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."
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?
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.
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.
The requirement is that they have LIVE plant landscaping. Dead grass wouldn't qualify, and would be violating the code also.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Limited powers not no powers. Somalia is a great example of what happens when the state is so far weakened that even property rights/life are not protected. At the opposite end of the scale, you might see something like North Korea which is not much of an improvement over what Somalia has. The idea is not to go to either extreme and maintain a reasonably rational government is large enough to cover the basics but not so big that people start to be strangled by it.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
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??
Personally, I hate lawns and I think they're a big waste of resources. But as a homeowner, it's what keeps the property value going. I already have problems with the neighbors not paying their water bill (shared pipe mess, etc), and the association can't do much else other than give warnings that if they don't pay, then EVERYONE will lose water. We need the help from the city to force them to pay. But that's another story.
If the neighbors have visibly broken windows, doors, or damaged roof, it affects the surrounding property value. That's just the reality of it. Something as large and visible as a dead lawn makes it seem like the house is abandoned. And it's not like the city is saying, "hey keep it green and lush," but only that 40% of the yard must have living plants - it doesn't specify what. That seems like a reasonable request. I'd just plant a cluster of cactuses in the corner. Welp, I think the property value will still go down with this tacky solution, but it would get the city off their backs. However, the neighbors might still complain and pass some oddball ordinance at the next city council meeting, and take effect the next year.
If I could, I'd astroturf my lawn.
hush, don't force reality on him. He thinks he's going to be one of the warlords as opposed to the plebes
Je ne parle pas francais.
Yeah, tell that to Rosa Parks.
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.
Probably because a large tower is conspicious from a long distance, and potentially has an effect on a lot of other people, because it obstructs their unimpeded view of the sky.
It's nothing confined to your yard, like your choice of landscaping materials are.
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.
"...but not so big that people start to be strangled by it."
They always make new laws, and rarely get rid of old laws. The strangulation is inevitable.
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
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
The US is so far down the track towards autocracy that warning about the dangers of too weak a government is like warning a man who is dying from dehydration in the desert of the dangers of drowning if he's not careful when approaching an oasis.
I hate printers.
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.
Guess you missed this part from TFS:
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
They tried, the county denied.
Take me where I cannot stand...
That's a poor summary of what's happening. That ignores that the couple has literally devalued the homes around it by doing this, it's fiscally as bad as tagging (graffiti wise) everyone within a three house radius with a pair of breasts under the living room window.
While the owners were being planet smart, they probably should have started out at their city council or equivalent to get this change known and accepted.
Then again, I say don't live in city limits where you can directly affect someone else and their livelihood by doing what you should have the gawddamn right to do on your own property! Can't add or remove a frelling tree from your own yard without two bureaucrats telling you it's ok, then charging you to use their service... It's perverse and (to piss off a portion of people) retard logic.
using that logic you could justify defiance of any civic ordinance. Also historically comparing yourself to Rosa Parks never looks good, it usually leads to being mocked rather quickly.
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?
I live in a planned estate, fairly upmarket in appearance. Most of the houses have "arid landscape" themed gardens, and all plants are selected for low water requirements.
I can attest that, if done well, drought resistant garden design can look very, very nice. It's also far easier and cheaper to maintain, as weeds don't grow as readily. Our garden is made up with the hardiest plants from central Australia, thus we can literally starve weeds to death while the rest of the plants carry on fine. Having big, lush, high water gardens means that hardy weeds infest it easily and you're left fighting a losing battle.
I hate printers.
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... :-/
Why is it your neighbor's responsibility to use their property in a way they dislike in order to bolster your property values?
I live in Virginia now, and this nonsense goes on not only in HOAs but even with city ordinances--mandating grass cutting, forbidding painting your house certain colors, etc. I just don't get it--in Maine, if you wanted a hot pink house with lines of toy soldiers and an above ground pool on your front lawn, that was your own business. It's your own property, and you have a right to use it how you want within the bounds of safety and environmental concerns.
Now, if it's a safety issue that's another thing. But the state's interest in defending property should be first and foremost to defend the right of a property's owner to use it as they see fit; if you want to have crazy aesthetic restrictions then you can move into an area with a draconian HOA.
Your water pipe issue is completely different, and I sympathize greatly.
rage, rage against the dying of the light
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.
After Somalia's former government collapsed, it didn't take long for warlords to consolidate power and I predict that at some point Somalia will have a whole new government for better or worse due to either consolidation of the powers of various warlords or a revolution of some sort. Then the cycle starts all over again.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Would lichens count as live plants for the purpose of the ordinance? They take very little water and never need mowing.
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).
Why anyone would have bought into such a community in the first place escapes me. It was #1 on the list of dead to me properties when I consulted a real estate agent. Who doesn't think that an HOA is just an invitation to abuse, and why would you pay MORE to pay more for an HOA?
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
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
The US is so far down the track towards autocracy that warning about the dangers of too weak a government is like warning a man who is dying from dehydration in the desert of the dangers of drowning if he's not careful when approaching an oasis.
From an outsider's perspective I would diagnose the problem somewhat differently. It's paradoxical, the US is in many way under-regulated (eg. the banking system, consumer protection etc), yet on the other hand there are numerous examples of regulation like this.
But I don't think the problem is with the actual regulation. To me there seems a dangerous lack of discretion on the part of administrators, as to when laws ought, and more importantly, ought not to be applied.
It is as if the mere fact that something breaches an ordinance justifies taking action against that breach, or the mere fact that a crime has been committed means that someone ought to be charged. Or perhaps it is only that failures of discretion, such as in the present case, which are newsworthy.
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.
If everyone moves out into the county, then you just have sprawl, a long commute, and the commensurate environmental degradation. The solution is not to make things worse -- the solution is to face reality and recognize that certain practices aren't reasonable or sustainable from both environmental and economic perspectives. The fact is, the southwest is coming out of a century long wet period, a period during which all the water rights were divvied up based on water level presumptions that are not likely to hold out. There was an interesting National Geographic article examining tree rings and water in the southwest, the text is here sans photos: http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/~tswetnam/tws-pdf/NewsArticles/NGM2008Kunzig.pdf
What do you think property values are going to look like when there is no water, and all those lawns turn to dirt lots? Are you really that interested in importing water from Canada at incredible expense merely so you can mow grass? On the other hand, if climate appropriate landscaping was introduced and perfected over the next few decades, perhaps property values can hold out through time periods when you'll be lucky to have drinking water, let alone lawn water. As someone else pointed out above -- arid landscaping can be very attractive. Best get some practice in.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
From the article at least one neighbour didn't mind.
Heck he even helped them:
Soon after the city complained about the yard, the Has placed wood chips on top of the dirt, with help from neighbor Dennis Cleek.
"It's their yard, it's not overgrown with weeds, it's not an eyesore," said Cleek, whose own yard boasts fruit trees. "We should be able to have our yards look the way we want them to."
And from the pic, it looks ok to me. As for wood-chips being a fire hazard, it's no big deal, before they start burning in a dangerous way due to some external cause, those wooden houses will probably be on fire first...
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.
One day some abusive admin did a rm -rf / or deltree C:\
Those bastards... that's why root should have no powers.
And the 'rm' command needs to be redacted.
Right. How many of your by-laws do you know? I don't know your age, but I'd hazard a guess it's actually physically impossible for you to have read every law and ordinance that applies to you. You might research your by-laws if you were planning on erecting a construction, but for changing your garden? I certainly wouldn't.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
One of many reasons my ass will never cross state lines into California without an exit strategy already planned. That whole state could slide into the Pacific Ocean and, considering the Federal Government is fucking lending them money like they are a bank in need of TARP money, I think we'd (except those people in California, god hope the sensible people there get a head start to get the hell outta dodge first) be better off.
