What are the bylaws?
The Southwark Queen Village Community Garden’s bylaws reflect a long history of community garden governance that emphasizes structure, order, and shared responsibility (Acton 2011, 47; Crouch 1997, 192). However, as scholars have noted, such regulations often create subtle exclusions, determining who is truly able to participate in these spaces. These guidelines cover membership criteria, meeting requirements, officer elections, row captain duties, committees, garden standards, and general expectations for gardeners. The garden’s goals reflect an ambitious vision: fostering community engagement and collaboration, ensuring fair and transparent governance, promoting equitable access, supporting environmental stewardship, and maintaining a culture of responsibility while providing opportunities for continued involvement. By requiring active participation, encouraging sustainability, and prioritizing inclusivity, the bylaws seek to balance individual gardening pursuits with collective responsibility.
Who can participate?
The garden is prioritized for residents of Queen Village, specifically between the Delaware River and 6th Street, and from the south side of Lombard Street to the north side of Washington Avenue. Membership applications are processed on a first-come, first-served basis, contingent on plot availability. If no plots are available, applicants will be added to a waiting list. Returning gardeners from the previous season are annually given first preference to retain their plots or choose vacant ones, provided they sign the Neighborhood Gardening Association (NGA)/Philadelphia Land Trust gardening agreement at the March meeting. A $5.00 registration fee is required each year. Plots for which fees remain unpaid or agreements unsigned by the April meeting are reassigned to applicants on the waiting list. Unless approved by the garden membership, no household may hold more than one plot.
Monthly Meetings
Figure 7: Monthly meeting held outside of the Honey House
The garden holds monthly meetings on the second Monday of every month, excluding January and February. Meetings occur at a local church from October through March and at the garden during warmer months. Each meeting lasts one hour. Gardeners are required to attend at least five meetings per season to retain their membership. Attendance is recorded by the Secretary or Assistant Secretary, and voting rights are allocated on a one-vote-per-plot basis.
The Election of Leadership
The election of officers takes place at the March meeting. Officers serve two-year terms and may not hold the same position for more than two consecutive terms. The elected positions include Chair, Vice Chair, Treasurer, Recording Secretary, Assistant Secretary, and Sergeant-at-Arms. Along with the row captains, these officers form the Garden Council, responsible for oversight and decision-making. Row captains are appointed volunteers, one per row, tasked with ensuring the upkeep of their respective areas. They monitor individual garden plots for weeds and debris and ensure the paths on either side of the row remain clear. Row captains also notify gardeners of clean-up days and special events. Assistant row captains may also be appointed as needed.
The Bylaw & Inspection Committees
Two committees play a key role in maintaining garden order: the Bylaws Committee and the Inspection Committee. The Bylaws Committee, chaired by the Vice Chair, reviews proposed bylaw amendments and requires a quorum of five members to pass recommendations. Suggestions can be presented by any gardener during membership meetings. The committee meets on the first Monday of the month as needed. Meanwhile, the Inspection Committee—composed of the Chair, immediate past Chair, Urban Gardening Advisor, Treasurer, and two row captains—ensures plots and aisles remain clean, hazard-free, and weed-free. This committee conducts an annual inspection in August and issues warnings to non-compliant gardeners, following up through row captains.
Garden Rules & Responsibilities
Figure 8: Garden duties posted inside the tool shed
The garden enforces clear criteria to maintain orderly plots and pathways. Gardens must be planted by May 1 to retain ownership, with non-compliant plots reassigned to applicants on the waiting list. Gardeners are responsible for weeding, mulching, and clearing not only their plots but also the surrounding paths. Each member is expected to work at least five hours per week on their plot and adjacent areas. Trash removal is the gardener’s responsibility, with specific guidelines for bagging and placement for Friday pickup and separate recycling on alternate Thursdays. Any gardens left uncared for and in weedy condition by August 5th will be cleared and reassigned. Growing or using illegal substances results in immediate expulsion with no refund of plot fees. Pesticide use is strictly regulated under NGA guidelines, and violations will result in forfeiture of the plot.
