Obligatory:
This sounded plausible until she said they poured bleach on the ground. Then it had the smell of bullshit.
Wait, why? Bleach is a common way to kill plants in the short term without any long term lingering effects in the soil since it decomposes into salt and water. With enough drainage, the salt seeps out and plants can grow again. I’d say it’s a pretty pragmatic solution to ensuring that someone doesn’t grow anything again in the short term.
People drink bleach to avoid a life saving vaccine.
In this parody of a world we live in I say it is not so far fetched someone would do this.
Face = palm
“‘When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner. I am the Lord your God.” - Leviticus 19:9, 10
Leviticus Its in the pick and choose portion of the king james opinion of the bible.
Well it is “the Rules of the Tribe of Levi” canonically speaking they are laws made not by God but by a bunch of priests. It is important for biblical historical context reasons but technically speaking these are ancient society laws. It’s why instructional portions detailing animal sacrifice are included in that section when modern Christians tend to look at animal sacrifice as a satanic cult kind of thing.
Provided you are Christian ( before the atheists start in, I’m not - I just study the religion as a part of gaining historical background info) Using Leviticus to justify one’s opinions on anything strikes me as showing that one read the text absent the scholarly context. A lot of Christians do this because book annotations wouldn’t be a thing before 1000 AD and it really benefited a lot of powerful people to never mention context of the compiling process of the book because once the supposed less than divine fingerprints on the processed material are brought to light it weakens it’s power as a tool of authority.
I think something like this would be carried over into the new covenant as the spirit of the law remained
Except they don’t do that. What they do is pick and choose from the old testament and ignore any part of the new testament that is inconvenient. Not all of them. Just the majority of them. What they do instead is take away the benches least someone in need to sleep there. They punish those that feed the needy in many places. They pass laws to make the most vulnerable of us criminals for daring to exist in their presence.
I don’t listen to what people say. I watch what they do. What the majority of christians in my area do is hateful and very non christian. All of them are convinced though that god always wants exactly what they want.
Same comments I got when I said I was planting apple trees in my front yard. Those are for the public, the ones in my back yard are for me.
Everyone in my street is selling their apples on the street. Every house has a little basket and a sign “1 kilo 1 euro” or something like that. Some are even giving them away for free. I gave mine away in bulk, so I haven’t got anything to pu in the street.
In Cupertino houses have boxes of fruit of different kinds in front of their house. It is all free. Very kind of them.
The annoying thing about fruit trees is that the fruits are only good for picking for like 1-2 weeks of the whole year. If you don’t pick them during those 2 weeks, they rot and spoil. That’s why the whole street tries to sell them pretty much at the same time, because you can’t pick fruit like a basket at the time. You have to pick the whole tree during those 2 weeks.
It depends on the tree, I think, doesn’t it? I have a fig tree and the figs are great for about 45 seconds in July. Essentially unfit for human consumption any other time!
Mine is in August. Figs supposedly have two harvests a year, but I must have blinked during the other one.
Those same people walk on sidewalks without going through the toll booths!
(for US people, sidewalks are designated areas on the side of the road especially for pedestrians, or as some people say, wasted space)
We call them pavements in the UK and I kinda think sidewalk is more descriptive. You walk on the side of the road.
Down under, it’s usually footpath which I think is even more descriptive
Footpath makes it sound like it goes through the woods or a field or something.
In the US basically anything paved is pavement.
Asphalt road: Pavement
Concrete sidewalk: Pavement
Giant parking lot: Pavement
Gravel road: Believe it or not - paveme… well that one’s debatable.
I’d say gravel roads can be argued to be “paved” if it’s really fine gravel that has been properly packed down by repeated driving on it, to the point where it starts looking shiny and sort of like glazed clay
Gravelment
We need to re-think our relationship with property.
I remember when I was young I got ticketed for trespassing on public property. I was so offended. Yet that’s the society we live in. Public resources aren’t for use by the public, they are for use by the small fraction of the public who control them.
We’re gonna need the detail. The county jail is public property, but you can’t waltz in and say hi to the inmates.
It was for staying too late in a public park. It was meant to be closed after dark. I overstayed by like an hour.
I think there’s a big difference between breaking and entering and trespassing. Going into a restricted area is more like the latter. Although there’s the whole ethics of a prison to consider as well but I don’t want to get into that.
But yes there may be a small number of situations where public access should be forbidden but right now that’s a minority of all of the completely unnecessary restrictions that exist.
So you were there when it wasn’t public property, legally speaking.
In this case, they mean “public property” as in it’s the property of the public. It’s owned by the government, by the tax payers.
You’re thinking public or state ownership. Public property is property generally meant to be used by the public. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t conditions to that use though, like hours of operation.
Most of this is in that article you linked…
You’re buzzing around the point like a fly on shit
But why should a public park have hours of operation? Benches and open space don’t stop working after certain hours, don’t take resources or workers to operate, they’re just there. Why should we punish people for enjoying the outdoors?
Swing through Washington square park at 2 in the morning, better still if you can do it 20 years ago
Just a bafflingly dumb response to such an obviously great thing to do.
This is the result of a century of propaganda and destruction of public spaces
There will atleast be 1 asshole trying to take all the apples for himself. I guarantee it
Meh, that’s why you plant an abundance. No value if you can’t steal at least most and probably be able to travel.
Guess we can’t have anything nice as long as one person might be selfish.