Perhaps I'm not understanding something here, but why should your neighbor care about your home's value? Of course, in the case of a shared resource like a water pipe, it's a different matter but if it's my house and I want to fill my front yard with grey paint, why should anyone object. The whole "it's not aesthetic" argument is similar to the Taliban preventing women from wearing jeans because they don't like to see it. So where does it stop?
consolidation of the powers of various warlords
No, warlords do not share or consolidate power. It's not the African way.
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
by doing what you should have the gawddamn right to do on your own property!
It's not your property. Here is a somewhat humorous parody that happens to illustrate the point and even addresses the topic of this thread:
"The Peasant's New Property"
Not so many years ago lived a peasant, though he didn't think of himself as such, who thought so much of real property ownership that he spent most of his time slaving away in his cubicle at work to acquire enough money to purchase some. He had little time for friends, family, or other amusements; in fact, the only thing he thought much about was his bi-weekly paycheck. His schedule contained labor for almost every hour of the day, and as one would say of a peasant, "He is out in the fields", so one could say of him, "He is in his cubicle".
The suburb where he desired to own property was very gay; every day many strangers from all parts of the globe arrived. One day two swindlers came to this suburb; they made everyone believe they were real estate agents and declared that they could sell the finest property one could own. Their architecture and design, they said, were not only exceptionally beautiful, but the homes and land possessed the wonderful quality of having its ownership unperceivable by any man who was irrational or unpardonably stupid.
"That must be wonderful property," thought the peasant. "If I were to own such property I should be able to find out which of my fellow men are irrational, and I could distinguish the clever from the stupid. I must have this property without delay." And he gave a large sum of money to the swindlers, in advance, that they should set to work without any loss of time. They prepared lots of paperwork and pretended to be very hard at work. They asked for commissions and all sorts of fees which were quickly drawn from the man's bank accounts, and they appeared to work until late at night.
"I should very much like to know how they are getting on with my purchase," thought the peasant. But he felt rather uneasy when he remembered that he who was irrational or stupid couldn't perceive its ownership. Personally, he was of the opinion that he had nothing to fear, yet he thought it advisable to send somebody else first to see how matters stood. He told everyone he knew what remarkable quality the property possessed, and all were anxious to see how bad or stupid their neighbors were.
"I shall send my friend who is an accountant to the agents," thought the peasant. "He can judge best the ownership, for he is intelligent, and nobody understands his office better than he."
The accountant went to the property where the swindlers sat, perused the paperwork and asked lots of questions. "Heaven preserve us!" he thought, and opened his eyes wide, "I cannot see any ownership at all," but he did not say so. Both swindlers requested him to come near, and asked him if he did not admire the exquisite deal they were offering, pointing to the paperwork on the desk. The accountant tried his very best, but he couldn't see it. "Oh dear," he thought, "can I be so stupid? I should never have thought so, and nobody must know it! Is it possible that I am irrational? No, no, I cannot say that I was unable to perceive the ownership."
"Now, have you got nothing to say?" said one of the swindlers, while he pretended to be busily punching numbers into his calculator.
"Oh, it is quite the deal," replied the accountant looking through his glasses. "To finally own real property! I shall tell my friend that I like the deal very much."
"We are pleased to hear that," said the two agents, and described to him in great detail the minutiae of property ownership. The accountant listened attentively, that he might relate to his friend
"Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves. " ---Henry David Thoreau
Ha always gets the last laugh. Ha!
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
You don't own your land ever. Stop paying your (rent) property taxes to the government and you will find out how much that land is yours.
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.
No, this is why government should not be dumb.
There is no such thing as a reasonable request when someone is trying to force someone to make their own property appear the way YOU want it to. No, not even "no broken windows" or even "no purple 10-foot lawn gnomes".
Don't give me that filthy lie about how "wah, they lowered my precious property values!" can provide even the most remote excuse. You don't have a right to high property values. Period. And you know it.
You, and anyone else who is less than 100% against the city on this issue, are violently anti-freedom and cannot possibly die painfully enough or soon enough.
Discretion? By the very nature of the law it should be applied all of the time indiscriminately, anything else is corruption.
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.
"property rights"? What property rights? I don't see any in the USA. When you pay property tax, it isn't yours anymore. You rent it.
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.
And by trying to dictate that he have a conventional lawn, his neighbors (through the government) ignore that they are devaluing his property for his own use as well. The difference is he actually paid for his property and so has bought the moral right to maintain it in a way that makes sense for him. He appears to not be unsympathetic and has demonstrated a willingness to find a compromise. It seems that he is not the one being unreasonable.
The next time L.A. cries about water allocations, this should be trotted right out and they should be told to suck it up.
then any law which, when enforced, would have insane consequences (like this) must be abolished.
Let's try and tot up what would survive...
FGD 135
> '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.
There's nothing about these regulations that are even slightly unique to California. This is generic American Suburbia in a nutshell.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
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.
That only works when you craft laws using omniscience.
Many laws explicitly build-in discretion.
"You [...] are violently anti-freedom and cannot possibly die painfully enough or soon enough."
I don't think you know what the word violently means.
You don't have a right to high property values, and they don't have a right to have flaming crosses on their lawns 24/7. That right is exactly as made up as the right to high property values. It turns out that the neighbourhood was set up with strings attached, and either you accepted those strings by moving in there (and thus have nobody to blame but yourself), or this came up after the fact and you didn't agree to it, in which case you probably do have some recourse to complain.
And actually, with broken windows, that actually is known to increase crime in the area. I *do* have the right to security of person.
By the way, I'm DEFINITELY against the city on this issue. But you can take it too far. It seems that a lot of people maintain a childish notion of what legal property rights are and won't let go of it in the face of overwhelming countervailing evidence. Note that I'm sure a good argument could be made that property rights should be different, I'm just complaining about what is.
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!
After Somalia's former government collapsed, it didn't take long for warlords to consolidate power
sigh. You do realize that the worlds biggest warlord was behind the Somali gov "collapse" and for several years now has been illegally invading the country on the sly.
At first glance you may think that the US invasion will be a good thing for Somalia... but then the horrific details of the methods used might give pause to that romanticized "It'll be good for 'em" notion of war and invasion.
. Of course, It's all about oil, again. Won't someone invent a replacement already.
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 :-)
The point is whether the ordinance is a good law, not whether the council has the right to enforce it.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Discretion? By the very nature of the law it should be applied all of the time indiscriminately, anything else is corruption.
So the choice is between corruption and mindless stupidity? When a law clearly has harmful consequences, you should revise the law, not cling to it against all common sense.
Enforcing laws does require discretion and common sense. I think your attitude is exactly what's wrong here.
In the end, rules are meant to be broken. As long as you do it openly and for well-specified reasons, there's nothing wrong with it. (Then again, I'm Dutch, and we're famous for structurally and intentionally not enforcing our own laws. Pot is technically illegal here. Governments just decided not to enforce those laws in the case of pot.)
I agree with Sitting Bull on this. Nobody owns land. It belongs to everybody. When you use it, you rent it from the community.
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.
Homeowners care about their neighbors' home values because they greatly affect their own home's value. If your neighbor turns his once nice yard into a horror, the appraised value of every home in the area will decrease. People who intend to live in their homes until they die care the least, and at the opposite end of the spectrum speculators have conniption fits.
Just a word of warning - native Australian plants are often highly flammable. Big, lush, high water gardens are reasonably fire protection. Gravel (or pretty stones) is better. (That's a little debatable, as greenery can shield a house as long as it doesn't ignite). Bamboo burns like the oversized grass it is.
Also, woodchip is dry wood. It's not remotely safe in a fire.
There are some hardy (but not flammable) plants that are good - some succulents will only burn if there's a blow torch on them, but be very picky with drought-resistant plants.
Also, avoid natural (uncleared) bush like the plague. A combination of trees, shrubs, and undergrowth can melt aluminum, especially if it's on a hill. It looks nice and environmental to be living amongst trees, but the environmental footprint is horrendous (they clear *how many* acres for their driveway?), and it's a deadly place to be if a fire starts. Imagine 10-20m flames from the natural bush, then think about the showers of embers (including burning branches carried in the fire-fueled tornado - yes, the energy from a fire can create a tornado).
