Cops raid an organic farm

[s_stabeler]

You're right it is their fault, Greenday, but the question is, what is the aim of code enforcement. Is it to get unlicensed people to get a license, or is it to get rid of the unlicensed businesses? If your aim is to get people to get a license (and it usually IS) then the proper response is to leave the crop in situ and tell them to get a license ( remember, we are past the panting season for tomatoes, so the farm cannot grow another crop of tomatoes until next year)IF you want to drive all unlicensed businesses out of business, rather than license them, then destroying the crop is appropriate.

[Greenday]

Well, I'm all for option B when it comes to people who want to skip regulations to do their business.

[Duelist925]

Well, I'm all for option B when it comes to people who want to skip regulations to do their business.

Please stop making assumptions.

You have no idea what their situation is. You don't know if they were skipping regulations, or were in the process of going through those, or if they had a permit and it expired, or what.

If you have any hard evidence for any of these claims, PLEASE provide it. Not just your speculations and assumptions.

[Andara Bledin]

Well, I'm all for option B when it comes to people who want to skip regulations to do their business.

That's great.

Counterproductive and, ultimately blindingly shortsighted, but, hey, gotta stick it to 'em for flouting the law with their evil tomato farm.

[Greenday]

That's great.

Counterproductive and, ultimately blindingly shortsighted, but, hey, gotta stick it to 'em for flouting the law with their evil tomato farm.

Well, since you want them to just leave them be, I'm sure you're totally willing to fork over your hard earned cash to do the testing on their food that they are going to sell, right?

[Andara Bledin]

Well, since you want them to just leave them be, I'm sure you're totally willing to fork over your hard earned cash to do the testing on their food that they are going to sell, right?

I never said I was for leaving them be no matter what. I said I don't have enough information on their situation or the local regulations to say one way or another, but if the regs said to tear up the farm, then the authorities did the right thing.

However, there's a non-zero chance that the authorities tore up the farm just to be assholes because that isn't an uncommon occurrence when they show up for a reported violation that doesn't actually exist for someone they already don't like.

[Nyoibo]

To be licensed you usually need to meet certain standards, if you're unlicensed then there's a good chance you don't meet those requirements, meeting those requirements later doesn't change the fact that the produce was grown not meeting those requirements therefore, destruction of the crop.

[s_stabeler]

You do know that they were growing Heirloom tomatoes, i.e. varieties that are only not grown now because other varieties are cheaper? There is no question about the safety of the crop itself.

best guess? the food handling requirements are mostly about hygiene. In other words, once they've met the standards, there's no reason they can't sell the tomatoes.

In short, I think the damage from licensing enforecement should be limited to what is actually the problem. ( I.e. if it's a problem with the crop, destroy the crop. If it's a problem with food preparation, then prohibit them from selling the crop.)

[Andara Bledin]

To be licensed you usually need to meet certain standards, if you're unlicensed then there's a good chance you don't meet those requirements, meeting those requirements later doesn't change the fact that the produce was grown not meeting those requirements therefore, destruction of the crop.

Neither of those follow, actually.

There is nothing that says not being licensed means not meeting standards. I know of quite a few situations where unlicensed people exceed the standards; they just don't have the interest, capital, and/or knowledge to become licensed. This isn't an endorsement of not being licensed, just a statement that lack of license (other than being refused) had no bearing on level of standard.

Also, there are a number of regulations (such as food handling as mentioned above) that can absolutely be retroactively applied. Say a regulation exists against certain pesticides. As long as those pesticides were not used at any stage, the certification could absolutely be granted after the fact.

[Nyoibo]

Ok, lets break it down like this, regulations exist because of the lowest common denominator, which as we all know is pretty fucking low, as such they have to treat everyone equally.

Also, I keep hearing people calling for Greenday to back up his claims or that he's not got enough information to make those calls, where is your information to back up your side, there's all these claims that they went too far, didn't have to do this or that, where's your evidence or information that it wasn't warranted?

[HYHYBT]

Ok, lets break it down like this, regulations exist because of the lowest common denominator, which as we all know is pretty fucking low, as such they have to treat everyone equally.

Also, I keep hearing people calling for Greenday to back up his claims or that he's not got enough information to make those calls, where is your information to back up your side, there's all these claims that they went too far, didn't have to do this or that, where's your evidence or information that it wasn't warranted?

Because only one side is making wild assumptions and then presenting them as incontrovertible truth.

best guess? the food handling requirements are mostly about hygiene. In other words, once they've met the standards, there's no reason they can't sell the tomatoes.

Well, that depends. There may be no way to prove that they were meeting hygiene standards *all along,* as opposed to only showing that they're not continuing to break them from the present forwards. And E. Coli, for example, gets into growing plants from contaminated soil; once this has happened, there is no way to correct it and no amount of proper hygiene going forward will do a bit of good for the current crop.

[Duelist925]

Ok, lets break it down like this, regulations exist because of the lowest common denominator, which as we all know is pretty fucking low, as such they have to treat everyone equally.

Also, I keep hearing people calling for Greenday to back up his claims or that he's not got enough information to make those calls, where is your information to back up your side, there's all these claims that they went too far, didn't have to do this or that, where's your evidence or information that it wasn't warranted?

We are not making assumptions. We are presenting alternate scenarios.

The entire point is that we don't have the info to say one way or the other. Greenday cannot present his assertions as fact because the info he has does not support them exclusively.

If he has further info that would support his assumptions as fact, he should present it.

Until he does, his claims are unsubstantiated at best.

[Greenday]

Um, the proof is the story in itself. If they were doing things the right way, the legal way, their farm would still exist. Pretty blatantly obvious.

So feel free everyone else to back up your claims that they were doing nothing wrong or that they had already filed the paperwork or whatever your excuse is for having sympathy for these people.

[Nekojin]

Um, the proof is the story in itself. If they were doing things the right way, the legal way, their farm would still exist. Pretty blatantly obvious.

Because police officers are infallible and never act illegally themselves, right?

I'm willing to assume that the destruction of the plants was by the book, sight unseen, but I'm not going to go so far as to say that the cops' action is evidence of the validity of the cops' action. That's... Orwellian.

[Andara Bledin]

Um, the proof is the story in itself. If they were doing things the right way, the legal way, their farm would still exist. Pretty blatantly obvious.

Because it happened, it happened the way it was supposed to?

That is an utterly indefensible position no matter how you read it.

Nevermind the case where cops served a warrant on the wrong house and killed the woman who lived there. She must have deserved to die because, hey, they're the authorities and they can't possibly have made a mistake.