Slashdot Mirror
Officials Sue Couple Who Removed Their Lawn
Hugh Pickens writes "The LA Times reports that Orange County officials are locked in a legal battle with a couple accused of violating city ordinances for replacing the grass on their lawn with wood chips and drought-tolerant plants, reducing their water usage from 299,221 gallons in 2007 to 58,348 gallons in 2009. The dispute began two years ago, when Quan and Angelina Ha tore out the grass in their front yard. In drought-plagued Southern California, the couple said, the lush grass had been soaking up tens of thousands of gallons of water — and hundreds of dollars — each year. 'We've got a newborn, so we want to start worrying about her future,' said Quan Ha, an information technology manager for Kelley Blue Book. But city officials told the Has they were violating several city laws that require that 40% of residential yards to be landscaped predominantly with live plants. Last summer, the couple tried to appease the city by building a fence around the yard and planting drought-tolerant greenery — lavender, rosemary, horsetail, and pittosporum, among others. But according to the city, their landscaping still did not comply with city standards. At the end of January, the Has received a letter saying they had been charged with a misdemeanor violation and must appear in court. The couple could face a maximum penalty of six months in jail and a $1,000 fine for their grass-free, eco-friendly landscaping scheme. 'It's just funny that we pay our taxes to the city and the city is now prosecuting us with our own money,' says Quan Ha."
Why government should have no powers.
But it is so ugly!
That the prospective jail time is from contempt of court and that it is not actually a criminal offense to cover your yard in woodchips..
Right? Right?
How is this any different from building a large tower on your property, a city ordinance is a city ordinance. If it's not allowed it isn't allowed. Now is it right? maybe not, but then they should have lead a drive to change the ordinance before they violated it.
As long as it's not presenting a danger to neighbors, they should be able to do whatever the hell they want with it.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
At one point, the summary says "Orange County Officials." At another point, it says "city officials." So, which is it--county or city?
Yeah, I know, I could just RTFA but the summary is still sloppy.
This ain't rocket surgery.
...just let the lawn die.
It was most likely the suddenness of removal that made the authorities react.
Well, it's nice to know that the city of Orange won't let residents save water while the rest of the towns on the same water system are offering bumper stickers that say "I killed my lawn.. ask me how"
Land of the free* prosecution. *As in speech, not beer.
Now get off my lawn
Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
They should have watered their lawn with Brawndo. It's got what plants crave.
When you cross the border into the state you can toss logic, responsibility, decency and common sense in the toilet.
... the law requires 40% live ground cover, so they should be given a citation.
They think that law is unjust, so they are doing their duty by not following it.
The correct outcome is for the law to be changed.
It's NSFSC (Not Safe For Stupid Christians) and NSFOW (Not Safe for Orwellian Workplaces)
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
When I purchased my property there was a bit in the legal docs about keeping the lawn in good shape and not building any other permanent structure on my property (no, I am not allowed to expand). Also, any natural resources found on my property belongs to the city. But, I don't mind these stipulations. I got a nice house for little cost and I know my neighbors will continue to have nice homes also. Based on the summary, the penalties are fairly slim I'd say (they will never get the jail time unless they piss on the court, and $1000 is a reasonable sum). However, if the Has are trying to appease the city by planting bushes and are not skipping court then the court should rule in their favor, IMO.
They get to vote on how much the private property fiction applies in their community.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Things like this show why living inside city limits as a home owner is a nightmare. If they read their city, county, and neighborhood by-laws, it probably stated something in legalese to the effect that the lawn had to be to a code that was only poorly worded as the legal body figured no one would test it.
It's a form of conservitism that demands zero conservation of natural resources, and these people can go to jail over it. It's sick.
I've always hoped that these sorts of ordinances are made up. Just scary stories you city folk tell us country bumpkins to keep us out.
Right?
Right??
Start a petition and maybe initiate some good, clear citizen-initiated legislation to help the Law to keep up.
Simple & sweet. Of course, it'll take some time & $$$.
Is there any recourse to a State Ombudsman?
or an environmental agency, to block or, better, undo the nonsense, just exposed?
All this needs is some Practical Wisdom, on the part of the misdirected officials
(or, better, sackings of the same, eg, by wiser managers).
PS Does anybody know of some green microplants that grow well on wood chips, without destroying it? It would have to absorb its life-supporting water from the air & keep it inside, to preclude loss by evaporation, etc. It would also have to attract its own nutrients (since its' not allow to destroy the wood chips. Or maybe it could drop roots & "mine" the soil below for what it needs.
Is there a Genetic Engineer in the audience? Above are the spec's, we need it in 10 working days. ;-)
LA Offers upto a $2000 rebate for ripping up your lawn
Seems that in June of '09, LA wanted to try to catch up with LasVegas who is paying people to rip up their lawns as well.
the intent of the cash-for-grass program is to reduce the 50 to 90 inches of water routinely applied to turf every year. Drought-tolerant substitutes may require just 15 -- in keeping with L.A.'s average annual rainfall.
For information on the L.A. Department of Water and Power program, call the regional water agency rebate hotline at ..... The recording will say funding for regionwide programs is exhausted, but keep listening. DWP customers can press 3 for more details on their rebate.
Also, here's the link to the SoCal Turf Removal Program.
FTFA: "Meanwhile, the couple said they had reduced their water usage from 299,221 gallons in 2007 to 58,348 gallons in 2009."
Hmm, I wonder if this is to do with revenue from water supply.
In my town, water metering is being implemented over time. As infrastructure is serviced, new metering tech in being roled out. At some point we will have to pay when the scheme is finalized.
Coincidentily, the permit fees for watertanks has been put up, to the point it is like any of the "green" decisions: high capital outlay(factoring in the fees) to the the point one asks if financial return in 10 years is worth it.
In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
... you guys in the USA need a lawn czar to stop this kind of stupidity ;)
Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
In Soviet Russia, this is exactly the sort of thing that happened.
I suppose there's a joke about him "not getting off for his lawn," but we're all better off to souse our hopes for the Republic in some imported vodka.
So sad.
--
Toro
Wood chips are combustible. They live in a desert. That's a fire hazard. Better to pave it over and paint it green.