The general rules emphasize community participation and cooperation. All gardeners must contribute to collective garden activities, including clean-up days, garden judging preparation, and social events such as Spring Fest and the Harvest Show. Specific prohibitions include digging for worms in the garden and entering other members’ plots without permission. Pets are allowed but must remain leashed, and owners are responsible for cleaning up any droppings. If a gardener is temporarily unable to maintain their plot due to health, vacation, or work commitments, they must inform their row captain and arrange for a substitute gardener, who must also comply with the NGA rules. Gardeners are required to sign the rules acknowledgement form and return it to the Assistant Secretary before they can begin working on their plots. This formalized system ensures that the garden remains a well-maintained and cooperative space that serves the community fairly and effectively.
Figure 9: Photo of advertisement for the Harvest Show found in garden shed, Spring 1977
SQV Bylaws: Formal Rules, Informal Power
The bylaws formally establish hierarchy within the garden, structuring its organization while also creating inequalities in participation, power, and responsibility among members. Leadership positions—including the Chair, Vice Chair, Treasurer, and row captains—hold formal authority over governance, centralizing decision-making within the Garden Council. This concentration of power can marginalize the voices of regular gardeners, particularly when leadership prioritizes external perceptions of the garden over internal member concerns.
Figure 10: NGT land trust agreements, meeting minutes found in tool shed
As former president and original SQV member Lily describes, the garden’s status as “a keystone space” stems from its long history and perceived success: “The garden acquired its keystone status through its age. We are successful, our bylaws are (if not overwritten) well taken care of.” In preserving this reputation, leadership focuses on maintaining the garden’s aesthetics—such as the visual appeal of its landscaping, plant arrangements, and overall upkeep—as well as its online presence, which includes curated social media posts, website updates, and digital outreach that shape its public image. Lily’s emphasis on the garden’s status as a keystone space underscores how leadership’s priorities often lean toward preserving legacy and aesthetics rather than addressing inequities in governance. This focus on external perception can sideline efforts to make participation more accessible to new members or to reconsider entrenched rules that reinforce exclusivity.
However, beyond formal leadership, informal mechanisms also shape governance and participation within the garden. One of the most influential of these is The Plot Press, a monthly newsletter written by Lily, which operates as both an informational resource and an informal governance tool. While framed as a community bulletin, The Plot Press also serves to reinforce labor expectations, aesthetic priorities, and collective norms. Through reminders about watering schedules, compost usage, and weeding responsibilities, the newsletter encourages participation while also regulating behavior.
Figure 11: The September 2024 Plot Press, distributed as the community bulletin
For example, in the September 2024 edition, a section titled “Water Water Everywhere!” reminds designated members of their watering duties, ensuring that collective responsibilities are publicly acknowledged and expected to be fulfilled. This type of public documentation of participation (or lack thereof) functions as a soft form of enforcement, creating social pressure to conform. While some gardeners appreciate these reminders as helpful guidance, others perceive them as indirect reprimands, reinforcing a division between “engaged” and “less engaged” members.
This aligns with Foucault’s (1980, 104) concept of disciplinary power, where governance is enacted not just through formal rules and leadership structures, but through peer surveillance and collective reinforcement of norms. While bylaws outline the official regulations for garden maintenance, The Plot Press operates as an informal tool for regulating behavior, subtly reinforcing the hierarchy between long-standing members who set expectations and newer members who must adjust to them.
Through The Plot Press, Lily’s voice becomes a form of authority, shaping not only what work gets done but also who is perceived as contributing to the community and what counts as contribution. Her influence extends beyond the newsletter; many gardeners reflexively comply with her directives, rarely pushing back against her authority, and her voice is consistently one of the loudest at monthly garden meetings. This influence is not just about organization but also about control: Lily is often quick to judge who is new in the space and struggles to bridge that gap with newcomers. Her social presence reinforces exclusivity, as seen in her weekly Italian lessons held in the grape arbor each summer, where she and a close-knit group of older gardeners gather, explicitly excluding others from using the space during these sessions.
