Appellant John Parker appeals from the trial court’s denial of his petition seeking a permanent injunction to prevent enforcement of § 30-8 of the City of Glennville, Georgia, Municipal Code on constitutional grounds. We affirm. Parker owns four vacant lots within the Glennville city limits. In June 2008, the City of Glennville code enforcement officer sent Parker a notice of inspection after receiving complaints from neighbors about the weed growth on Parker’s property. Section 30-8 a of the city code provides: it shall be unlawful for any owner or resident of any lot, area, or place located within this city to permit any weeds, grass, or deleterious, unhealthful growths to obtain a height exceeding ten inches on such property. For purposes of this section, the term “weeds” shall be deemed to mean jimpson, burdock, ragweed, thistle, cocklebur, dandelion or other unsightly growths of a like kind. The notice advised Parker that his property was in violation of § 30-8 and that the violations should be corrected within ten days from the date of notice or the city would be authorized pursuant to the code to “provide for the removal, cutting and/or destroying of such growths by or for the city.”1 Parker filed a petition for restraining order and injunction seeking, inter alia, to enjoin the city from enforcing § 30-8 under the due process clauses of the Georgia and United States Constitutions. The trial court denied the petition, and Parker appealed, contending that § 30-8 is unconstitutionally vague and that the city is selectively enforcing the ordinance in violation of his constitutional rights.
1. The void for vagueness doctrine of the due process clause requires that a challenged statute or ordinance give a person of ordinary intelligence fair warning that specific conduct is forbidden or mandated and provide sufficient specificity so as not to encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. Vagueness challenges to statutes that do not implicate First Amendment freedoms must be examined in the light of the facts of the case to be decided. Santos v. State , 284 Ga. 514-515 1 668 SE2d 676 2008. Because of this, a person “who engages in some conduct that is clearly proscribed cannot complain of the vagueness of the law as applied to the conduct of others.” Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates , 455 U. S. 489, 495 102 SC 1186, 71 LE2d 362 1982. See Hubbard v. State , 256 Ga. 637, 638 352 SE2d 383 1987.