Speaking of which... they live in a desert. The only reason they ever had water to put on their lawn is that they import it via aqueducts over 200 miles, transforming the source from a formerly verdant valley into an arid desert.
I'm not sure where the city/county is trying to go here. Normally they pretend to try and be a little eco-friendly in granolaland.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
TFAs mention 1.5 years of legal wrangling. Presumably there is a process for getting your delinquent lawn back to 'standard', but the articles gloss over this. They mention a 40% requirement for grass cover, but also mention a 'site plan' indicating that alternatives may also be acceptable. I think the journalists involved should have included more of this process in the piece.
I think the city should first come up with recommendations, then possibly begin enforcement. This couple has obviously been making progress, so I can only assume that the complaining neighbor has some swing in city hall.
The Has' response was going to the news media to get some push-back onto the city.
It is all a bit ridiculous though.
Their lawn actually looks pretty good in that photo. It's got to be pretty low maintenance, and it saves them water money too. All of these things are desirable attributes.
I'm not an environmentalist myself, but it seems to me that their lawn is a very good fit for their local environment. It is well designed and integrated.
I wonder why the city is freaking out so badly. Do they consider it a fire hazard? Did the couple piss off somebody at city hall? Is the city administration just very strict about implementing its regulations?
As a Radio Amateur, I continue to marvel at the range of awful looking things that one IS permitted to mount on one's roof or erect in one's back garden.
(I always thought that the fed's at the FCC had jurisdiction, at least in the case of a Radio Ham's tower issue. T or F...? Anyone know for sure?)
Anyway, the obvious difference between erecting a large tower & not buying water (which - when I come to think of this thread's details - may be the "real" reason that
the couple are being taken to task, despite their decision to do a Right Thing here) is:
A tower could fall over.
In the tower case, one could conceivably go round to all neighbors within a reasonable (eg, falling) radius of the intended tower base & get everybody to sign a "I think it's just great & wouldn't complain; I've checked with this guy's engineer (who has also inspected the work, which was done by licensed builders), all is in order, & - therefore - I support this guy's tower plans. Yada... yada..." ...and - before the tower-rise - get pre-construction approval for the project.
--
One could possibly have a similar thing here; eg, go to officials, lay out the situation (cost of water, need to redirect that $$$ to college fund for baby, etc.) & request an exemption.
THEN the story might have been:
"Officials force parents of newborn to spend money needed for baby's upbringing to buy water for their front lawn."
Now, THAT would have outraged your neighbors to come & support you.
At this stage, some of those will say, "Well, the law is the law." And, then, they'll go watch TV... :-/
The Has live in both:
[Excerpt]
"Quan and Angelina Ha are good eggs, they understand Southern California is in the clutches of a nasty drought and they want to leave the planet a better place for their newborn. But the couple is going to Orange County Superior Court today to fight a lawsuit Orange, the city they reside in, has filed against them. Their heinous crime: ripping out their water-sucking front lawn."
Yeah, any court that enforces that city bylaw in this case deserves our contempt as the court will be in Contempt of Citizen. Ha should sue the city for wasting water and attempting to enforce a pernicious law.
But as a homeowner, it's what keeps the property value going.
Sure about that?
Lots of fancy places have forest. You can't even see the house from the street. You could hide almost anything: a large boat, a helicopter, a moat, a guard house, a private lake, a tour bus...
Lawn is for shitty places where developers crap out houses onto postage stamp sized lots. You get psychotic homeowner associations and chipboard walls. Lawn says "mass production" like nothing else.
Forest looks damn lovely.
Lawns are an abomination (at least if you don't have enough rainfall to support one), and Southern California is a hellhole.
Would lichens count as live plants for the purpose of the ordinance? They take very little water and never need mowing.
They should be given tax breaks for removing their lawns while people with lawns should be charged extra to pay for the tax breaks. Once the system balances out cancel the tax breaks and ban new lawns from being added. Need more people to remove lawns? Raise residential water prices. People that want to live in the desert shouldn't be allowed to have lawns. Also new houses should never be allowed to have lawns in desert areas. Why should everyone face rationing because of lawns??? Want to hear the worst offenders? Golf Courses. They use a massive percentage of the available water and in some areas use more than home owners. You'll never ban golf courses though, too many of the rich and powerful play. You'll see people going without showers before they ban golf courses.
There are low-lying, wide-spreading shrubs that do not require watering in even drier climates than theirs that could easily be arranged to cover 40% of that yard. They can stick with their approach and still give the finger to their city of assholes. My dad's front yard has some...not sure what they're called but the cats love them (probably because the lizards love them).
are obviously a threat to our security and the sanctity of the community. The government is doing the right thing here. (NOTE: stupid people with mod points-- this is sarcasm).
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
It is a Constitutional Federal Republic. The difference is important. For many reasons, it was designed so it is not a simple case of majority rule, where people just vote on everything and whatever gets the most votes goes. While there are strong Democratic traditions, it was designed specifically so that there isn't a tyranny of the majority (at least hopefully not). The idea being that just because you have one more vote, doesn't mean you get to impose your will on everyone else regardless.
This applies to all sorts of things. A good extremely specific example is the Constitution itself. It cannot be amended by a majority vote of congress, nor of a majority vote by the citizens. It has to be a 66% vote in congress and then ratified by 75% of the states. There are extremely specific provisions preventing a simple majority vote of any kind from changing it, the higher requirements are spelled out.
Now more generally the Constitution (and other laws) protect various rights from mob rule. Property rights would be one of those. 51% of your neighbors can't simply vote that your house should be bulldozed and turned in to a park. Even 100% of your neighbors can't vote to make that happen. Your rights to your property supersede what the majority happens to want.
That doesn't mean that you can do whatever you want. Various HOA rules are completely legal and enforceable, and this might be one of them, but it might now.
As a practical matter if this goes to court it could well be struck down since the city may not have a right to force water usage. One argument is that potable water is a somewhat scarce resource and cities themselves don't control it (water rights are at a higher level). Thus a court could find that the city has no right to tell people they must use extra water, as that can cause harm to surrounding cities.
