# Fighting a stupid law **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 15, 2008, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fighting-a-stupid-law/433591 "2008-01-15T06:49:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fighting-a-stupid-law/433591/1 "2008-01-15T06:49:19Z")
I live in Long Beach, CA which is very cite-happy when it comes to enforcing ticky-tack laws. Basically, I moved my girlfriend’s car onto the lawn so I could leave for work as there were no spots on the street. Within the 2 hours before she left for work, the car was cited for illegal private property parking. I looked up the codes and it’s there since parking on the front lawn is considered a public nuisance. On principal (and because I’m an asshole), I want to fight this as a eminent domain claim, i.e. that restricting use of a a person’s property other than for reasons of health or safety must be compinsated for. I remember a case like this when the State of Washington was successfully sued for recompense when they declared some guy’s property wetlands and restricted his ability to build on it. It’s my property - I should be able to park on the front yard if it doesn’t hurt anyone. In the bigger picture, can a city pass ANY law they want under the guise of “public nuisance”? I mean, if the LBC passes a law saying “No red flowers are allowed to be viewed from the street.” would it be constitutional? ---
**Author:** ![Two\_and\_a\_Half\_Inches\_of\_Fun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ea666f/32.png) [@Two\_and\_a\_Half\_Inches\_of\_Fun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fighting-a-stupid-law/433591/2 "2008-01-15T06:55:50Z")
Do some research on “regulatory taking.” But with your particular case, I do not see any way you have any chance of winning. I mean it is not even close to being a close case. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fighting-a-stupid-law/433591/3 "2008-01-15T07:03:03Z")
You will have no luck with your claim based on imminent domain. The statute does not deprive you of any significant value of your property which isn’t even the standard but it’s close enough. The takings clause makes no exception for health or safety either. If the gov’t “takes” (this is a term of art and does not mean what you think it means) private property for public use it must compensate the owner. Thousands of cases have held that zoning and other restrictions are not necessarily “Takings” unless they deprive the owner of virtually all economic value. Gfactor will be along with a bunch of links shortly… I like laws like this one. There is a community not far from where I live that does not have such a statute and every frickin other house looks like a junk yard with dilapidated junkers all over the place. I realize your situation was different but we have to put up with some bs laws because we are surrounded by inconsiderate jerks. As far as it being your property, keep in mind that your property is in our community. You have rights but so do we. Cars parked on lawns tends to lower property values and are a nuisance. ---
**Author:** ![Rhubarb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/59ef9b/32.png) [@Rhubarb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhubarb)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fighting-a-stupid-law/433591/4 "2008-01-15T07:05:59Z")
I would say that you have exactly zero chance of winning a case like this, but IANAL. However, given the circumstances of the case, you have a better than fair chance of having the citation dismissed or at least the fine reduced, just by stating your case to the judge. Take pictures of your lawn to show that it is not a habitual parking space, explain that it was a one time occurence, you were unaware of the ordinance and it won’t happen again, yadda, yadda, yadda. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fighting-a-stupid-law/433591/5 "2008-01-15T07:21:17Z")
_See generally,_ [http://realtytimes.com/rtnews/rtcpages/20000928\_condemnation.htm](http://realtytimes.com/rtnews/rtcpages/20000928_condemnation.htm) _and_ [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=503&invol=519](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=503&invol=519) \*and \* > **[LUCAS v. SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992) | FindLaw](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/505/1003.html)** > > Case opinion for US Supreme Court LUCAS v. SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL. Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fighting-a-stupid-law/433591/6 "2008-01-15T07:48:03Z")
[QUOTE=askeptic] I like laws like this one. There is a community not far from where I live that does not have such a statute and every frickin other house looks like a junk yard with dilapidated junkers all over the place. I realize your situation was different but we have to put up with some bs laws because we are surrounded by inconsiderate jerks. As far as it being your property, keep in mind that your property is in our community. You have rights but so do we. Cars parked on lawns tends to lower property values and are a nuisance. [/QUOTE] So how far can the “public nuisance” claim go? Could a city ban red flowers claiming a public nuisance? I understand about the community rights but I’m more concerned about the enforcement aspect. Understand that this is a city that gave me a warning under the same “public nuisance” section that they could cite me for having bags of landscaping debris in public view. Ummmmm . . . the bags were there **because I was trimming the bushes at time.** ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fighting-a-stupid-law/433591/7 "2008-01-15T07:48:17Z")
That’s messed up- how on earth does parking on your own lawn qualify as a “Public Nuisance” unless the car in question is a rusted Ford Cortina with no engine? ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fighting-a-stupid-law/433591/8 "2008-01-15T11:22:53Z")