I prefer to live in a low-impact cluster of cement boxes, and go to the bush when I want to enjoy it. Maybe when I have a family I'll look at something with a bit of a yard, but only one that's big enough to play in.
He didn't do so. He just pointed out that blind obedience to city ordinances can lead to truly awful behavior, and in some cases should be ignored or even defied.
What is wrong with the breasts? I like breasts.
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.
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]
She would have told you to keep her out of this. That she fought her own battles - not yours.
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.
The case of Rosa Parks was one of human rights and those have prevalence over city ordinance. In this case the environment protection should prevail over this stupid ordinance, but IANAL.
I only knew one Lakota, and he was a LaVey Satanist, but I try to think of the children seven generations down, as I think some tribes acknowledge. perpetuate the species, and all.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
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....
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.
I don't think you've actually read that Wikipedia article. The authors of that book seem to follow slipperly-slope logic and confuse correlation and causation. The critics section contains information on studies which dispute your claim and appear to be more credible, offering more plausible explanations. Also, screw the neighbors. Some things are more important to money, and the way this neighbourhood association is treating people who care more about their children than money is completely ridiculous.
try { Signature mysig = new CleverAttempt(); } catch(NonCleverSignatureException e) { postanyway(); }
That's a whole lot of plastic bottles.
Am I reading Better Homes and Gardens?
sigh. You do realize that the worlds biggest warlord was behind the Somali gov "collapse"
I don't know if the nytimes.com is the world's biggest warlord. Sure, it's annoying to have to register to read the article, but warlord?
Why is it your neighbor's responsibility to use their property in a way they dislike in order to bolster your property values?
Because exterior changes to your neighbor's home often have negative externalities. That is, they have costs not incurred by the person who pays for the changes. It's the same logic that underlies why we regulate things like water pollution and public dumping. The point of regulating these things is not to bolster property values, but to make sure that the true cost on society of such changes, rather than just the cost to the homeowner, is more accurately reflected, and therefore properly weighed against the benefits which are generally enjoyed only be the homeowner.
That being said, many people enforcing and making these kinds of laws often get carried away and forget the underlying reason for them, as seems to be the case here. So instead of properly weight the negative externalities, on property value, against the positive externalities of the Ha's reduced water usage (or, as was recently the case in my state, reduced electricity use when a couple decided to start hang drying their clothes in their backyard), we have some bureaucrat rubber stamping things to the letter of the law.
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.
It's not the state that is corrupt, it is the enforcers of the law who choose to do so selectively. If a reasonable enforcer of the law has to turn a blind eye to a "crime" then the law needs to be revised.
Thats all opinion my friend.
All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
Perhaps I'm not understanding something here, but why should your neighbor care about your home's value?
Because most people have a large percentage of their assets tied up in their home and few people stay in a single home longer than seven years. So even if they don't mind your decorating decisions, when they go to sell their home the value of the home is impacted by the eyesore next door. Because, while many people may not mind staying next to a bothersome neighbor, they're not going to consciously choose to live next to one if there are other options available. So by painting your front lawn with grey paint, you're imposing an externality on those around you. That is, you're not bearing the full cost that your decision to paint your lawn imposes on the rest of society, and therefore you're not properly weighing the benefits to you against the full, true cost of the decision.
Individual cities are very autonomous. You can't really extrapolate from local ordinances.
No, it's not.
If some rule or law is deemed unconstitutional in court, then it's not applicable. If a country signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it supersedes the countries law. Cases like those have happened a few times in my country.
I wouldn't go so far as to declare this a human rights issue but the Rosa Parks is definitely one.
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.
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]
That is so wrong for many reasons. Discretion in applying the law may result in corruption, but it is necessary for justice, and is built into the system.
Discretion is applied at all levels - from the policeman giving you a warning (you went through a red light in an empty intersection after a full stop but you are rushing to the hospital), to the prosecutor (yes, you bounced a check (a felony) but it was an accident and you made good on it right away), to the jury (I will not convict the white man for marrying a black woman no matter what the law says), to the judge (case dismissed or probation for a man who murdered his wife- they were both 90 and she had painful cancer and he failed when trying to commit suicide).
The no discretion, Zero Tolerance (zero intelligence) application often results in injustice.
when you build a society on the pyramid scheme of home property values; common sense and personal freedoms are the first victims.
What annoyed me was this:
'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."
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)
He's probably from a culture where "taxes" are protection money or bribes.
I live in a neighborhood in a small Maine city that was developed in a couple phases, the first major phase was developed in the late 60s/early70s, the second was in the mid - late 90s. There are covenants here that somewhat limit what you can do with your property, many were concerned with the initial construction while a few were not (house must be a certain size/cost at construction, no mobile homes, no commercial vehicles parked in driveways, ...). Most new subdivisions will, at the very least, have requirements on initial construction, and some require things like window blinds, outside lights that are kept on at night, and landscaping. Other towns in Maine have limitations on color/appearance of houses, especially in historic parts of town, but it a lot of rural areas in Maine it is indeed a free for all... and you end up with people that have 5 nonworking cars on their law, or a sailboat that hasn't seen water in 20 years.
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.
Whatever the silly laws say, you should NOT be entitled to keeping or increasing value of your property. Others may not damage or steal your property, but the value of your property should be totally your problem.
In the end, rules are meant to be broken.
Rules aren't created for the sole purpose of being destroyed (like crash test dummies or firearms targets). Rules are meant to be followed. Breaking them sometimes makes sense if the rules are written poorly. Creating laws with an intent to enforce them randomly invites corruption on the part of the state (they can supress one class of people or specific people), and invites disregard for law and society in citizens. Observe U.S. traffic patterns for an example: driving 10-15 miles per hour over the speed limit is common, even in 15/20/30mph zones.
I also live in VA and the mandating of lawn mowing is for safety. It's tough seeing a Copperhead or other poisonous snake when you can't see the ground. You didn't have that problem in Maine because there are no poisonous snakes in Maine.
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!
If a group of people agree to certain rules, then it is their responsibility. It's called 'a society'. All they have to do to comply is plant some more low-water usage plants. It seems the ordinance is very clear, it doesn't mention anything about fences. Agave and prickly pear are downright cheap, and they tend to grow 'like weeds' with very little water. Texas Sage can be used to cover larger areas and also uses very little water. I live in Mesa, AZ and the city provided a list of low-water plants for residents that would grow well.
.. it's unfair. To the 10% it affects.
.. start work to change them. Until then, either comply or accept the consequences.
It's unfortunate that other people want these types of rules, but the super-majority rules, and sometimes a simple-majority. I lived in Maine for 20 years, and there are places that have similar rules to Orange County. Usually put in place by transplants and 'from-away' types from Mass. who find the color choices by the French-Canadians who have lived their all of their life an eyesore. Yep
Don't like the laws
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
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.
Holy crap, humans are really retarded.
Use some fucking common sense, for a change. We're turning into damn robots, obsessed with laws and regulations that regulate EVERYTHING.
Common sense is gone, and that is scary...
Perhaps so but the navies of various countries have been giving them rather strong hints as to what are and are not acceptable sources of revenue.
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.
From an outsider's perspective I would diagnose the problem somewhat differently. It's paradoxical, the US is in many way under-regulated (eg. the banking system, consumer protection etc), yet on the other hand there are numerous examples of regulation like this.
On this particular issue, I think it's worth mentioning that regulation doesn't inherently do certain things. For example, US banks were required to make a certain amount of loans based on ethnicity (I don't know much about it except it's generally not considered a significant contributor to the recent banking collapse). They're also required to report all money transfers near or over $10,000. These regulations don't help make banking a sounder industry.
Your words imply that one needs merely to add regulation. I'm just pointing out that one can add regulation generously and not improve (perhaps even make the problem worse!) the situation.