The next time there's a water shortage, that community should bear the overwhelming brunt of it. Heavy-handed, forced waste in the face of scarcity? They deserve to face the consequences of their actions.
make the county officials look so stupid applying a code that is crying out to be repealed...
one can only surmise that they've upset a neighbour who's then gone through the code book with a fine toothed comb to find a way to get back at them.
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Nu? So, what ever happened to the right to the pursuit of Happiness?!?
PS An increasing number of world gov'ts seem to be exploring changes to their laws & systems, ie, by way of encouraging their citizens & residents (read: The Customers, as in "are always right") to be Happy.
only if eco is short form for economy. The fact that they destroyed all grass on their land is not ecologically friendly. By not maintaining grass they are only worsening region's drough issues.
This will probably be interpreted as a flame, but it isn't meant to be one. The _reason_ these kinds of city ordinances exist is because people wanted them - and they wanted them because they help protect property values.
No matter how noble or righteous you might think ripping up your lawn and replacing it with wood chips is, it is still violating the ordinance.
If I lived next door I frankly wouldn't give a crap how Eco-friendly the sea of wood chips next door was - if it looked like crap and it was next to my house I would be pissed off. I'm all for creative ways to help the environment and save money - but not if it means violating ordinances that exist for very good reason.
Doing things like this is frankly makes you look like a child acting out... "The environment is more important than these stupid rules and there are just too many people that don't care about the environment so I will defy them in a effort to get the rules changed. So there!"
Yes, in the grand scheme of things the environment is more important. So what does that have to do exactly with this particular ordinance? Nothing, zip. The point is if you actually wanted to change the ordinance the way to go about it is to convince your neighbors its a good idea and go to the city council. Its done ALL THE TIME all over the country. Good luck with that in this particular case - people LIKE grass.
- sigs are stupid
Ha always gets the last laugh. Ha!
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
Lavender and rosemary smell nice and are used as culinary herbs and for their scents. Horsetail can be used to clean metal. Pittosporum is a source of biofuel. I fail to see what the problem is with the Ha family growing plants that use less water and have more human uses than grass. Grass is just pretty green carpet unless you have farm animals.
After reading this, it is clear that no one in that area should have a lawn.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
Rather than force people to do things like this, just require they pay a reasonable penalty or fee. The money can then be spent on other conservation projects. A fee is a good compromise.
Table-ized A.I.
you can't flush those down the toilet. idiots often get elected into city governments, but eventually they get beaten with a stick.
A mind bogglingly stupid thing to say. Prosecution is always done with taxpayer's money. It's not funny, it's downright scary that anyone can make such a moronic comment. The reason 'Quan Ha' does it is of course a lack of real arguments... (A very well known type of tactic for certain people, i.e. a certain personality)
Once I was walking in Tustin (it borders Orange) and I noticed a dead worm in some grass. On closer inspection, I could see that the grass was actually just extremely convincing astroturf. It's a pretty good metaphor for southern california.
It sounds like the Has are going to get the last laugh, Ha Ha!
My favorite line from the article:
"Compliance, that's all we've ever wanted," said Senior Assistant City Atty. Wayne Winthers.
I damn near coughed up a lung after reading that. Sounds like they want some lawnthink.
and I can tell you all from personal, first-hand knowledge, that California, collectively and in general, has lost its goddamned marbles. This is exactly the kind of stupid shit that helped me conclude I should live somewhere not-foaming-at-the-mouth insane, and it's why I moved away, and why I will never move back. Should call it Crazyifornia. I know this sounds like a rant, but I can back this up. Ever heard of Proposition 65? For over a decade now, any business that uses ANY chemical or compound which is on this miles-long list of substances "known" to the state of California to cause cancer, birth defect, or other reproductive harm, has to post notices (known as Prop. 65 Warnings) in prominent locations around their businesses. So a restaurant which cleans its windows with an ammonia-based cleaner has to have a warning, same as the business which uses such things as hydrofluoric acid, 95% hydrogen peroxide, radioactive materials, etc. This is just GREAT, because those signs are EVERYWHERE and it does no good, because you can't tell from them which businesses are displaying the sign because of a single little bottle of blue cleanser, and which ones have 50 barrels of phosgene (COCl2) in the basement. This is but one of a hundred examples of Calinsanity. Sadly, I can't think of any viable solution to the problem.
> 'It's just funny that we pay our taxes to the city and the city is now prosecuting us with our own money,' says Quan Ha."
If you're a citizen, the state always prosecutes you with your own money. Whose money do you think they used to prosecute Timothy McVeigh? Yours, mine, his.
If you don't like your local rules, change them or live with them. Or move.
Plant Yucca. Nothing but big giant pointy nasty sharp Yucca plants. Bonus points for a Cactus or two. No water required and that 40% requirement will be a cinch to meet.
If I could, I'd astroturf my lawn.
A guy in a suburb of Sacramento (Natomas) did just that and had a better looking yard than many of his neighbors but the city cited him anyway.
Remember this case next time when you say that USA is a free country... You were, a long time ago, but not anymore.
TFA says the couple plus one child used 299 221 gallons per year (1 132 674.7 liters!!!).
Divided over 365 days a year, that means they went through 3 103 liters per day!
LA is solidly blue on a political demographic map. OC is bright red.
An infomercial to those inexperienced in USA politics: blue is to the left of red in the political palette (Democrats=blue vs. Republicans=red). And it's not because they place the communist party mirrored relative to the rest of the world ^_^
See also "Hey, it's the same guy controlling both the puppets!"
Laws made to that effect are either communist (enforcing a community good over personal freedom)
Just to clarify your definition of communism, then, I have a few questions.
I live in Denmark. As a consequence, I pay high taxes.
In return, I get free health, free tuition at universities, free public libraries, almost free public service television with no ads, welfare you can live on (if only barely) and a mythical free lunch ;)
Yes, I give up the personal freedom to spend my tax money the way I like. But in return, I get (more) healthy, educated and informed compatriots. This is a benefit to me, just as it's a benefit to my compatriots that their tax kroner was invested in my education---otherwise I might not have gotten it, but now that I have it I can return more tax money to the community pot.