This informal but deeply entrenched power structure means that members who fall behind on shared expectations—whether due to time constraints, physical ability, or differing gardening practices or aesthetics—may experience social pressure to conform. The combination of formal bylaws and Lily’s informal authority raises important questions about who gets to define “active participation” and how these definitions serve to reinforce existing power structures within SQV. By controlling not just the work but also the social and spatial dynamics of the garden, Lily’s presence highlights the ways in which governance operates not just through rules, but through everyday interactions and implicit gatekeeping.
Row Captains
Figure 12: An aerial shot of the garden: individual rows are each governed by individual row captains
Row captains serve as intermediaries between garden leadership and individual gardeners, ensuring adherence to rules and conducting member oversight. Though they are appointed volunteers, they hold a unique position within the garden’s governance, simultaneously acting as facilitators and enforcers. When prompted, many row captains appreciated their promotion to this position, with some viewing it as an opportunity to “work with” others in their row, while others valued having legitimate influence over how their row compared aesthetically to others. However, this role creates a dynamic in which many gardeners feel monitored or judged by their peers.
This form of oversight aligns with Foucault’s (1980, 104) theory of disciplinary power, where governance is enacted through surveillance and normalization. Rather than relying on direct penalties, the garden’s leadership ensures compliance by embedding authority within trusted figures—row captains—who both facilitate and enforce behavioral expectations. The tension between formal rule enforcement and personal autonomy is evident in the experiences of gardeners like Rebecca and John, who represent two contrasting relationships to authority within this system.
Rebecca, for instance, resisted a row captain’s directive that she “needed to weed and water her plot more often,” insisting that she did not have time for that. Her response reflects a challenge to hierarchical authority, asserting her own discretion in tending to her plot rather than adhering to externally imposed expectations. This act of defiance aligns with James C. Scott’s (1985, 29) concept of everyday resistance—small, subtle refusals to conform to dominant expectations—but its ultimate effect is more complex. While her refusal to comply challenges the imposed hierarchy, it does not necessarily dismantle or alter the system itself. Instead, her resistance functions as an assertion of personal autonomy within a structure that continues to operate as intended. The row captains retain their authority, and the broader governance system remains intact.
Figure 13: Rain barrel watering system inside the garden
However, the significance of Rebecca’s defiance lies in its symbolic and relational impact. By rejecting the demand to weed and water more frequently, she highlights the limits of enforcement—authority within the garden relies on compliance rather than formal penalties. If enough gardeners resist in similar ways, it could create a broader pattern of pushback that erodes the legitimacy of row captains as enforcers. Conversely, individual acts of defiance like Rebecca’s may also mark certain gardeners as noncompliant, further entrenching informal hierarchies where those who do not conform are subtly excluded from decision-making spaces or viewed as less invested in the garden’s collective vision.
In contrast, John exemplifies the opposite perspective: rather than resisting enforcement, he actively invokes it to regulate others. Calling certain plots in his row “a piece of shit,” he expected row captains to reprimand those gardeners, reinforcing the idea that authority should not only maintain order but also uphold specific aesthetic and labor standards in the space. This aesthetic emphasis reflects Bourdieu’s (1984, 57) concept of cultural capital, where tidiness, structure, and visual order are associated with legitimacy, even when such standards may exclude or burden certain members. While some gardeners see oversight and the imposition of a specific visual aesthetic an infringement on personal freedom, others view it as a necessary tool for maintaining collective order—reinforcing the garden’s implicit power structures. The divide between Rebecca’s resistance and John’s embrace of enforcement mirrors broader class-based distinctions in urban land use and environmental stewardship: some prioritize flexibility and self-determination in tending to their plots, while others see order and compliance as essential to maintaining the garden’s reputation and function. Together, these cases reveal the dual function of row captains: facilitators and enforcers whose authority is both challenged and weaponized, depending on individual gardeners’ perspectives on hierarchy and governance.
Voting
The Bylaws Committee, led by the Vice Chair, and the Inspection Committee, composed of senior members including the Chair, past Chair, and row captains, formalize hierarchy within the garden by controlling rule amendments. While the one-plot, one-vote system may appear democratic, it disproportionately privileges gardeners who control individual plots, marginalizing those who share spaces or lack the ability to consistently attend meetings. Although any member can raise concerns about potential rule changes, the Bylaws Committee is not required to take up every issue, creating frustration among some gardeners who feel their voices are not adequately heard.