Consumer protection seems quite adequate in the US. Sure, maybe idiots aren't sufficiently protected from the consequences of their actions, but you'd improve that by regulating the idiots not the producers.
But I don't think the problem is with the actual regulation. To me there seems a dangerous lack of discretion on the part of administrators, as to when laws ought, and more importantly, ought not to be applied.
I see a lot of discussion on the "need" for discretion. But as another replier notes, administrators should not have discretion. There is a saying here, "the US is a nation of laws not men" (see here for the orginal use). The meaning is that laws should be consistently and fairly applied else it is an avenue for tyranny. The discretion to apply law means that law enforcement can be selectively applied to political opponents, people who refuse to pay bribes/extortion, or other undesirables. Certain parties have to keep their activities scrupulously clean while others can be far more lax in their observance of law. This is the result of discretion and why it is considered an avenue for corruption.
It is as if the mere fact that something breaches an ordinance justifies taking action against that breach, or the mere fact that a crime has been committed means that someone ought to be charged. Or perhaps it is only that failures of discretion, such as in the present case, which are newsworthy.
Yes. That is exactly how it should be. It doesn't make sense to leave enforcement of an ordinance or criminal code up to the discretion of some agency or official with their own interests.
we have some bureaucrat rubber stamping things to the letter of the law.
That's what the bureaucrat is supposed to do. We don't want bureaucrats to have the power to decide when law is enforced and when it isn't. That way leads to corruption.
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.
Somalia was a hell hole before and after it had no government. Since it hasn't had one, it has had all kinds of foreign interventions into the area to impose some government over them, which, as we all know, is excellent for promoting growth. In any case, their GDP has grown since the collapse of the communist dictatorship (though, IIRC, it has been below average), and they actually have one of the better telecom networks in Africa (which is very surprising, given the various wars and such).
SSC
Judges and Police officers are two different entities. It should not be the enforcer of the law who gets to decide if a law is fair and just, that is the judges role.
In many cases, discretion is built into the system as it should be, but the law should be designed so that it can be fairly applied to everyone. Again, selectively choosing who to enforce the law upon is corruption.
All taxes are protection money and/or bribes. We only have a special name for them as a coping mechanism. There is a giant terminological double-standard, just like how we say "the Obama administration" but we always say "the $unpopularleader regime" It's way to hide the true nature of the acts, as well as make everyone feel better.
When we bribe the government, we call it a tax.
When we pay rent to the government, we call it a tax.
When the government runs a pyramid scheme, we call it social security.
etc.
That's a long, well thought out reply for not reading the article.
They don't have a dead, ugly lawn. They removed the lawn and added plants that don't need a lot of water. You know, the kind of stuff that naturally belongs in California. The city IS coming after them for not making it a lush, green, expensive and environmentally negative artificial oasis.
Yes, and in the case of speed limits I would argue that the rules themselves are broken and in need of being fixed to match real world driving patterns. If enforcing a law requires that a majority of the citizens be prosecuted, then something is wrong with the law itself.
look i agree with the flaming crosses thing. the problem i run into is we don't know how or why the city added these laws, or in the case that this wasn't the city the HOA. HOAs with longer than a one sided list of short bullet points will lower the value of your house much faster than "broken windows" or "Purple lawn gnome" even would. I shall not mow my yard 3x a week to keep the grass between 1" and 1.5" long. Like the artical, i'd love to have a mostly arid yard, or natural prairie grasses. Pine forest sounds good too.
All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
Remember that separation of powers is quite extensive in the US. We have local, county, state, and federal laws to contend with. With the exception of defense and security, the federal government is quite limited in its scope, and has only really expanded over the past 50 years for a variety of fairly mundane technology-related reasons -- it makes sense that we only have one FDA and one NASA.
On the other hand, state (and especially local) laws have had the tendency to be draconian, overbearing, and rarely challenged in the courts. Ironically, most of the worst offenders in this area are extremely conservative constituencies.
A huge portion of the modern conservative and libertarian movement is simply the centuries-old states' rights camp in disguise.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
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.
Yeah, the financial crisis that came about by the HUD creating a huge market for high risk loans was definitely caused by not enough regulation.
All those evil bankers that helped Fannie comply with federal regulations by making all those high risk loans to people who shouldn't be buying houses are the real cause, right?
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.
The problem there is that the law serves too many purposes. We expect it to solve political, moral and economic problems. This creates an environment where yesterday's pragmatism is becomes tomorrow's iron fist.
I live in a HOA neighborhood. And I've checked, don't have these lawn requirements. As a matter of fact, checked the bylaws and local ordinances, and the only things I could come up with are I'm not allowed to litter on my own property (can live with that since it irks me to see trash on my property anyways) and I can't move the trash can to the curb until the night before trash pickup day (can also live with this). Don't have anything pertaining to the yard or anything else with the property.
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.
All those evil bankers were motivated by a quick payoff that was enabled by not owning the loans anymore.
Racist nonsense really has nothing to do with it.
The financial crisis was caused by bankers being insulated from the consequences of their actions.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
"...but not so big that people start to be strangled by it."
They always make new laws, and rarely get rid of old laws. The strangulation is inevitable.
Indeed. I keep thinking how cool it would be if a law were passed to the effect of "For every new bill signed into law, two laws must be repealed."
But as a homeowner, it's what keeps the property value going. I already have problems with the neighbors not paying their water bill (shared pipe mess, etc), and the association can't do much else other than give warnings that if they don't pay, then EVERYONE will lose water.
What kind of messed up structure did you let yourself in for? Shouldn't that have been researched before buying? Why would you make any kind of purchase where your own rights are dictated by the behavior of others?
> What makes you think the price you paid for the property included those rights?
The property is in the United States of America.
It's time to stop all of this HOA and similar nonsense.
It doesn't actually do anything positive. All it does is prevent those in the neighborhood with any clue or taste from improving their property. Ultimately you're saddled with BS restrictions that don't do anything productive. They have no impact on property values and actually make the neighborhood uglier and look more "manufactured".
"Borgville" doesn't enhance property values. Out of state real estate speculators do.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
+1 Insightful
what a contrived story - you have a couple valid points but your property tax amount is ludicrously above any real property tax.
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
The only thing keeping race out of these CC&Rs are very explicit laws that prevent this sort of thing.
"white flight"? Don't be so silly. You've not seen "flight" until you've seen them run from lawn gnomes.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Home values are computed based on sales of 'comparable' homes in the area. Houses are often comparable to their neighbors homes.
If your home value goes down, that just lowered the value of all 'comparable' homes in the area. Which includes the neighbors. (This is a reason some care. I don't necessarily agree with it.)
Oh, and for the Taliban preventing women wearing jeans: They prevent it because they do like to see it, and that is a temptation to men. (Which men cannot be expected to handle on their own.) So therefore to avoid leading men into sin, women should cover up.
Both reasoning make about the same amount of sense.
'Sensible' is a curse word.
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
But the state's interest in defending property should be first and foremost to defend the right of a property's owner to use it as they see fit;
Unfortunately, human beings are notorious for their tendencies to act in their own interest before applying another person's interest. Here, you have a local government which earns a substantial percentage of it's revenue from property taxes, and people pay more property taxes when they live on more valuable property, thus a disincentive is created for the local government to defend the right of a property owner to do use property as they see fit. The government has a *much* larger incentive to maintain the status quo, enforcing laws like this that create a social image that increases, or at the very least maintains, property values. Money is the real reason behind most of the activities that involve humans. That money may be in the form of taxes, or oil, or land, or gold, but as far back as humans go - it's always about the money.
The requirement is that they have LIVE plant landscaping. Dead grass wouldn't qualify, and would be violating the code also.
I'd counter with this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichen
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
While it may be true that it is known that rules will be broken, it scares me to think that any public policy is based on the idea that rules/laws are put in place with the intent that they be broken. There's a big difference.
