that residents can speak up. I also appreciate so many things about Dearborn (the libraries, continuing education classes, city services, police, etc.). I understand that the city has more important, pressing matters at hand too and that the property is, of course, under ownership by the Dearborn. I think the permit does an excellent job of protecting the city, I just had questions about whether it could be broadened to acknowledge the investment participating neighbors would be making by partaking in such a project.

When my parents moved here from Detroit, it was to find a safer neighborhood where they could raise their children. As I noted, I appreciate so much about Dearborn, but I had thought the city would’ve handled my inquiry in a different way . . . even if their response was, “we don’t know about this right now”, rather than approaching us as suspect.

I’d like to know what other residents think about the garden permit requirement and whether they think it would be okay to sign the permit. Unlike the other couple community gardens here, we learned that ours would be on a “buildable lot” (e.g. the city wants to sell the vacant lot eventually). Perhaps, there could be two different permits for buildable and non-buildable properties? Either way, I’d like to know what other residents think.

Thank you.

A gardening fan

DeepSaidWhat.com welcomes your views and encourages lively -- but civil -- discussions. Comments are unedited, but submissions reported as abusive may be removed.

15 Responses to “Reader Writes: Dearborn Community Garden Hurdles”

  1. Donna Hay says:

    Is it any wonder that people don’t care to participate in anything this city has to offer. This is unreal, the city has gone way way overboard on this one. If they are giving taxpayers such a hard time for a small garden can you imagine what they require of the people that would like to open a business in this city.

  2. vincent says:

    Typical O’Reilly administration mumbo jumbo. They can’t do anything for the good of the City that is why people back-off from Dearborn. Why so many rules, why not try to make things friendlier, like his dad used to do, but this guy isn’t a pimple on his dad’s behind, when it comes to promoting the City. From my standpoint no thanks, let the weeds grow, if that’s what u want, and don’t forget to watch for rodents from those weeds. I don’t know what we (the people) would do without u big guy, but I think we will find out at the next election.

  3. cloe says:

    And now you know why so many businesses are no longer in Dearborn and why no new businesses are beating the door down to relocate or open here.

    The residents and small businesses can’t get a break while the large “developer” can do no wrong.

    The City needs to wake up before there is nothing left to talk about.

  4. Marty kaltenbach says:

    Why don’t people like lawyers? For one thing they tend over think so many simple issues. I’m sure the city’s legal beagles thought of every possible malady that could ever happen forever. How dare we mere college graduates question their wisdom.
    It begs the question what action would follow if butterflies are seen hovering over the garden. It all suggests to me the city has too many lawyers on the payroll if they’ve got the time to frustrate people into knots over a simple garden.

  5. Anthony says:

    How about an insurance bond for the garden in case the vegetables don’t grow or if contaminants were found on the property or in case someone goes bankrupt? Oh, wait-a-minute…

  6. Joe says:

    Do we have a contract from Hakim with this much red tape? Do we have Hakim bonded, or will we not learn from B-K? This will not end well.

  7. shallowSaidwhat says:

    And what if cats go into those gardens and fertilize them?

  8. A Little Contrast says:

    Dearborn is in a very different place, economically, than it was in the late 70’s, but the story related above is in sharp contrast to what happened when the first Mr. O’Reilly was Mayor. At that time, the city bought a few houses to expand a park. One of the house owners bought his house back from the city with a desire to move it. The moving company did something wrong, and the house was damaged beyond repair, and did not have the proper insurance in place to pay for the loss.

    The first Mayor O’Reilly had the City re-buy the house, to save the citizen the life-changing loss. He didn’t have to do that. There was no indication that the Mayor even knew the people except for the incident. Now, his son’s administration gives people a hard time when they want to plant a garden…

    The City needs to protect itself with the correct language in the permits, and we all understand that. There is no need to intimidate citizens who simply were looking for reassurance. Compare this encounter with another one, of a couple of years ago.

    On the west side of town, my friend lives on a block with Nancy Siwik. Ms. Siwik has run campaigns for the current Mayor. Ms. Siwik bought a sub-standard house on the block when the elderly person moved away. The house should have been torn down. That is what the law requires. Siwik, however, was trying to rent the house out. When neighbors protested, the City bought the house from Siwik – giving her a profit – then tore it down at City expense. The neighbor next door tried to buy the empty lot, but was refused. It turns out that Siwik still wants it in the future, so the City is holding it for her.

    So, when it comes to vacant lots, it depends on who you are, I guess, with the current Mayor’s office.

  9. vincent says:

    Contrast u are so right. This Mayor, couldn’t hold a candle to his father PR wise. He is simply ignorant when it comes to PR, unless u are one of his cronies (like Siwik). Its what have u done 4 me lately — that is the big guys motto.

  10. Milwood Fordson says:

    don’t fool yourselves with O’rielly one, O’rielly two or even Guido or yes amost Saint Hubbard. like things have been going on since forever. years ago it was much easier to cover these behind the scenes actions. ever heard of the Esper suit, which accured under Hubbard in the south end or some of the stuff that mayoral girlfrind and his cronies played in that. Difference now is more people are watching and thay have found a more devious way of doing it and hiding it. Politics make men dishonest at some level, its the nature of the beast. a vary close eye on them make them squirm more. my suggestion is keep them sqirming alot, and then when its time to change, don’t sit at home and talk get out and vote.

  11. Oliver Douglas says:

    Does the city require a permit for beekeeping? I’ve been an active apiarist for the last 10 years in Dearborn and haven’t had any complaints. If you want honey you have to have a few bees.

  12. cloe says:

    Oliver – I hope that you didn’t use your real name. If you did, you’ll probably find an ordinance officer, with pad in hand, on your property in the near future.

    This city has it’s values totally out of whack.

    Milwood – you are totally correct. The only difference between today and the past is the easy access to the web. Not many things can be hidden for very long.

    As far as Nancy Siwak goes, I remember hearing her say that the only reason that she was running was to get rid of Thomas. Now, if one more member leaves the council for any reason, she will be sitting there making decisions for all of us.

    Nothing ever changes.

  13. SameAsitEverWas says:

    Nothing shocks me anymore about this city and this regime. For years this city has made it hard for good people with good intentions to do positive things.
    If its home improvements or community gardens it doesn’t matter,the regime will impose their will and make it impossible to get things done. About the only time anything moves quickly in this regime is when they want to blow a bunch of money,then there isn’t any red tape. Two winters ago during a snow blizzard people were getting stuck on the corner where i live,my neighbor helped push them out and then took his pick up truck that had a plow on it and tried to clear the corner some so nobody else would get stuck. Some idiot working for the city in a blue explorer stopped my neighbor and told him he was going to fine him for moving the snow and told him to put the snow back into the street!
    I’m sure with this administration that person probably got a big promotion by now.
    These are the type of people that are running this city and i can tell you that my neighbor and i are going to try to make sure this mayor and his cronies are voted out next election!
    The question is who else is with us?

  14. shallowsaidwhat says:

    Uhh Chole??? you better snap back into the present, Nancy Siwik is NO LONGER the next one to take over a council seat, that was LAST TERM! An election has passed and she lost it, the next person now to take over is DAVID BAZZY!

  15. cloe says:

    Shallow – I knew that Bazzy was already in because one the current members would be leaving at the general election.

    I’m pretty sure, you, no doubt, can check and let me know. I am never above being corrected.