This system mirrors Young’s (1990, 56) critique of procedural democracy, which argues that formal equality does not necessarily translate into substantive inclusion. While each plot technically has an equal vote, the system benefits those with direct ownership, reinforcing existing power structures. This structure disproportionately benefits older, long-term members—many of whom are wealthier homeowners—while newer, younger, and often female or working-class gardeners have less decision-making power. As Horst and McClintock (2019) argue, urban green spaces often become sites where middle-class homeowners consolidate control over land, shaping access and participation in ways that favor stability over inclusion. This results in governance structures that, while seemingly neutral, reinforce systemic inequities in land use and urban citizenship.
As voting privileges in the garden are tied to tenure and stability, those with precarious schedules or fewer social ties often find themselves at a disadvantage in governance decisions. Cindy’s experience exemplifies this, despite sharing a plot with Maggie for years, her perspective was overruled when Maggie opposed installing solar panels, illustrating how shared labor does not always translate into shared decision-making power. This reflects a broader pattern in which authority in community spaces is shaped more by entrenched social networks than by formal rules, making it difficult for those without longstanding influence to challenge dominant voices (Young 1990, 57,91; Abendroth & Weck 2020, 119). Similarly, Jake, a longtime member, attempted to shift this imbalance by taking on leadership roles and advocating for turnover policies to address the garden’s eight-year waiting list. His proposal to impose a five-year limit on plot retention, modeled after another community garden, was dismissed outright, reinforcing how leadership prioritizes stability over inclusivity. As he put it:
I took up the role of row officer a few times, and that’s also helped me get to know people because I found myself actually having to learn their names. It was good to understand why people are gardening, what their problems are and what they like or dislike about the garden. However, seeing the same faces all the time made this place start to feel dull. I knew that the waiting list was getting bad and a woman came from Neighborhood Gardens Trust to judge our space. I decided to raise my concern to her about the eight year waiting list. She told me that the garden up in Fairmount had a limit of 5 years for retaining a plot before you had to give it up. I floated the idea here, and it was not taken well. Yeah, I might as well have been talking to a wall. If only there were real lawyers handling these bylaws. At least the committee didn’t throw things at me.
Jake’s frustration—feeling as though he was “talking to a wall”—underscores the rigidity of SQV’s governance, where procedural fairness masks an informal hierarchy that favors established members.
While the Bylaws Committee and Inspection Committee serve a regulatory function, their discretionary power over rule amendments raises broader concerns about how governance at SQV operates in practice. Despite its appearance of democratic decision-making, the system ultimately consolidates power among long-term members, reinforcing an informal hierarchy where tenure and social capital dictate whose voices are heard. While members like Cindy and Jake attempt to participate in governance, their experiences illustrate how entrenched structures resist change, favoring stability over inclusivity. This dynamic highlights a core tension in SQV’s governance: while the garden presents itself as a community-driven space, decision-making power remains concentrated among those with the longest-standing presence, shaping not only policies but also access to resources and participation itself.
SQV Bylaws & Informal Hierarchy
The informal hierarchy within the Southwark Queen Village Community Garden is predominantly shaped by social dynamics and participation patterns that extend beyond the formal governance specified in the bylaws. My fieldwork indicates that established garden members frequently possess greater influence in decision-making, affecting everything from plot assignments to leadership roles and enforcement of rules.
Lily, who we met earlier in the chapter, exemplifies how tenure and presence confer influence. For years, she has taken responsibility for maintaining the west entrance, a space designated in the bylaws as a “community area” intended for shared upkeep. Yet, rather than rotating among members, its care has become her de facto responsibility. While this reflects her dedication, it also illustrates how labor is often distributed not by formal assignment but by social norms and personal investment.
This informal control comes with an unspoken burden. She feels an expectation to continue managing the space indefinitely, despite its communal designation. She worries that when she steps away, the entrance will fall into neglect, an anxiety that highlights a structural gap in SQV’s governance. The bylaws outline shared responsibility but lack mechanisms to ensure that collective spaces remain actively maintained. Without clear succession planning or accountability measures, the long-term sustainability of these spaces depends on the willingness of individual members, reinforcing the reliance on informal authority rather than equitable participation.