It is unwise to ascribe motive
Hey, I got modded offtopic. Guess I hit a nerve, somewhere. Listen mod: HOW ON EARTH IS THIS OFFTOPIC? Don't you have better places to spend your mod points? Asshole.
Noise ordinances are a perfect example of where discretion in enforcement is perfectly viable IMO. The penalties for breaking the noise ordinances need to be high enough that it's *painful* for people are committing repeated egregious acts of noise pollution, but there's no real issue if your neighbor is having a party and happens to have the volume dial up one notch too many and they comply when a cop asks them to turn the volume down. I don't consider this corruption at all and is probably enforced exactly the way in which the lawmakers intended.
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
Actually that's the jury's role. The role of the judge is to ensure procedure is followed.
I don't really want to get into a global warming debate; but there is a distinction:
Certain things that I might do affect your property. If I start Fuzzyfuzzyfungus' Quality Mycotoxin Smelter(come to us for all your cyberpunk vengance needs!) next to your house, your property will be directly affected. Within a few years, your kids will have some exotic flavor of cancer, and EPA dudes in moonsuits will be scraping off your topsoil for incineration. I am causing your property(and, in this example, you) direct damage for fun and/or profit. It isn't really different, ethically speaking, than my breaking into your store and stealing or smashing your merchandise.
Other things that I might do affect your property value. If my taste in yard decoration runs toward bestiality-themed lawn gnomes, the market value of your property will likely fall substantially; but I will not have altered your property itself one iota. Here I am doing you no direct harm, I'm just altering market conditions in a way that happens to reduce the value of your holdings. The analogy would be my introducing a new product X that is shinier and cooler than your product Y, forcing you to liquidate your stock on Woot.com at a substantial loss.
The forecast effects of global warming pretty much fall into the first category. If sea levels rise and your beachfront property becomes a tidal marsh, your property has been directly affected. If changes in precipitation patterns turn your farm into a dust bowl, you've been directly affected.
Now, in practice, this sharp distinction is not nearly as useful as it sounds. Indirect damage hurts, just like direct damage does, and(in the vast majority of cases) people set up society in part to ensure at least some measure of security for themselves. Being vulnerable to substantial indirect harm at the drop of a hat is a form of insecurity. For this reason, virtually all societies regulate indirect harm to some degree(either through law, social convention, or both). However, while it increases personal security, regulation of indirect harm is a direct attack on property rights and(all too frequently) can take the form of anticompetitive pro-incumbent measures.
(Incidentally, this is the part of libertarianism that I find deeply problematic on a theoretical level, and the thing that has caused me to be a great deal more skeptical of it than I used to be. The notion that the state should exist merely to protect its members from aggression against their persons and property by others sounds really simple and elegant. However, because of this uneasy matter of direct and indirect harms, as well as direct and indirect bonuses which are equally tricky though probably not as morally urgent, it gets really hairy in practice. Does the state protect only against direct harm? Are there any indirect harms sufficiently harmful that the state should protect me from them? If so, what criterion is used to distinguish them? Are there any direct harms modest enough that I don't need the consent of everyone affected in order to inflict them? If so, where and how do you draw the line? If not, how "free" can I be when I'm not allowed to make any noise that travels off my property without the express consent of anybody whose sleep might be disturbed by it? That would be pretty onerous. In the end, while libertarian ideals are a valuable protection against certain obvious abuses, I'm not sure that they actually tell you anything useful about all these little edge cases, and the edge cases are where most of life occurs. In practice, you pretty much fall back on a mixture of tradition, "common sense", and majoritarian standards setting, whether it be through a public sector mechanism like zoning, or a private sector mechanism like HOAs.)
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.
Was their yard ugly or do their neighbors simply hate them?
From the looks of it, both. Their yard is brown. It doesn’t even look like a desert. It looks brown. It is a brown yard with patches of scraggly, weedy-looking vegetation.
If they’d used a fair-quality sand or rock instead of WOOD CHIPS, at least it would look decent.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Not sure if it the anology holds, but more people die of drowning in the desert than die of thirst.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
At least this time it's not a HOA..
HOA's in my area will actually fine you (and can place a lien for the amount of the fines) if you don't water your grass in a drought. Heck, I can't even see why home sales should be allowed to force the one sided contract that is an HOA on you.
I put on my robe and wizard hat..
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 sounds like turning government into a giant game of flux, which is great until someone plays the "pass all bills" card.
You must hate it when highway patrol lets you off with a warning.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
I would agree with you on the speeding laws. There are much more dangerous activities on the road that should be punished more severely. For instance, last night I witnessed a guy driving down my residential street go through two stop signs without so much as a flash of the brake lights, and also drive down the wrong side of the road for half of the length of the street. If I was a cop, I would ignore the people going a few percent over the limit, and would go after the people who are dangerous: People who run stop signs or traffic lights, people who drive twice the speed limit in residential areas, people who text while driving, people who drive 25% under the speed limit, people who change lanes without having adequate room and without using turn signals, etc.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Are you insane?
I'll be shortly "buying" a house myself. The monthly cost of the property tax on it is equal to 80-90% of the monthly cost of the mortgage! Property tax is practically DOUBLING my monthly out-of-pocket expense for "owning" the home. If anything, the GP's property tax amount is too low to reflect reality in many places!
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
Aren't speed limits designed with the road's construction in mind? i.e. if the speed limit dips to 50 you really shouldn't be trying to take that upcoming left curve at 85...
Even so, on straightaways the flow of traffic should take precedence. The only places where speed limits really ought to be set and enforced is within cities/towns and in turning areas.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
No, Somalia is a great example of local governance run amok. What to you call a sheriff with absolute authority? A warlord.
The fact of the matter is that the discretion should be built in to the system. It could simply be a matter of giving a warning first then charging them with a crime if they do not comply, the law itself should not be so rigid. However, it should not be up to the enforcer of the law to decide when and where to apply it, it should always be applied.
Discretion? By the very nature of the law it should be applied all of the time indiscriminately, anything else is corruption.
I must applaud the genius of Gary Gygax and Dave Aronson who has the insight to place Good vs. Evil perpendicular to Law vs Chaos on the alignment charts. It gives you the kind of mental flexibility to realize that there can be good corruption and bad corruption. Looking the other way to save hundreds of thousands of gallons of water during a drought falls under Chaotic Good, in my book.
Yes, but many of the roads with 55mph speed limits are designed for 80+mph speeds. I-495 in New York is a perfect example of this, the speed limit is 55MPH yet you would be hard pressed to find people driving slower then 70mph unless it's a rainy day. Heck, if there isn't much traffic one can easily travel at over 100mph on that road with no problems.
One of the things I observed when I moved to the US a decade ago, is that culturally, many Americans have a strong belief in following the rules--to a completely absurd and mindless degree. See, for example, this reply to your comment stating that laws should be followed blindly. It's not just a government thing; corporations are incredibly bureaucratic too. Whether you're applying for a credit card, trying to get a mobile phone, or renewing a driver's license, there's an amazing lack of common sense on the part of the bureaucrat when faced with any kind of exceptional situation. ("You've been a customer for eight years and will pay cash up front for the phone? Sorry, the credit rating says code 13 so no contract account for you.")
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
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.
Alternatively, we'd just see more "regulations" that weren't laws at all...
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.
the US is in many way under-regulated (eg. the banking system,
Guess again. Our banking system is one of our most heavily-regulated industries, right up there with medicine and operating nuclear power plants.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
to the jury (I will not convict the white man for marrying a black woman no matter what the law says),
That's called Jury nullification, and jurors are rarely informed of their right not to convict. I've read about an instance or two where judges specifically inform juries that they cannot do this (although this is really, really illegal)
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
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.
Damnit! You KIDS GET OFF MY... I mean THE GOVERNMENTS LAWN!
There is no such thing as a reasonable request when someone is trying to force someone to make their own property appear the way YOU want it to.
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.