Yes, the tax-paid benefits have their biggest effect on the recipients of those benefits; but the second-order effects are valuable to us all.
Is that communism? If so, I want more of that :-)
Is that for aesthetic reasons, to prevent the installation of colossal capacity tanks or just because its another way to gouge the householder?
In Afghanistan, that would probably come under the heading of corrupt government bribery.
I have trouble with this current semantic confusion regarding the term liberal. The conservatives have adopted a posture claiming most of the core liberal tenets, yet truly adhere to the reactionary conservative approach to life. Liberal thought is what our country was founded on, but most have a poor concept of freedom.
I'd landscape a "lawn" of Lippia repens, if it was me, and comply with the local ordinance, without using ridiculous amounts of water. As far as that goes, a requirement to reuse household greywater to sustain our landscaping is something that should be implemented in all intelligently-run urban areas. Freshwater is nearly as precious as topsoil, and should be regarded as a finite commodity. IIRC, Orange has a kind of HOA approach to city ordinances, and the Has should have checked that out before buying into that scene. Representative democracy pretty much ensures that the stupids are in charge, so expect a ratcheting downward of all the good things.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
I think people in the US/North America need to educate themselves about energy and ressource usage.
58,000 gallons is approximately 220 m3. This is about twice as much water as we use in our family pr. year, with 2 grown ups and two kids. And, we use quite a lot, compared to other families in my country.
Apart from watering the lawns, I suspect the people in TFA have ineffecient utilities (toilets, washing machines, etc), leading them to use way more water than they need to.
TFA mentions several hundres of dollars worth of savings from going from 299,000 gallons/year to 58,000 gallons/year. Say it is $500, then it must be about $2 / 1000 gallon. Compare this to our prices, which is about $40 / 1000 gallon.
Given the right incitaments, you can clearly optimize your ressource usage a lot. Most often *without* having to change your lifestyle (OK, they ripped out the lawn, but I am talking about other ressource usage).
Oh, and the country I am living in is Denmark, in case you were wondering.
Public service: Translation to standard units.
They went from spending roughly 1.1 million litres in 2007 of water to only 220 000 in 2009.
As long as it's not presenting a danger to neighbors, they should be able to do whatever the hell they want with it.
Living proof that the geek is truly a solitary cellar-dweller.
The reason ordinances like these get passed is to keep peace in the family. To preserve the character and appearance of the street. To protect real [and perceived] property values.
You can't go it alone. You have to get everyone on board.
You have to be willing to make some concessions - the street view matters to your neighbors.
Lawn opponents are taking on more than a rectangle of grass. They're fighting an institution, a way of life, a setting for childhood, a part of the American dream of home ownership. The Tyranny Of The Lawn [Sept 1991]
Property rights would be one of those. 51% of your neighbors can't simply vote that your house should be bulldozed and turned in to a park. Even 100% of your neighbors can't vote to make that happen. Your rights to your property supersede what the majority happens to want.
The Constitution requires only two things: Just compensation and a taking for a public purpose. Your property can be taken and folded into a public park. The approaches to a bridge.
Outside the Anglo-Saxon world, liberal actually means right-wing. The economic and political doctrines are the same but the liberals don't care so much about religion and family values and advocate personal liberty on those matters.
And then there are the Communists, Socialists and Social Democrats that we consider left-wing, but those don't exist in the USA.
Since the Conservative Revolution in the 80s we've had most major political parties converting to liberalism in Europe. This means less regulations (for corporations), less taxation (for corporations), less government (translation: less social spending), privatisation of public services, etc.
In short, the common people pay more taxes and receive less from the State, the corporations and the ultra-rich are free to fuck everybody in the ass and make all the money they want.
Funny thing, everybody talks about the government expense these days. It's like the Devil itself. But the current free-market doctrine does nothing then making it worse and worse. As an example, the government builds a new public hospital, then gives it to a private corporation for management because "private is more efficient". The service is worse, the costs (supported by the State) are huge, but they move on as if this was a good idea. The same for everything you can imagine, from schools to public transportation, to roads. All the right wing pundits on TV and papers (they're all right wing, anyway) bitch and bitch and bitch about taxation and government spending, but they all defend this absurd model of the government handing millions to privates for (mis) managing public services and facilities. It's pretty clear to somebody owning a brain that this is a doomed model, but it's the standard in the Western world, nowadays.
In Sacramento, it would be his neighbor with the fruit trees that would find himself in the crosshairs: he'd be declared an unlicensed food producer and cited and fined. There's an ordinance prohibiting any kind of food/crop plants in front yards, for no more reason than fear of liability; the city fears that, if a passerby were to eat something edible from accessible private property and become ill, even though it's not public property, the city might get named as a defendant in a lawsuit.
Once again the lawyers wind up being the only winners....
Do the right thing -- as compared to the popular in /. thing -- and replant your grass and then let it die. Problem solved, and only you and the /. crowd not happy in the interest of serving justice and keeping the peace.
Does /. now have a gardening section? How is this article news for nerds? Yes, I get there's a grasping at straws relationship to YRO -- but surely this is too far removed from nerd news even for that? Was it a virtual lawn? Did the lawn run linux? Was the lawn someone's overlord?
I'm surprised at kdawson, this looks more like the kind of crap article that samzenpus regularly inflicts on us.
This is what I'm talking about. When I think of liberal thought, it refers to tolerance of opinions, within the realm of physics; And if my effluent does not harm folks downstream, I'm free to do as I will in my own corner of the planet. The whole idea hangs on the presumption of a moral conscience and "reason" on the part of the citizen, which is where the fault seems to lay, as the ignorant masses support the criminal acts of the freebooters who've corrupted the system whilst touting the principals that they flout and subvert by their deeds. It's on television, so I guess Jerry Mander was correct about what that would do.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
Was their yard ugly?
I've lived in places with mandatory water rationing and seen very nice landscaping that was still green, yet never needed to be watered. Some attempts at doing this are ugly or worse (multicolored lava rocks).
Was their yard ugly or do their neighbors simply hate them?
Either way, political terms in America are FUD and have been for a LONG time.
I hesitate to label myself these days-- call yourself a Christian and people assume you're a bible thumping redneck who voted for Bush.