For example, Jake and his wife, Wendy, who we also met earlier in the chapter, kindly shared their extra key to the garden with me to conduct my research. During my first day of fieldwork, as I stood outside the locked gate waiting for someone to let me in, Wendy, a longtime gardener, quietly tended to her plot. Noticing me out of the corner of her eye, she bent down to meet me at eye level behind the iron fence and said, “Here is a key, it’s yours for the summer,” before tossing it over. This act of care is what I came to SQV to study: how members extend generosity to some while others struggle for access.
As a researcher who had received funding to study the garden, I still found myself physically locked out, dependent on an insider’s recognition to gain entry. I had no prior relationship with Wendy, but she knew of me through my advisor at Swarthmore College, who is a close friend of hers. This was our first interaction, yet she had already decided to grant me access. Wendy’s small gesture granted me legitimacy in the space, yet it also underscored how access to the garden is shaped by informal networks rather than any formal policy. Notably, key-sharing was not universal; while I was given easy access through a pre-existing connection, not all members (particularly newer gardeners and people of color) were offered the same. This moment made visible the underlying social hierarchies at SQV, where belonging is negotiated through relationships rather than rights. My introduction to Jake, too, came through Wendy’s suggestion that I interview him, reinforcing how social ties determine not just physical entry but also who is welcomed into conversations about governance and community life.
This seemingly small act exemplifies what Efrat Eizenberg (2012, 767) describes as actually existing commons, where communal spaces are not inherently accessible to all but rather governed through informal networks of trust and reciprocity. While Wendy’s willingness to share a key reflects a culture of care, it also underscores the unspoken barriers that newer members face: those without existing relationships struggle to gain full access, despite the bylaws’ claim to openness. Even before I set foot inside the garden, it was clear that access was about recognition rather than purely membership: who was seen, who was trusted, and who was included in the garden’s social and political life.
This informal generosity does not always extend evenly across all members. Newer gardeners, particularly women, people of color, and those with less economic capital, often perceive their opportunities for participation as more restricted. The absence of Black members raises questions about historical patterns of racial exclusion in urban green spaces (McClintock 2019, 474-475). While the bylaws do not formally exclude anyone, the lack of representation suggests that informal barriers—whether cultural, economic, or social—play a role in shaping who enters and feels a sense of belonging in the garden.
As community gardens across U.S. cities have historically been tied to gentrification and neighborhood transitions, access to these spaces often reflects broader racial and class dynamics in urban land use. As one new gardener, Maggie, shared in our interview: “I come to the garden every week, but I still feel like I’m on the outside. I don’t know who to talk to when I have a question, and I don’t want to step on anyone’s toes.”Similarly, Luis, a Latino gardener, echoed this sentiment: “It’s like there’s an unspoken system—you kind of have to be brought in, not just sign up and expect to be included.” This reflects Sally Engle Merry’s (1988, 872) concept of legal pluralism, where official governance structures exist alongside informal systems of authority and access. The bylaws grant all members equal rights on paper, but in practice, social capital, race, gender, and class shape who is fully integrated into decision-making and who remains on the margins.
Racial and gendered hierarchies also emerge in leadership roles and decision-making. While long-time members, often white and older, dominate positions of influence such as row captains and Bylaws Committee seats, women and younger members report feeling unheard in discussions about rule enforcement and garden priorities. One Asian female gardener noted: “When I bring up issues, sometimes I feel like I’m being dismissed. Like, they assume I don’t know as much because I haven’t been here as long.” This dynamic aligns with Iris Marion Young’s (1990, 56) critique of procedural democracy, which argues that formal voting structures do not necessarily create substantive inclusion. While each gardener technically has a vote, power is still concentrated among those who have been socially embedded in the garden’s leadership for years.
These informal exclusions work alongside formal governance to reproduce disparities in participation, making it harder for certain demographic groups—particularly women and people of color—to feel fully integrated into the community garden’s leadership and decision-making processes.