There is a giant terminological double-standard, just like how we say "the Obama administration" but we always say "the $unpopularleader regime" It's way to hide the true nature of the acts, as well as make everyone feel better.
I don't say "the Obama regime" I call it an Administration too.
By the way, I'm DEFINITELY against the city on this issue.
I'm not, though I fear I may die painfully soon enough for that opinion. Low-water landscaping is a great idea and I'd rather see developments in drought areas enforce that instead of lawns. At the same time, as I stated in another post on this topic, we're all in this together -- if you think you can live your life in solitude, you're really going to have to live waaaay out of the way. It's called community. If you don't want to be part of the community, and I'm not saying you have to talk to your neighbors, don't move into one.
They did the right thing by tearing up their lawn. They did the wrong thing by not beautifying it in some way -- boulders, brick, low-water shrubs, recycled water feature. They're basically hurting their cause by doing it poorly. Like a person who wants a more bike-friendly town, so they get their friends to ride in the middle of the street, through red lights, etc to prove their point. Right idea, wrong technique.
then any law which, when enforced, would have insane consequences (like this) must be abolished.
No, any law which, when enforced, would have insane consequences, should be fixed. Most laws really do have good intentions. (I'm sure you'll disagree with this but you'll be wrong.) The problem is that those who draft the words of the laws are often insufficiently intelligent or learned to be able to envision consequences such as this. That is why there is this concept called a "revision."
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
This always seemed strange to me. When we looked for a house, we mostly looked at the location, the size of the yard, whether the house suited our needs and the price. We did not look at the neighbors lawns or lack thereof. Now we have a 2m high fence from the street and a ~1.5m high fence from the neighbors (the highest that the law allows without the consent of said neighbors).
Something as large and visible as a dead lawn makes it seem like the house is abandoned.
So what? It's not like they are selling the house or something.
P.S. I do not live in the US.
Well.... going by the article and the photo, they have an ugly yard covered with wood chips, and a fence with some low-water-consumption plants along the outside of it. It didn't look to me (from the photo) like 40 percent of their lawn was landscaped with plants.
Now, maybe the photo is misleading, or shows it before all their changes, but that's what it looks like to me.
To me there seems a dangerous lack of discretion on the part of administrators, as to when laws ought, and more importantly, ought not to be applied.
Here's the thing, times are tough, so administrators are under pressure to 'justify their salaries'. If you're an administrator in charge of petty things like this, and you basically have little better to do, you will ultimately lose your job if you can't find a way to 'look busy'. So if you don't have anything truly useful to do, you can either lose your job and save taxpayers some money, or you can start "making work" by behaving like the "lawn police" and pursuing frivolous cases. Ultimately that's what it's about.
The most amazing thing about all this is that these peoples' salaries are being funded by a deficit while unemployment is also high: I mean, if society had excess cash to waste on pursuing cases like this, it would be one thing, but when you don't have the excess cash, these are precisely the kinds of state administrator jobs that should be cut first.
Excessive regulations are indeed a core part of the problem, since they themselves are often passed by other administrators trying to "justify their salaries", and then they need still more money to enforce. They also give administators a "blunt tool" to go after just about anyone they feel like, since almost everyone breaks some stupid law or 'code' every single day.
the law should still be abolished and then replaced with a new one. Trying to amend existing laws makes a mess of the law books.
How would you propse that the law in question be re-written so that these people get left alone?
FGD 135
Your words imply that one needs merely to add regulation. I'm just pointing out that one can add regulation generously and not improve (perhaps even make the problem worse!) the situation.
Yup. Unfortunately most people hear the words "unregulated" or "under-regulated" and get scared, since those words are deliberately used to make it sound like someone else is able to do whatever bad thing they want. That's the whole point of using these 'scary-sounding' labels, to write government a blank cheque to pass whatever "regulation" happens to grant themselves more power and a bigger slice of that tax pie (which is starting to strain).
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.
All those evil bankers were motivated by a quick payoff that was enabled by not owning the loans anymore.
Yup, that's it in short. They effective perpetrated a kind of fraud by taking on high-risk debt, deliberately hiding and obfuscating that the debt was high risk, and reselling the debt. This doesn't happen by accident, and probably in some cases was already illegal in some way or another, although nobody's been prosecuted.
the US is in many way under-regulated (eg. the banking system,
Guess again. Our banking system is one of our most heavily-regulated industries, right up there with medicine and operating nuclear power plants.
-jcr
Yup; this propaganda has been spread recently by some who seek to broaden their powers that the cause of all this problem was an "unregulated" industry, which is simply false. Unfortunately propaganda still works well in this day and age, since most people just repeat whatever they hear.
"You do realize that the worlds biggest warlord [nytimes.com] was behind the Somali gov "collapse""
Are you freaking kidding me?
Somalia has been without a national government since 1991 (end of Barre's dictatorship) and the year generally given that the government went down. GW Bush was sworn-in in 2001.
Even the best attempts to restore a national government went to shit in 1996, 5 years before "the worlds[sic] biggest warlord" noted in the NY Time citation you gave, which in itself was pretty crappy opinion peace that, in typical fashion, left out context to get to the point it wanted to fashion and prove, not find what the truth was.
One of the phrackin reasons we are in the region isn't oil. There's oil everywhere people, yet if you mention it as a reason, it's like people all nod and agree that's THE reason. It's the downfall of former Soviet satellite states, which Ethiopia was one, and Somalia had been years prior (Soviets ended support to Somalia due to the conflict). Second, Islamists had been moving into what had been a relatively peaceful Somalia. Even the NY Times piece, which is a complete piece of shit, indirectly agrees they are (and were) there.
In 2006, there was an attempt at a transitional government, but that was largely a complete farce and, something chose to gloss over, the coalition and the northern sector were filled Islamists with al Quada ties. Funny you didn't mention that. There was damn good and clear reason NOT for that government to form, esp. considering that PRIOR to that transitional government, Somalia HAD BEEN STABLE and nearly peaceful despite having no national government of any substance.
Your 2nd citation firmly backs this. It even cites Somalia's clan leaders as leaders in suspected terrorist rings, and you're seriously using the article to try to back your claims? Are you batshit? Also, considering war itself is horrific, I see nothing substantial in that article that supports the methods used as unusual outlandish, particular in context of what had been going on the region for almost 20 years. And clearly, the reason the US became indirectly involved was because of the Islamists backing the clans and warlords of the area to fight. Don't simply blame the US; they made the first move when other Islamist countries started pushing out the extremist groups.
"Of course, It's all about oil, again [google.com]. Won't someone invent a replacement already."
It's called nuclear, and I bet someone like you complained about that too as evil.
And I can guarantee that the people who invent a replacement won't be you or a greenie, because you don't have the mental capacity or will to They gain too much power from complaining.
And, well, like hell oil is the excuse. There are plenty of other destabilized regions of the world that have oil that we aren't involved in. Somalia has been unstable since it's inception in the 1960s, so I haven't a clue WTF oil had to do with their conflicts back then. But hey, mention oil, and keep mentioning it, so people can simply write you off. What scares me is how highly moderated your post was, despite being so inaccurate.
I do hate it when they let the famous and influential off with a warning for egregious rule breaking.
Can your land i.e. title deed actually be taken away from you for non-payment of services, i.e. property taxes?
The US is so far down the track towards autocracy that warning about the dangers of too weak a government is like warning a man who is dying from dehydration in the desert of the dangers of drowning if he's not careful when approaching an oasis.
You realize "autocracy" means one person has all the power, right? In what parallel universe does the congress, courts and the voluntary military cede all of their power to (presumably) President Obama? Did you mean "authoritarian"? That's were the govt ignores the will of the general public and does whatever it wants. If so, I would suggest that you don't really understand US politics. Our biggest problem right now is that politicians are far too responsive to the whims of the people. To wit, the Dems were riding high last year, but descended into a state of self-destructive panic after a single special election that didn't go their way.