In answer to the question posed by the OP about red flowers, the answer is, Yes, they could ban all showing of red flowers if they wanted to. They wouldn’t even have to cite the idea of “public nuisance” if they didn’t want to. All they would have to do is assert that there was some conceivable rational relationship between banning red flowers and some perceived social ill they intended to remedy. Once they’ve done that, the courts are out of the game, under our current set-up for review of state actions on a substantive basis. Why would you want it any other way? Yes, **this** law is upsetting to you, but if this law could be set aside as unconsitutional, so could several laws that you undoubtedly do like. And, truth be told, you do like this one, though you may not know it, for much the reason that **askeptic** noted, the otherwise quite unlovely landscape that develops where such laws don’t exist. PS: **askeptic** , he’s not going to go anywhere with “imminent” domain except to a dictionary, I would hope. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fighting-a-stupid-law/433591/9 "2008-01-15T12:05:57Z")
[QUOTE=Martini Enfield] That’s messed up- how on earth does parking on your own lawn qualify as a “Public Nuisance” unless the car in question is a rusted Ford Cortina with no engine? [/QUOTE] Because it’s a lot easier to enforce “no parking on the lawn” than to enforce “no parking a rusted junker on the lawn” because every single time you ticket someone for law #2, you get into a big argument about the car. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fighting-a-stupid-law/433591/10 "2008-01-15T12:19:21Z")
So would parking a rusted junker anywhere be OK? What about the drive? ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fighting-a-stupid-law/433591/11 "2008-01-15T12:46:00Z")
Not sure if it makes any difference, but in my area, you legally can’t park on the lawn for two reasons. In my city it’s becuase they don’t want oil or other car fluids dripping into the earth. In my neighboring city it’s because they’re worried that if people start parking on their lawn, the lawn will turn into a mud pit (ugly). BTW, I’ve parked on the lawn many times without a problem, and I have three cops living within 100 feet of my house. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fighting-a-stupid-law/433591/12 "2008-01-15T14:47:23Z")
[QUOTE=Cheesesteak] … every single time you ticket someone for law #2, you get into a big argument about the car. [/QUOTE] In some area this is resolved by making a distinction between a currently registered & inspected vehicle vs. all others. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fighting-a-stupid-law/433591/13 "2008-01-15T14:49:59Z")
[QUOTE=Joey P] BTW, I’ve parked on the lawn many times without a problem, and I have three cops living within 100 feet of my house. [/QUOTE] Right - the ususal story is that these ordinances are enforced rather loosely. Park a well-maintained car on your lawn for the weekend: no problem. A junker for a month: guaranteed citation. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fighting-a-stupid-law/433591/14 "2008-01-15T16:29:16Z")
[QUOTE=Saint Cad] Ummmmm . . . the bags were there **because I was trimming the bushes at time.** [/QUOTE] With that “Ummmmm”, you don’t sound very sure of yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Jinks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dec6dc/32.png) [@Captain\_Jinks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Jinks)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fighting-a-stupid-law/433591/15 "2008-01-15T17:44:57Z")
I had a Fiat 600 that did not work, parked next to my one-car garage for, oh, 6 months or so. I was told by the police-- undoubtedly after the neighbor complained-- that it needed to be removed from view, as it was non operational. So, in my case, though there were a few rust spots, the deciding factor was that it did not start. I believe the tags were exp, too. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fighting-a-stupid-law/433591/16 "2008-01-15T17:55:59Z")
> [@](#): > > In the bigger picture, can a city pass ANY law they want under the guise of “public nuisance”? I mean, if the LBC passes a law saying “No red flowers are allowed to be viewed from the street.” would it be constitutional? You are confusing two separate inquiries: 1. What provisions does this legislative body have the power to pass? The answer to this question will require reference to state constitutional and municipal charter documents and the relevant cases in order to determine what powers the body was given. 2. What limits does the U.S. Consitution impose on those powers? The Bill of Rights, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment imposes a few. The First Amendment protects certain activities, and the Fifth Amendment imposes some procedural protections (due process and compensation for takings for public use). With respect to takings, it’s important to understand that not all takings count. For example, if your home gets searched and they find your basement pot plantation, you aren’t getting paid for the plants when they confiscate them. Since 1922, the Supreme Court has recognized that some regulations may constitute takings but it has waffled about which ones count. The most recent explanation of the test is in _Lucas_, which says: > [@](#): > > We have, however, described at least two discrete categories of regulatory action as compensable without case-specific inquiry into the public interest advanced in support of the restraint. The first encompasses regulations that compel the property owner to suffer a **physical “invasion”** of his property. In general (at least with regard to permanent invasions), no matter how minute the intrusion, and no matter how weighty the public purpose behind it, we have required compensation. For example, in Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982), we determined that New York’s law requiring landlords to allow television cable companies to emplace cable facilities in their apartment buildings constituted a taking, id., at 435-440, even though the facilities occupied, at most, only 1 1/2 cubic feet of the landlords’ property, see id., at 438, n. 16. See also United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256, 265 , and n. 10 (1946) (physical invasions of airspace); cf. Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164 (1979) (imposition of navigational servitude upon private marina). > > The second situation in which we have found categorical treatment appropriate is \*\*where regulation denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land. \*\* See Agins, 447 U.S., at 260 ; see also Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U.S. 825, 834 (1987); Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn. v. DeBenedictis, 480 U.S. 470, 495 (1987); Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 [505 U.S. 1003, 1016] U.S. 264, 295-296 (1981). 6 As we have said on numerous occasions, the Fifth Amendment is violated when land use regulation “does not substantially advance legitimate state interests or denies an owner economically viable use of his land.” Agins, supra, at 260 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). 7 [505 U.S. 1003, 1017] [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/505/1003.html](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/505/1003.html) The Court also explained its previous cases on “noxious use”: > [@](#): > > It is correct that many of our prior opinions have suggested that “harmful or noxious uses” of property may be proscribed by government regulation without the requirement of compensation. For a number of reasons, however, we think the South Carolina Supreme Court was too quick to conclude that that principle decides the present case. The “harmful or noxious uses” principle was the Court’s early attempt to describe in theoretical terms why government [505 U.S. 1003, 1023] may, consistent with the Takings Clause, affect property values by regulation without incurring an obligation to compensate - a reality we nowadays acknowledge explicitly with respect to the full scope of the State’s police power. See, e.g., Penn Central Transportation Co., 438 U.S., at 125 (where State “reasonably conclude[s] that `the health, safety, morals, or general welfare' would be promoted by prohibiting particular contemplated uses of land," compensation need not accompany prohibition); see also Nollan v. California Coastal Comm., 483 U.S., at 834 -835 ("Our cases have not elaborated on the standards for determining what constitutes a `legitimate state interest[,]’ [but] [t]hey have made clear . . . that a broad range of governmental purposes and regulations satisfy these requirements”). We made this very point in Penn Central Transportation Co., where, in the course of sustaining New York City’s landmarks preservation program against a takings challenge, we rejected the petitioner’s suggestion that Mugler and the cases following it were premised on, and thus limited by, some objective conception of “noxiousness”: > "[T]he uses in issue in Hadacheck, Miller, and Goldblatt were perfectly lawful in themselves. They involved no blameworthiness, . . . moral wrongdoing or conscious act of dangerous risk-taking which induce[d society] to shift the cost to a pa[rt]icular individual. Sax, Takings and the Police Power, 74 Yale L.J. 36, 50 (1964). These cases are better understood as resting not on any supposed “noxious” quality of the prohibited uses, but rather on the ground that the restrictions were reasonably related to the implementation of a policy - not unlike historic preservation - expected to produce a widespread public benefit and applicable to all similarly situated property. 438 U.S., at 133 -134, n. 30. > > “Harmful or noxious use” analysis was, in other words, simply the progenitor of our more contemporary statements that [505 U.S. 1003, 1024] “land use regulation does not effect a taking if it `substantially advance[s] legitimate state interests’. . . .” Nollan, supra, 483 U.S., at 834 , (quoting Agins v. Tiburon, 447 U.S., at 260 ); see also Penn Central Transportation Co., supra, 438 U.S., at 127 ; Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 387 -388 (1926). > > The transition from our early focus on control of “noxious” uses to our contemporary understanding of the broad realm within which government may regulate without compensation was an easy one, since the distinction between “harm-preventing” and “benefit-conferring” regulation is often in the eye of the beholder. It is quite possible, for example, to describe in either fashion the ecological, economic, and esthetic concerns that inspired the South Carolina Legislature in the present case. One could say that imposing a servitude on Lucas’ land is necessary in order to prevent his use of it from “harming” South Carolina’s ecological resources; or, instead, in order to achieve the “benefits” of an ecological preserve. 11 Compare, e.g., Claridge v. New Hampshire [505 U.S. 1003, 1025] Wetlands Board, 125 N.H. 745, 752, 485 A.2d 287, 292 (1984) (owner may, without compensation, be barred from filling wetlands because landfilling would deprive adjacent coastal habitats and marine fisheries of ecological support), with, e.g., Bartlett v. Zoning Comm’n of Old Lyme, 161 Conn. 24, 30, 282 A.2d 907, 910 (1971) (owner barred from filling tidal marshland must be compensated, despite municipality’s “laudable” goal of “preserv[ing] marshlands from encroachment or destruction”). Whether one or the other of the competing characterizations will come to one’s lips in a particular case depends primarily upon one’s evaluation of the worth of competing uses of real estate. See Restatement (Second) of Torts 822, Comment 9, p. 112 (1979) (“[P]ractically all human activities unless carried on in a wilderness interfere to some extent with others or involve some risk of interference”). A given restraint will be seen as mitigating “harm” to the adjacent parcels or securing a “benefit” for them, depending upon he observer’s evaluation of the relative importance of the use that the restraint favors. See Sax, Takings and the Police Power, 74 Yale L.J. 36, 49 (1964) (“[T]he problem [in this area] is not one of noxiousness or harm-creating activity at all; rather, it is a problem of inconsistency between perfectly innocent and independently desirable uses.”). Whether Lucas’ construction of single-family residences on his parcels should be described as bringing “harm” to South Carolina’s adjacent ecological resources thus depends principally upon whether the describer believes that the State’s use interest in nurturing those resources is so important that any competing adjacent use must yield. 