Am I reading Better Homes and Gardens?
It cracks me up how you rail so vigorously about socialism when it comes to useful, important things like healthcare. Heaven forbid you get decent healthcare for half the cost of your current wasteful system, the USA is not socialist, fuck off with your socialism, land of the free, rugged individualism, etc. And yet this sort of thing goes on? Which is the worst kind of meddling in private matters and private property. Compare and contrast. Congrats on refusing socialism in areas where the benefits far outweigh the philosophical objections, whilst being way more socialist than any of the demonised european socialisms in the areas where they don't.
"But city officials told the Has they were violating several city laws that require that 40% of residential yards to be landscaped predominantly with live plants."
I'm slowly working up to that by destroying my lawn, bit by bit, and replacing it with either wood chips or areas of washed, rounded ornamental stone. Both types of material are interspersed with plants and trees of a variety of types (all low-maintenance but pretty, and several of them are local plants). I loath mowing my lawn, and I refuse to add fertilizer, herbicide, or water to artificially keep it growing. I rake and mow it, but that's it. If it can't naturally survive on its own with that low level of attention then it can die ... and thus the wood chips, stone, and climate-tolerant plants advance. I think of it as a natural selection process with me pushing it along once the "loser" is clear, and currently the grass is losing bigtime. My goal is to reduce the amount of maintenance I have to do, reduce the long-term cost in materials, and keep the yard looking tolerably pretty. I'm not up to the 40% plants threshold, but I'll get there eventually if things keep going the way they are.
Now here's the funny part: I don't live in a climate with a lack of rainfall, I live in an area with awful, nutrient-poor, rocky soil. If I was living in an area with water supply issues you'd think the city would be encouraging as little plant cover as possible. Sheesh, what's the natural amount of plant cover in that part of California?
why is this any different to them not watering the lawn and having it die. do you not have to pay for water in the USA or something? wasting hundreds of thousands of litre of clean potable water watering grass? that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. let the environment decide if you're going to have a lush green lawn. if it rains, you get it, if it doesnt you dont.
I'd like to see a comparison picture of another few houses in the neighborhood where he lives. From the picture in the article the yard doesn't look very green and if all the houses around it are very green I would think this one would be an eyesore.
How is personal liberty for religion and "family values" a bad thing? More specifically, how is it in any way right-wing? The right are basically out to "preserve social order or traditional values" while the left "support for social change with a view towards creating a more egalitarian society". I really don't see how personal liberty towards ANY subject is counter to that.
This means less regulations (for corporations), less taxation (for corporations), less government (translation: less social spending), privatisation of public services, etc.
In short, the common people pay more taxes and receive less from the State, the corporations and the ultra-rich are free to fuck everybody in the ass and make all the money they want.
This sounds rather a lot closer to the American uber-capitalist model than the European liberal one. While it is certainly a description of some parties in the right wing, it is not a description of liberalism, but infact closer to conservativism (is that a word?) which is pretty much (from what I understand) the same as the Republicans in the US, and is most certainly a good description of the Conservatives here in the UK.
Also you have to remember, polotics is not a single one-dimansional left-right scale but is at least two-dimensional, if not three-dimensional. Liberalism pretty much applies to all major parties in the west, be they conservative or "liberal" as it describes views on personal freedoms and the like, whether it is predominantly one view or not. I doubt you find may conservatives who would say people shouldn't have the right believe/disbelieve in whatever religion they wish - they would probably get angry if it were really public and open etc as they would feel it was "changing things for the worse" though. I think a good anaolgy would be the Conservative and Labour parties in the UK. The Conservatives basically want to lower public spending, lower taxes and re-jig the taxes so that the rich stay rich (it's not what they say, but it's obviously their goal), while Labour promotes higher taxes for higher public spending, and a somewhat opposite tax policy. Both would be considered liberal (or social liberal to be more precise) but thier views on economics are very different, and that is what defines them. Both would best be described as centre or centre-left, with Labour being more left. The Conservatives are essentially conservative+social liberal, while Labour are basically socialist+social liberal.
The wood chips are "living" in that they are full of bacteria and fungi.
California stands for : Watering a desert to grow fruit "locally", so we don't have to import it from elsewhere. Why would concerns over grass be any different?
Part of the reason these laws exist is to deal with run-off. When it rains, road grease, soap, lawn fertilizers, dog crap, etc. all run-off into the street and then into the storm drains. Live plants absorb some of that run-off and slow-down the rate of flow. The storm drains can only handle the water at a limited rate - it can't funnel every raindrop over the entire city. It also prevents the tributaries from filling with all that run-off, changing the chemical balance.
When you build a new structure, the local ordinances say how much of the ground you can cover with parking lots, roads, buildings, etc. - and how much needs to be covered in something living. Sometimes you can offset some of this by having a green roof, planting trees, etc. Also, the more green you have the fewer storm drains and underground pipes that need to be built and maintained. Sometimes the city may assess you based on this, or vary your taxes according to it. More developed land means more maintenance.
NOTE: I am not justifying the behavior of Orange county. I'm just pointing out that, in general, these laws do have merit.
they were violating several city laws that require that 40% of residential yards to be landscaped predominantly with live plants.
Maybe theirs is one of the 60% that don't have to be landscaped with live plants.
"You can't allow somebody to commit the crime before you detain them." [Condoleezza Rice]
when you build a society on the pyramid scheme of home property values; common sense and personal freedoms are the first victims.
There is science, logic, reason; there is thought verified by experience. And then there is California.
-Edward Abbey
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool. -Richard Feynman
I suspect that you mean that, despite it being my business, too bad. That's fine -- that's your opinion. That doesn't change the reality that many things that could happen on your property impact my quality of life.
American (and, I suspect, Western) law has a long history of recognizing the impact we have on each other with respect to property. It's not just zoning laws, which limit everything from the shape of the building to where it's located on the property to what uses are permitted on the property and inside the building. Building codes require your building to meet standards with respect to safety, energy, accessibility, etc. Environmental laws prohibit certain dumping and other activities on your property, as do agricultural laws. Other laws prevent you from prohibiting for-profit companies (aka utilities) from seizing parts of your land above or below ground for their benefit. Still other laws can force you to sell your land to the government without your consent. Naturally, you're not free to do certain things to other animals, humans included, just because it's on your property -- even with their human adult sober consent. Heck, in most places you're not even allowed to be naked on your property if visible from the street.
