Is it illegal to destroy California Golden Poppies in CA, when they are growing on your own private property?
This news article tells of someone who planted Golden Poppies in the pattern of McD’s golden arches, alongside a highway (which is what the photo shows), but mentions that they can’t be destroyed because it’s illegal for property owners to do that. It’s not perfectly clear from the article if he actually did this on other people’s private property.
Does anyone know the law on this? Is it actually illegal in CA to remove California Golden Poppies that are growing on your own property?
A common misconception associated with the plant, because of its status as a state flower, is that the cutting or damaging of the California poppy is illegal. There is no such law in California, outside of state law that makes it a misdemeanor to cut or remove any plant growing on state or county highways or public lands, except by authorized government employees and contractors; it is also against the law to remove plants on private property without the permission of the owner (Cal. Penal Code Section 384a) California Penal Code (at FindLaw).
I have a couple of California poppies growing my my yard, and it took almost -40ºC to get those things to slow down (I don’t think the extreme cold actually killed them). I LOVE California poppies - such pretty weeds!
This plant (Eschscholzia californica) is supposed to be a tender perennial hardy to 20F or so, but it reseeds in colder zones so maybe that’s what Cat Whisperer is seeing.
Wonder if McDonalds paid state officials to permit planting along the highway, which would be disgusting if true (what’s next, will other companies “plant” horticultural ads? The makers of Trojan condoms probably have a nifty idea or two).
Not that I’m complaining about Golden Poppies, to be clear! I lived in a real house in a real suburb (housesitting) not long ago, and there were some in the yard. I collected the seeds and spread them around so there were a lot more the next year.
Normally, they have a very short blooming season. But I found if I kept them watered, they stayed in bloom, profusively, all summer!
The article didn’t say if McD paid the state for a permit to plant those there. I don’t know if one would even be needed. It doesn’t even say if the “seed artist” was paid by McD (or anybody else) to do that. I agree with Jackmannii that the idea of commercializing like this is ugly. But hey, companies buy naming rights for stadiums, so this seems like just another thing that can be commercialized.
Many people who commented on that article thought it implied (as I did) that this was also done all over people’s private property, and the article said that such property owners were then stuck with them, like it or not. And that’s what so many of the commenters were bothered over.
Other jurisdictions have rules about their favorite flowers.
I lived near Paso Robles (CA) for many years. There were honeysuckles in peoples’ yards everywhere. New housing developments had them in the original landscaping.
I understood that it was a city ordinance. The City Council decided that they love honeysuckles. And when the City Council loves honeysuckles, EVERYBODY loves honeysuckles! I thought the council required developers to put them in, and I heard that there was a local ordinance against anybody tearing them out.
I thought, if so, that’s awfully damn control-freakish for a city government to dictate everything down to such a petty level.
Just to be clear, I like honeysuckles too! But I don’t think anybody needs TPTB telling us what flowers we have to like.
ETA: Another common landscaping flower, everywhere, is Star Jasmine, which I definitely DON’T like. Something about the scent makes me mildly ill. Is there any law anywhere that says we all have to like Star Jasmine?
Tidewater Virginia and their freaking azaleas andginkos … blargh. At least we didn’t get saddled with the ornamental pear [sperm tree:eek:] If we hadn’t moved up to CT we were considering sneekily poisoning the freaking azaleas on our property, we had IIRC 6, 3 on each street [we lived on a corner property]
I have never heard of any government entity requiring that something be planted (forbidding a specific plant(s), yes). At most, a municipality might have a list of approved trees that you could plant in a public right of way.
Here in PA, the state flower is the mountain laurel, and as kids we used to get our jollies by picking flowers and thinking we were getting away with something soooo baaaaaaaad… :rolleyes:
In college I asked my botany professor about it and he says that as long as it’s on your own property, you can do whatever you want to them. He grew up on a farm and laurels were terminated with extreme prejudice, because they’re poisonous to grazing stock. What’s illegal is destroying the bushes that are growing on state land.
(Referring to alleged Paso Robles law requiring honeysuckles)
Okay, I’m googling this and not finding anything. It seemed to be “common knowledge” some years ago when I was living there. They were certainly everywhere you looked. (Which suited me find. I like honeysuckles.) Maybe it was part of the permitting process, that developers were pressured into planting them to get their permits? I know that new housing development always seemed to be full of honeysuckles when they put the landscaping in.