I didn’t say we shouldn’t do it. I just wanted to point out that sadly one jerk will probably try and ruin it for everyone
We should bring back tar and feather punishments or maybe exile, for people who ruin good things so they can benefit more than anyone else
I actually really appreciate the rational response to this that people have had about waste fruit, the rotting, and the food chain that follows the fallen fruit.
I had wanted to plant a few fruit trees in my front yard and allow neighbors to just take fruit off of it. Lots of people walk up my 0.5mi dead-end road.
But then I remembered what every PYO farm is like…tons of rotting fruits sitting at the bottom of all of them. And any apple someone picks that isn’t 100% perfect gets tossed in the pile.
That’s a lot of maintenance. Totally doable for an individual or small group to maintain a small patch. Gets really difficult to scale up.
It’s worth keeping in mind though, if you want to feed people: we can just do that, we have the food and we have the infrastructure. Every person going hungry in a city with edible food in bins, produce discarded for not looking right and so on is going hungry because of policy decisions.
It is cheaper, healthier, and more successful to just distribute the food we already grow, make and transport than trying to turn everything into an orchid.
I mean cmon though - in a capitalist country someone would take ALL the fruit and then sell it to people. “It was public but then it became MINE and if you want it you need to enrich MY wealth with a piece of YOUR value”
Then I say we enforce the social contract of “don’t be a fucking asshole”, with force if needed.
that sounds like they’re doing work then, what’s the problem?
Hoarding and repackaging a free public good in order to sell it back to the people it was originally free for?
Do you work for Nestle?
you’d prefer not having fruits in the first place, just to prevent someone from harvesting and selling them?
Don’t sealion me, you know that’s not the argument I was making
I’ve been told that this is a no-go for city planners because the sheer quantity of fallen fruit can be a walking hazard, and no one wants the legal liability. What it comes down to is that “free” fruit trees would require additional ongoing maintenance costs. Nothing nefarious, just logistical issues.
what if the trees are planted in a park, far from the road?
How fucked is it that our first thoughts are about cars and sidewalks?
Cars, yeah it’s fucked. But I think keeping things walkable is good.
No doubt, but look at the black and white thinking in this thread. We can’t have fruit trees at all because they might interfere with sidewalks, or because city planners might get in a huff.
I’m not discounting the legitimate concerns of trafficability or zoning, but to write it off completely for these concerns is trash. If we can engineer a tailings dam and plan for 100 year floods that might ruin it, then we can figure out a way to permit fruit bearing trees in cities.
I’d say that’s a question for city planners.
You mean like shoveling sidewalks in the winter?
Oh no.
The horror.
I thought they were banned to prevent free food and thus discouraged homeless people.
Sounds like job creation to me
I imagine if there were trees all over every street in town there would be a lot of mushy ass fruit swarming with flies on the ground.
It’s not a stable enough logistics chain to be viable, like, If I think “I’d like to possess a bowl of apples” I’m not going to like, patrol the streets and pick apples to that end.
You would if you were hungry and didn’t have money
From a city planner view point this would never fly because it was attract insects to public spaces.
How dare we have pollinators.
How disgusting! Nature? In my neighborhood? Ugh.
Same for any flowers
It’s bog standard to have fruit trees and berry bushes in urban areas here in sweden, rowan trees and serviceberry bushes are literally everywhere, and it simply is not a problem. Birds will eat most of it before you even have time to notice the fruit going bad.
Oh I’m sure some European countries have a more ecologically friendly setup than us. I’m speaking from the perspective of US city planners, and I assure you, this is a major consideration for them.
Don’t fruit trees need extra care and pruning, and the fruit that falls to the ground is also kind of a mess to clean up. Sturdy trees are good in the city, since they are low upkeep and very good for air quality and shade. I am however a huge fan of vertical gardens with edible plants. Imagine a whole wall with mint growing on it, that would be wicked!
If you want to maximize production, yeah, you cut at certain times of the year to force the trees to put as much energy into the fruit as possible. But if you just leave them outside they will fruit as long as they are sufficiently watered and have enough room to grow (and it’s not insanely stressed from a drought or heat wave, etc). There might not be as many fruits, and they might be smaller, but it will produce. But ideally you always want to choose fruit or nut trees that are native to your region (or at least your agricultural zone) so that they require less upkeep in general.
No legal advice, but I am pretty sure picking an apple from a tree in a public space (but can be privately owned) for direct consumption is legal in Germany. Weird but understandable that you need a law for that.
Laws regarding public access to nature are much better in Europe & the UK than in the US.
If I remember correctly, Trespassing isn’t a viable law in Finland.
You want to walk across the land? Go ahead.
In the US: CRIME
You just know some asshole would pick all the trees clean and go sell the fruit
No offense to you personally, but I hate this kind of premature defeatism. Like… yeah, some people are jerks and try to take advantage of things. Put rules in place and enforce them as much as the people in charge care to.
I know it’s strawmanning to bring this up, but people use the same argument to say "We shouldn’t have food stamps for hungry kids or welfare for needy families or subsidized housing for people without homes because people will abuse it. Yeah. Some people will, and others will suffer because of their greed. But so many more people will continue to suffer if we don’t even try because we are too scared of The Undeserving boogeyman. Not every tree will be taken advantage of, and as the sense of outreach and community grows, abuse of it will fall and it will be worth it. I guarantee it…
Honestly it’s really telling on them.
Like you can’t do nice things because X. So they don’t do it.
Visit Portland. Lots of neighborhoods grow fruit trees.
And the fruit falls to the ground.
Nobody is going around selling them.
As someone who lives in Portland, yes.
People stealing fruit from trees is the least of my Portland worries.
Plant enough so they can’t make a profit.