Your property is not a sovereign land -- it's part of a larger community and jurisdiction.
Here's the thing: if you don't like the law, lobby to get it changed. Changing local law isn't hard. You've got to learn about the law, learn why somebodies thought it was a good idea in the first place, and then rally for support for the change. It takes work, but it isn't hard.
You can either throw your rant on slashdot, even though your extreme property rights viewpoint doesn't mesh with the vast majority of property owners or citizens in the western world, or you can find a specific law that you think is unjust and go out and get popular support for changing it. Me: I'm doing the latter, as I'm interested in reducing the minimum parking lot requirements in my town (eliminating the requirements aren't going to happen anytime soon, so I'll work on making things better even if the end result still isn't as perfect as I'd like).
P.S. Your "beef" is that the public doesn't vote on every law directly? Are you kidding? Welcome, welcome to American government at all levels, for the past 200+ years. Hint: politicians like being elected. If you want the law changed, make it clear to them that voters want the law changed. If the politicians don't change the law, change the politicians. That may be hard on a national level, but it's wonderfully easy on a local level.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
Fuck California.
3 TONS of water. For one house. No wonder the US uses close to 10 times the amount of resources of decent human beings.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
One could possibly have a similar thing here; eg, go to officials, lay out the situation (cost of water, need to redirect that $$$ to college fund for baby, etc.) & request an exemption.
Of course, that requires the resident to know (or assume) that their town has a ridiculous ordinance requiring that their drought-stricken area essentially requires a grass lawn. Even if they go ask, there's no guarantee that the county/city clerk they speak with will have the faintest idea if the ordinance exists, and might just tell them that it's ok in order to get them to leave.
So while this is a good idea in general, it really isn't useful in cases of completely ridiculous regulations.
Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
I think this might stem from two possible scenarios. One the person realizes that they suck as an individual and rather than become a better person they beat others down so to remain in power. Or two, they are stuck in a situation in life and have to make other people's lives suck so they can have company in misery.
I would say the best thing is probably fight fire with fire. I had a family member that had something similar happen to them. Where really it was just one person with a vendetta against him, and I helped out. I documented every traffic violation I could of government officials (parking, etc.), and shown instances in on their own property where they were in violation. Then came time to follow with setting into motion an audit of city books. Well, let's just say that he was left alone, and we did a lot of house cleaning that year and have a lot of new smiling faces. =) I wish the best of luck to you.
Maybe it's time to just shut down LA, blow the Hoover Dam, and let nature take it's course. That would cure us of Las Vegas, too.
'It's just funny that we pay our taxes to the city and the city is now prosecuting us with our own money,' says Quan Ha.
This quote makes no sense. Most people taxes. A lot of them are criminals. Does paying taxes mean you shouldn't be prosecuted for anything? I just robbed a bank, but hey I pay taxes so you can't prosecute me. I believe Quan Ha is innocent but definitely not because he pays taxes.
From what I gathered in the article, they didn't tear out their grass to be "environmentally friendly" hippies, it sounds like that was just the overall excuse when really, they just can't afford to throw money at paying to water it. I am sure that if they stopped watering it the city would have had the same reaction to their brown grass. I don't buy the "I wouldn't want to live next to that" excuse since the article stated they erected a fence and planted plenty of plants, it's just that the city treats grass as plants and thus, easily cover the 40% requirement to their liking. I am surprised there wasn't some sort of permit required before they could do their landscaping, then I would understand being fined, but jail time for not having grass? Sounds like something for a higher court to decide on if the city council isn't going to hear their case, trust me, I've seen it happen.
If that's really not the case, next Sunday after church, find the "bible thumping rednecks" (there's probably at least a couple) and let them know, in no uncertain terms, that they're ruining it for the rest of you by acting like total idiots.
And vote for whoever you want, just make sure you're doing it for the right reasons, and not just because Jesus told you to.
I'll probably get troll-modded for this. I'm ok with that. If I were, I wouldn't put my handle on it.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
I'll paraphrase what you said in your first paragraph: "Regardless of what a person chooses to call himslef, if you look closely enough at his political philosophy, most of the time you'll find it's incoherent."
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Depending how bit it is, if it is covered in "woodchips" you likely are not using it other than to look at it.
If it isn't huge, get rid of it. Replace it with a large Deck or just pave over it and make it a parking lot...
If it isn't a "yard" anymore, it isn't subject to 40% plant coverage.
Personally I am in horror of the amount of water being used for such a trivial purpose. What a waste of resources.
- The city tells you how to maintain your house (they shouldn't as long as it's not a safety hazard for anyone).
- The govt mandates the TV stations on what kind of signals they need to broadcast in (they shouldn't unless it's a safety hazard).
- Omeprazole 20mg is available without prescription but Omeprazole 40mg requires a prescription.
- You can legally bribe politicians as long as you call it lobbying (It's bribing & corruption only if it happens in third world countries).
- Microsoft has proposed a tax to clean virus infected Microsoft Operating Systems.
This summary offers one of the best out of context quotes I've ever seen on /.
"It's just funny...", said Ha.
I would find it funny to hear whose money he thinks the city *should* be prosecuting them with.
First they came "for the environment", and I did not speak out—because I like being indoors;
Then they came "for the children", and I did not speak out—because I had no children;
Then they came "for my safety", and I did not speak out—because I felt quite safe at home;
Then they came for my lawn—and there was nowhere left for me to speak out.
I believe that the people should be able to put down woodchips if they want. They are not harming the environment at all. In fact, considering all the water problems out in California, you think that these types of steps would be encouraged. Instead, they are being sued over it. I think it is sad. As for property value, I think it is horrible that everyone is so concerned about it. We can not even put up a clothesline in our backyard because of these types of rules. But the same people who fight to prevent these things "in the name of property value" also claim to be environmentally friendly. It is the classic "not in my backyard" argument.
