And I bet she doesn't get anyone saying, "nah, your land has been over-photographed. I'd rather find my own that other photographers haven't photographed to death." Which s my point.
As another example... let's talk wedding venues.
How many bridal parties have been photographed at 'The Wedding Palace', your local favorite wedding hall? Do photographers moan and groan that the supplied amenities (staircase, trellis, fountain...) have been over photographed by every local wedding photographer? Nope. It's all part of the job. While a location may seem common to the photographer that uses it every other weekend, it's still a beautiful one-of-a-kind for the client. Clients don't get together your with other clients to compare backgrounds and throw a hissy fit if you used the same one as theirs.
How about the portrait photographers that have their favorite backdrop because it makes everyone look great? That gets used over and over. Are those of you complaining about "repetition" and "uniqueness" changing out your backdrops and buying new ones after each client in order to "stay competitive?" I don't think so.
It's a weak argument in my opinion.
While I agree with your sentiment here, I think from a business perspective it just wouldn't work. You'd need to be in or very near an urban location to have any chance of making money. You'd need a fair bit of land, and would have a decent landscaping overhead to maintain, as well a the requisite insurance. Meanwhile, you'd be competing with local gardens. When I was living in Va there were several historical homes with large, elaborate gardens perfect for portrait or outdoor fashion/lifestyle shoots. They had permits that you could buy as a retail or commercial photographer allowing you permission to shoot in their gardens. One of them even had an option to book out their garden so you could shoot uninterrupted. There were similar options when I was in Fl too. I couldn't imagine trying to compete with that and make money at it.