12 [505 U.S. 1003, 1026] > When it is understood that “prevention of harmful use” was merely our early formulation of the police power justification necessary to sustain (without compensation) any regulatory diminution in value; and that the distinction between regulation that “prevents harmful use” and that which “confers benefits” is difficult, if not impossible, to discern on an objective, value-free basis; it becomes self-evident that noxious-use logic cannot serve as a touchstone to distinguish regulatory “takings” - which require compensation - from regulatory deprivations that do not require compensation. A fortiori, the legislature’s recitation of a noxious-use justification cannot be the basis for departing from our categorical rule that total regulatory takings must be compensated. If it were, departure would virtually always be allowed. The South Carolina Supreme Court’s approach would essentially nullify Mahon’s affirmation of limits to the noncompensable exercise of the police power. Our cases provide no support for this: none of them that employed the logic of “harmful use” prevention to sustain a regulation involved an allegation that the regulation wholly eliminated the value of the claimant’s land. See Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn., 480 U.S., at 513 -514 (REHNQUIST, C.J., dissenting). 13 [505 U.S. 1003, 1027] And then restated the test: > [@](#): > > **Where the State seeks to sustain regulation that deprives land of all economically beneficial use, we think it may resist compensation only if the logically antecedent inquiry into the nature of the owner’s estate shows that the proscribed use interests were not part of his title to begin with.** 14 This accords, we think, with our “takings” jurisprudence, which has traditionally been guided by the understandings of our citizens regarding the content of, and the State’s power over, the “bundle of rights” that they acquire when they obtain title to property. It seems to us that the property owner necessarily expects the uses of his property to be restricted, from time to time, by various measures newly enacted by the State in legitimate exercise of its police powers; “[a]s long recognized, some values are enjoyed under an implied limitation, and must yield to the police power.” Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S., at 413 . And in the case of personal property, by reason of the State’s traditionally high degree of control over commercial dealings, he ought to be aware of the possibility that new regulation might even render [505 U.S. 1003, 1028] his property economically worthless (at least if the property’s only economically productive use is sale or manufacture for sale). See Andrus v. Allard, 444 U.S. 51, 66 -67 (1979) (prohibition on sale of eagle feathers). In the case of land, however, we think the notion pressed by the Council that title is somehow held subject to the “implied limitation” that the State may subsequently eliminate all economically valuable use is inconsistent with the historical compact recorded in the Takings Clause that has become part of our constitutional culture. 15 [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/505/1003.html](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/505/1003.html) (Emphasis added in various quotes). So you’ve got to show that the regulation in question: 1. Deprived you of all economically beneficial use 2.With a new kind of regulation that imposes new restrictions on use of the property. I don’t think you’ve got a chance under federal constitutional law. Your state law may offer you more options. ---
**Author:** ![gotpasswords](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c57346/32.png) [@gotpasswords](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gotpasswords)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fighting-a-stupid-law/433591/17 "2008-01-15T18:07:39Z")
[QUOTE=Walloon] With that “Ummmmm”, you don’t sound very sure of yourself. [/QUOTE] I thought they sounded quite sure of themselves, and that the “ummmm” was meant sarcastically towards whoever told them that the trimmings were a nuisance even though they were actively engaged in landscaping and trimming activities in their yard. In our neighborhood, the problems are stemming from fly-by-nightish auto repair shops that stash their projects on residential streets. As a result, on-street parking time limits are being actively enforced, as well as the state-wide stipulation that vehicles parked on public roads must bear evidence of being currently registered. eg: plates and current tabs. I believe they’ve also dusted off a requirement that vehicles must be generally complete, (Not sure on the exact wording, but it’s an anti-junker law) thus prohibiting the body shops from parking cars on our street if they’re missing major body parts like fenders and doors. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fighting-a-stupid-law/433591/18 "2008-01-15T18:12:50Z")
[QUOTE=gotpasswords] I thought they sounded quite sure of themselves, and that the “ummmm” was meant sarcastically towards whoever told them that the trimmings were a nuisance even though they were actively engaged in landscaping and trimming activities in their yard. [/QUOTE] Recalibrate your humor detector immediately. Apparently it fails to detect jokes.