As one /. poster has mentioned, they live in a arid, dry part of the state, where they have to pipe their water in over long distances. Voters and the state passed laws mandating water saving fixtures be installed in both new and existing structures.
Now we got this county quibbling with a homeowner who decided to do xeriscaping to both save money and resources.
There is no compliance issue here, this reeks of politics and someone trying to cover their a$$. If this does go to trial, it will set precedents, either way.
First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
Fixed that for you.
Oddly enough, look at the complaints of this. The property values meme where the actions of another makes YOUR life worse and therefore government MUST act to stop potentially deleterious acts is EXACTLY the same as AGW mitigation.
Yet the drones who complain about AGW and how it's all a con are the ones saying that this property values meme is OK, or at least not a con.
FTFA:
"Compliance, that's all we've ever wanted," said Senior Assistant City Atty. Wayne Winthers.
It's not about green. It's not about live. It's not about water. It's not about eco. It's not about reasonable alternatives. It's not about whether the law is a good idea. It's about compliance. Typical bureaucracy
Orange County prosecutes you for putting in desert landscaping? Wow! Too bad they didn't live in Las Vegas. The Southern Nevada Water Authority pays customers $1.50 per square foot to convert lawns to desert landscaping.
The problem with that is, Bush did nothing illegal. Both wars were declared by congress or else they would not still be going. If you have a problem with them, perhaps we should jail everyone in congress who voted for us to go to war?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
I actually laughed at that quote too.
Having had a run with the joys of bored suburb code enforcement officers I can tell you first had how nasty these things can get because of an obscure law/city ordinance.
In my case I just told them that it wasn't going to happen and if they wanted to challenge me on it I'll be happy to take them to court and see what a judge thinks. That and I walked down the street and left a 15 minute message on her answering machine with the addresses of every single house on the street who also didn't comply with her petty nit picking, there was something like 10 of them...
This article has nothing to do with technology and...
Oh wait
Quan Ha, an information technology manager for Kelley Blue Book.
Okay I'm satisfied.
If they lived in Houston, they'd be dealing with a Home Owners Association which would levy a fine and if they didn't pay the fine the HOA would institute foreclosure proceedings and sell their house out from under them.
violating several city laws that require that 40% of residential yards to be landscaped predominantly with live plants This is a prime example of how government creates a problem (the water shortage) and then claims to try to "save us". They have been crying water shortage since the 80's (and probably before then) then turn off the water in Huron, force us to use low flow toilets(that don't even work!) and shower heads, and refuse to build desalinization plants. As Dianne Feinstein would have us believe, "It's a complicated issue". That or she's a moron.
Six and a half hours past my bedtime (1900 PST), I tend to get even more incoherent than usual. I know what I mean, and it's all from some of the classic works, nothing original. The point I attempted was that I don't confuse liberal with collectivist, and find the concepts to be in direct conflict, so my thoughts are confounded by popular misdefinition of a word. I think it's Newspeak- and working very well, as we debate the shape of the conference table.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
This isn't about an authoritarian state. The majority of your neighbors decided they like grass so the city enforces it. The proper way to fix this in a democracy is to start a movement to change the law to allow for drought tolerant lawns without grass. The incorrect way is to violate the law then bitch and moan about how unfair it is that this existing law is being applied to you.
I've actually done this exact thing with an HOA board in a subdivision. Grow up people. The government is pretty accurately reflecting your immature pettiness.
They don't do well in direct sunlight (there's a reason you find them on the north side of the tree trunk), and this being Orange county, I'm betting the place gets a lot of sun.
A couple of things - while I'm a) all in favor of protecting the environment, and b) I agree that these property appearance rules can go too far... in this case, I think I'm with the city. It's all very well to say that you should be able to do absolutely whatever you want with your own property, but the fact is that what you do with your property affects other people. Don't agree? Then you won't mind if I buy the place next to you and install a toxic waste dump on it. After all, it's my property, right? Part of what you get when you buy a property is the right to enjoy the use of it - if you're neighbor's property is such a mess that it interferes with your enjoyment of your own property, then you've lost that. Reasonable people can disagree about the balance between your rights and your neighbors, but that's why we have city/county governments and courts. It's not "anything goes inside my fence".
The summary of the article isn't accurate (what a surprise). The county is not telling them they have to grow a lawn full of grass and water it. They're telling them that they have to landscape it with at least 40% live plants. The owner's first pass it this was apparently to just rip out all the grass. Then, when confronted, they put down the wood chips and a few token plants. They could have easily have achieved their goals of massive water use reduction by following the damn ordinance - it would have ended up being a lot less expensive for them to just plant the lot 40% in desert plants than to dick around the way they have, and then be hauled into court.
I have very little sympathy for the couple in question here.
... they didn't do the xeriscaping. They just ripped up the grass and replaced it with nothing. When confronted, they later put in a few token plants and a decorative fence. You should look at the picture. The lot consists of a house, a sea of wood chips, and a few plants in front of the new fence and in one corner. I'm all in favor of environmental protection, saving water, and against unreasonable regulations... but it seems to me that the "victims" in this case are the ones being unreasonable.
If I move into a subdivision and I agree to the HOA rules. I would expect everyone else who agreed to them to abide by them as well. If you don't agree to the rules, don't move in. Or if you've already moved in and you change your mind about agreeing with the rules move out. That's common courtesy to your neighbors which I think the U.S. is losing rapdily.
Another article says the city is considering dropping the charges, since their lawn is actually now in compliance. Looks like there were just some bureaucratic hoops they didn't jump through.
Wow, these are some of the most right-wing comments I've ever seen on /.
funny that I agree with most of them.
I fought against this stuff and design for three years, on the other side as a city councillor. You'd think I'd have an easy time, being their boss and all, but when the other six councillors don't have a problem with it you don't get much movement. I did get council to tell planning to go fuck themselves when they wanted to purpose a bylaw against RVs in the front yard. I proposed an amendment to remove a requirement to build a porch on new development, because who the hell is the city to tell someone they have to have a porch. It got voted against, then planning turned around two months later to get that requirement removed because the construction industry reminded them a porch as defined in our bylaws is very, very specific (ie. traditional enclosed porch you'd find on a farmhouse or something) and it was unfair to force them to build them (no shit).
You know things are fucked when the 21 year-old is fighting against the 60 year-olds for the right to do whatever you want with your property as long as it's not a safety hazard.
Outside the Anglo-Saxon world, liberal actually means right-wing.
You sure you've been around? Last time I checked, Liberal meant center with as less state controlled stuff as possible, while right-wing meant a huge paternalist state, that is, communists.
http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
When your roof area covers twenty five percent or more of a lot and your aquifer depends upon rainwater recharge, collecting what is falling on your roof can have an impact. A lot would depend upon how much of the rainwater you capture makes it to the ground and how much evaporates.
They match my three current projects (really 2 projects).
One on jack stands right now.
One garaged.
One waiting for a drive train transplant.
'69 Fiat 850 waiting for Mitsubishi Eclipse (the one on jack stands) power.
Should scoot.
But to back off the question a bit. HOA neighborhoods have such crappy lots you wouldn't have room for three projects. The two houses aren't at the same starting point.
A set of choices grounded in reality: For the same money would you prefer a) a new house on a 1500 square foot lot with HOA. b) a 50 year old house on 1/4 acre and no HOA.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
This it the stupidest thing their government has done this week.
Communists are right wing? That's a new one. You're right, I need to be around more.
The other left!
That's what I get for having a retarded sense of direction... Liberals still seem centerish tho, although I fail to find true right examples in this case, except for the xenophobics and alike, but these seem to be called far-right.
Our holy Wikipedia says this about right-wing:
(...) Conservatives, reactionaries, monarchists, aristocrats and theocrats. The term is also used to describe those who support free market capitalism, and some forms of nationalism.
And it says this about Liberals:
(...) Liberal parties can be center-left, centrist, or center-right depending on their location.
http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
This could be construed as speech. A pro-environmentalist statement on one's own private property.
The constitution also prohibits depriving a person of their property rights without due process. One of those implicit rights is (presumably) to decorate it as you like.
It could also be within the practice of religion. A possible element of many christian religions is respecting God's earth -- then the city is interfering with the free exercise thereof, then and there on one's own private yard, where they should be free from government persecution of any sort.
I take it that you don't live in NJ? The rates there are 2-3 times higher than what I pay in virginia.
For example, my hometown's rate is $3.70 per $100 dollars assessed. I have a 400k starter home in northern virginia which is taxed at about 1.04 per $100. In NJ each month I would pay $1,737 in Principal And Interest and $1,208 in taxes.
This is an ongoing problem. Tax rates are even higher in states without income or sales taxes, but in NJ's case it has relatively high sales taxes and income tax rate. They're wondering why "the rich" are leaving, when even lower income people have to pay too much in state taxes.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
What else would you expect? That's not the free market (we've never had one), that's the unfree market (we've always had an unfree market); the government stealing money from the people and giving it to whoever the hell it wants. The perfect recipe for inefficiency, poor service, high costs, waste, etc. This "privatization" crap isn't true privatization, it's still public. True privatization is when you have a company that gets 100% of its revenue from people *voluntarily* handing over their money to it.
Perhaps those stupid right-wingers do, but I ain't a right-winger or a left-winger; I'm an anarcho-capitalist (aka, true free marketer) which basically means that I believe the only just system -- and the only system that will ever work -- is a system based on voluntary exchange... that is, the free market, people free to give their money to whoever they want in exchange for the goods and services they want. This idiotic system we have now is why we're all screwed. Nothing is voluntary; government says what's what and that's that. In my opinion, anyone with a brain would agree that the system we have now -- based on theft, control, and not based on voluntarism -- is a doomed, unjust model.
Free-market doctrine clearly does not include the government pushing an individual institution to the private sector. Deregulation of an entire industry is core to the free market doctrine. However, the intent in deregulation is to open an industry to the private sector, not a "business or two." By handing a "hospital" over to a single corporation you are offering no incentive for the corporation to perform efficiently, because the costs ARE supported by the state. It's easy to be lazy if you always have somebody to fall back on. I'll agree the model is doomed however, don't mistake your deranged model for anything approaching the free market.
You gotta be fucking kidding me, right? You *own* the land, you should be able to do whatever the freaking hell you want with it!
ffs governments have gotten out of hand.
Dave
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. --Martin Luther King Jr.
The right/left division is somewhat flawed. I came across with this some years ago:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test
It explains the thing in terms of two axes. It decouples the right/left aspect from the liberal/authoritarian aspect. Your political position is represented as a pair of coordinates in a quadrant. I got X;Y = -9.12;-7.13.
This means I'm a very liberal, very leftist guy. But the free-market rock-star economist Milton Friedman is also liberal, only on the opposite side. And it's his recipes that are being applied throughout the world since the 80s.
I had made the comment half-jokingly, but I looked it up and it turns out you *really are* more likely to be killed by a lawnmower than by a poisonous snake in the US:
http://stats.org/stories/2007/risks_of_lawn_mowing_july17_07.htm
"There were 133 fatalities in 2006 from using lawnmowers of all types, based on a national probability sample of hospitals in the U.S. and its territories. In 2005, there were 406 deaths."
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mor_con_wit_pow_law_percap-contact-powered-lawnmower-per-capita
The argument about "safety" from "snakes" is PURE bullshit, given the odds of being killed by a snake are virtually nill, and given that the main safety risk is *in your own garden* where you can decide if you want to cut the grass anyway. This just proves that you can get the public to blindly accept anything, no matter how absurd, by telling them it's "for their safety" and mentioning some virtually imaginary and statistically negligible risk to scare them. Some humans may have a built-in fear of snakes, but one person's irrational hysteria doesn't grant them the right to control other people by restricting their basic liberties.
Why no hysterical outcry against lawnmowing? It's not only far more dangerous than snakes, but lawns have numerous other disadvantages: Noise, energy usage, pollution, cost, water usage (lawns are thirsty things), etc.
'Nuff said...
In short, the common people pay more taxes and receive less from the State, the corporations and the ultra-rich are free to fuck everybody in the ass and make all the money they want.
Which is the way it's always been, and likely always will be.