And how does this compare to an actual authoritarian govt like China or Russia? People are regularly beaten, arrested and never heard from again (and that's just for sending emails calling for democracy). In Russia, journalists are publicly assassinated for exposing govt misconduct/corruption. By contrast, last August people in the US were carrying automatic weapons and burning the president in effigy outside - of all things - town hall meetings about healthcare reform. And what was the govt reaction? Nothing. And rightly so. (Though I don't agree with allowing people to wield assault weapons anywhere but in the armed services).
I would suggest that you have a look at what the world is really like before you puff up your chest and spout ignorant nonsense.
If someone has a tacky garden, the neighbours are welcome to follow various recourses to coerce that person to improve their garden ... write him little letters, ask him nicely, complain about it, help him pay for garden services, whatever ... I draw the line though at abusing government structures to create laws to force others to plant in their garden what you want to see there. It is morally wrong, no matter how much it "affects your property values".
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.
There are less than 10 deaths a year in the US from snake bites; frankly that seems a little hysterical to me. You're probably more likely to die in some kind of freak lawnmower accident.
... 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.
And if your entire premise is "neighbourhood property values", you've already lost, because if a property value declines, it hits the homeowner much more than his/her neighbors, and so is not an externality.
The homeowner sees part of the effect on the property value, but not all of it. For instance, suppose that in a fit of frustration with mowing the front lawn, I decide to pave over my entire yard at a cost of $10,000. And suppose that doing so lowers the value of my home by an additional $10,000. In paving my lawn I've essentially shown that having my yard paved over is worth at least $20,000 to me.
However, that is not the full true cost of my paving my front lawn. Let's assume that my 3 direct neighbors (two to the sides and one across the street) experience a negative impact on their property of $2,000 each. Let's also assume that the two houses diagonally across the street from me experience a negative impact on their property of $1,000 each. This puts the true cost of paving my lawn at $28,000.
The $8,000 difference between the true cost and the cost that I incur, is the externality. There's a very real possibility that, while I value the change more than $20,000, I still value it less than $28,000, and my decision to pave my lawn is actually a net loss when considering all those involved. And if I had to incur the true cost of my actions, I would not have made the decision to pave my lawn.
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.
Some places do have property tax that high. My area doesn't, but the part about eminent domain is quite true, as are the last minute remarks about plants and such.
And of course the whole thing is an updated version of the Emperor's New Clothes.
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.
When you pay property tax, it isn't yours anymore. You rent it.
Ridiculous. Somebody has to pay for the services that maintain your rights as a property owner -- things like police, fire, courts, etc. Property ownership does not exist in a vacuum, and somebody has to pay for those most basic social services. Thus, property tax.
Your argument is as ludicrous as suggesting that you don't own your car because you have to pay to put gas in it.
-- Old Man Kensey
This needs to be modded up, I think. Don't be deterred by the long words.
The "externality" is simply the fact that my actions can cost other people money at no or little cost to myself. In an ideal world, it would be fine for someone to use his house as a landfill site, as long as he pays everyone else the difference in cost to their own property. Instead, however, we just make such things illegal and make life simpler.
Call it a consequence of living so close together.
You don't have a right to high property values. Period. And you know it.
So what gives someone else the right to harm me (and everyone else in the community) financially? The right isn't to have "high property values" (although that's what many want), but it is a right against harm from another person.
The city and county, however, do have an interest in preserving high property values: the more the property is worth, the more they make on taxes. I personally think that's why the laws get so absurd (and many of them are): the government will do anything for a larger income without actually increasing tax rates.
Somalia is an example of a failed formal government, but it's not an example of a stateless society. Warlord rule is essentially a set of proto-state authorities, each wielding a portion of the would-be state's monopoly on force. Anyone with a bit of sense who advocates a stateless society would not advocate a system just like it.
In fact, such a person would probably point to Somalia (as well as North Korea) as one possible logical extreme of the philosophy of the state, and would probably add that a "reasonably rational government" has only a very limited inertia to prevent either of these extremes from gaining strength.
The US, one of the more "reasonably rational" states on paper, has seen the rise of elements of both extremes (in recent years, the resurgence of militias and the continued bolstering of the surveillance and security state; but there are many examples through its history as well).
We're turning into damn robots, obsessed with laws and regulations that regulate EVERYTHING.
Not robots, but slaves..
What on earth makes you think it would be about YOU getting money from the oil? Are you in power? Do you have the authority to trump up excuses and start wars? Didn't think so.
The United States didn't go to war, people in the United States government sent the United States to war, those people profited to the tune of billions from the economic implications of the Iraq war.
You as a citizen of the United States didn't get any oil, you weren't supposed to. You were supposed to pay more for oil because of the instability in the large oil producing regions of the world. Of course the oil you paid a higher price for didn't come from said unstable regions so it simply garnered a higher profit.
People who benefited from the Iraq war include soldiers (lots of soldier/mercenary pay and spoils), U.S. contractors (we used Iraqi oil to pay U.S. contractors rather than Iraqi's to rebuild Iraq) and their employees, Defense contractors and their employees, and anybody who has a stake in oil produced anywhere other than Iraq.
Biggest losers? Iraq of course, european nations that had previously been purchasing oil from Iraq like France, and the people of the United States who aren't in one of the previously mentioned groups.
Couldn't be more true. I "purchased" my home three years ago. Only after I did so did I fully realize how much I truly "own" it.
I have to pay the government ransom in order to keep it, and I have to submit to extortion in order to have the ability to modify it in any meaningful way. And even if I do pay all of my protection money like a good, responsible citizen, the government can still come in and forcibly take it away whenever they feel like it.
Have you driven a fnord... lately?
You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later.
Actually, there is no black and white law that will always be just when applied no matter how brilliantly written or revised.
That is why the final check against unjust law (short of revolution, but that is where the right to bear arms comes in) is a jury of peers. Also known as the people. The duty of the jury is to evaluate both the facts of a case and whether application of the law in a particular case would result in justice and render a verdict.
Unfortunately, history is written by the victors. The white south ultimately lost during the civil rights movement and juries which made decisions contrary to victorious view that blacks were equal to rights were used as an excuse by justices to first stop informing juries of their rights and obligations in this respect. Later this attitude by U.S. judges changed further until today where judges actually lie to juries and tell them they aren't permitted to consider the law itself at all. If a judge becomes aware that a juror knows his rights and duties they will actually declare a mistrial.
In this case the couple should be able to request a jury and the jury should toss this out on its ass because it is unjust. The people should have the final direct check against government and corrupt laws. The government (which includes the judicial) doesn't seem to agree.
When a legislator's idea of "good" is to impoverish or imprison everyone who disagrees with him, it is perverse to claim that the laws have "good intentions". Furthermore, a law is not a living thing, thus a law cannot have an intention.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Fundamentally, I tend to agree with you.
Of course, like many who have replied, I too tend to argue that when a law can be applied in an asinine and harmful way, then it is the law that should be abolished, and not merely, applied at whim.
On the other hand, I think maybe there is sometimes a balance that can be struck. Tufts University recently placed a ban on having sex in your dorm room while your roomate is present. Part of the argument presented was, if your roomate has no problem with you having sex in front of them, then you wont be reported, and its no harm no foul.
On the other hand, if your sexual behavior is such that it causes enough problem for your roomate to want to report it, they have a rule that allows them to step in.
Now, I don't really agree with it but... maybe the law, absent the concept of mandatory reporting and absent the active search for crime, can be something of a compromise. Not that every infraction is a problem but, if an infraction gives someone else cause to complain about it... then maybe that has something to it?
There does seem to be an underlying sense in it, but, I am not sure that I agree with it.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
You might want to look into allodial title then.
Warlords are a form of local government.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Why government should have no powers.
We have that.
Yes
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I agree with you, but I can't block HOAs completely from my current house search. I want to find a place where I can bicycle from work or my kids school, and it is 99.9% HOA land between them. I have to compromise and find ones with the least restrictions and costs.
Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
Next time you go 1MPH over the speed limit you should expect a fine then?
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
No, temptation is why the Taliban makes women cover their faces. IIRC, the reason for not allowing jeans (or any kind of pants, for that matter) has something to do with menstrual fluids.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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.
Who says? If I were buying a house in southern California, I'd prefer one where the neighbors were smart and responsible enough to have xeriscaped yards!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
You didn't look at the picture in the article did you?
They have a big dead lawn with 6 plants planted between a fence and the sidewalk. It's the most god awfull thing I've ever seen and I'm a HUGE fan of Xeroscaping. They didn't Xeroscape, they let the lawn die then planted half a dozen plants along the sidewalk, in fact the bare dirt behind the fence is going to be a dust hazzard in the summer. They could have easily Xeroscaped and hit the 40% plant rule. Try opening the article and looking at the picture.
There are three possibilities here:
In the first case, quit complaining 'cause there's no problem! In the second case, quit complaining because you can fix it by appealing the value with the tax commissioner. In the third case -- I don't believe it could be the third case; the existing residents would never allow their elected officials to raise taxes that high.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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
I'd say it depends on how hard it is to find homes without HOAs in that area.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
The idea is not to go to either extreme and maintain a reasonably rational government is large enough to cover the basics but not so big that people start to be strangled by it.
That sounds reasonable, but whatever would we do to satisfy the news media? Where would our society be without their presence :\
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'
No, laws should be followed. Bad laws should be enforced because it quickly shows how stupid they are. The only reason bad laws stick around is precisely because people ignore them.
To illustrate the poing: jaywalking is a crime in my country. Nobody follows it, so nobody cares that it's against the law. If today everyone who jaywalked got arrested, tomorrow the law would be revised by the current government.
Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
Are you insane? ... Property tax is practically DOUBLING my monthly out-of-pocket expense for "owning" the home.
Somebody is insane alright!
I thought my taxes were crazy at 25%.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Way to misread my post, I never stated that laws are to be followed blindly. They are to be ENFORCED blindly, it is up to the judicial system to determine if a law is just or unjust and wether it should be followed. By allowing individual enforcers of the law to selectively apply it, you give them the ability to allow their friends to get a pass while they crack down on their enemies. Note cases were minority drivers are frequently pulled over for speeding when white drivers going the same speed are let by due to them going with the flow of traffic.
Traffic laws in general are a huge abuse of the system, where a very large percentage of drivers are guilty simply for following traffic patterns. Who does the cop pull over in this case? It's an opportunity for abuse of the system, the system should be designed reasonably to begin with.
You are blinded by your own bias, you see what you want to see and can't use logic to come to your own conclusions, but thanks for calling me absurd and mindless.
the coalition and the northern sector were filled Islamists with al Quada ties. Funny you didn't mention that.
Yes he/she did. The Independent references that angle extensively. The references also happen to mention the relative stability Somalia enjoyed under Islamic rule just before the 2006 invasion - something that you seem to selectively ignore to support your point... whatever your point is by the way - it is not clear. You seem to be saying that Somalia is better off for being invaded. I am sorry, you haven't convince me. Every reference from Amnesty down to the GP's post all point to pretty convincing evidence that Somalia is now a "catastrophe" zone, genocide you name it - because of the US backed invasion. Even the US admitted as much (From the GP's reference):
In a rare moment of candour earlier last year, the US special envoy to Somalia, John Yates, admitted to fellow diplomats that their strategy had failed. "We set the agenda and then we lost control," he said. One diplomat present at the meeting said the US was finally beginning to realise that the insurgents were winning.
If you know they are all lying, your point would be better supported if you referenced something a little more authoritative than just yourself.
Damn, my mod points expired last night. Someone mod parent insightful please.
GENERATION 667: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation
The difference is he actually paid for his property and so has bought the moral right to maintain it in a way that makes sense for him.
Sort of. He only paid for the title to his property, the property belongs to the State, at least in most of the US.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
In the end, rules are meant to be broken.
Rules aren't created for the sole purpose of being destroyed (like crash test dummies or firearms targets). Rules are meant to be followed. Breaking them sometimes makes sense if the rules are written poorly.
What I really meant is: rules aren't a goal in themselves. They exist to achieve some goal. And when enforcing them would harm that goal, you shouldn't enforce them, but change the rules instead. You should enforce the spirit of the law, instead of the letter.
In D&D terms, government should be Neutral Good instead of Lawful Neutral. (I admit that Chaotic Good would be a bit too much.)
Disregarding the fact that many, if not most, bills signed into law are changes to existing bodies of law (patches, if you will, rather than whole new programs) what you'd get repealed under such an arrangement would probably be things like the First Amendment, the Voting Rights Act, privacy laws...
The number of laws is not a particularly good measurement of how free a society is. It only takes one law to implement a dictatorship -- "Whatever the dictator doesn't like, shall be subject to whatever penalty the dictator feels like handing out."
That's not to say that there aren't a bunch of stupid laws out there that ought to be repealed or replaced, only that it's not a simple situation with a "fewer laws are better!" solution. People are a problem.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Communists are right wing? That's a new one. You're right, I need to be around more.
Nonsense. Separation of powers has a purpose. If the legislature passes an odious law, the executive has a duty to not enforce it, and the judiciary has a duty to not convict under it. "I was only following orders" is not excuse, even if that order comes from the legislature in the form of a law.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
The property is currently assessed at about 2/3 of the value I'm buying it for. They don't reassess unless you specifically request it in this township. The yearly tax on the property is (based on my calculation of dividing tax bill by assessed value) ~6% of the assessed value. There are areas in the state with a lower percentage (all the way down to 1-2%), but they come with high crime rates and very bad schools.
So, yes, the existing residents happily allowed elected officials to raise their taxes that high. I can't understand it. Back in my home state, the first $75k of your primary residence was non-taxable. No such luck here. TOWNSHIP WANTS YOUR MONEYS!
The new governor that took office in January is promising property tax relief (as opposed to the old governor, who thought the taxes were fair because he paid $16k on his $3m home), but we'll see what comes of that.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
It's 1860 and you're in the U.S. A runaway slave shows up at your door.
If you believe that all laws should always be followed, you turn him in, in accordance with the Fugitive Slave Act. So, do you believe that all laws should always be followed?
Let's assume that you find that your humanity is more import than abstract devotion to the law and decide to help the fleeing slave. Then, a cop comes along and catches you. Should he enforce the law, throw you in jail and drag that slave back to his "owner" to be beaten? Or do you believe that maybe bad laws like the Fugitive Slave Act should not be enforced?
I've not found anything that says it better than this: "Laws are only words words written on paper, words that change on society's whim and are interpreted differently daily by politicians, lawyers, judges, and policemen. Anyone who believes that all laws should always be obeyed would have made a fine slave catcher. Anyone who believes that all laws are applied equally, despite race, religion, or economic status, is a fool." -- John J. Miller
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
From an outsider's perspective I would diagnose the problem somewhat differently. It's paradoxical, the US is in many way under-regulated (eg. the banking system, consumer protection etc), yet on the other hand there are numerous examples of regulation like this.
What you're missing is who's regulated (or not). The big, powerful corporations that are politically connected are under-regulated, as we saw with the Mortgage Meltdown. Individual taxpayers, OTOH, are overly-regulated as we see in this article, at least in the failed State of California.
I live next door to this state, in Arizona. We have our own problems and stupidity here, but one thing we actually do right is lawns: there's no law requiring you to have a lawn (unless your dumb HOA requires it). Lots of people, and in fact lots of whole subdivisions, have little to no grass, and "rock yards" are extremely common. This is where the entire yard is simply covered with gravel-sized rock. The only maintenance challenge is keeping the weeds out after the summer rains, but weed mat helps a lot with that. Yards like this are fairly popular here, because you don't have to pay illegal immigrants to maintain the yard very often, or go out in the 115-degree Summer heat to mow it yourself. Instead, you just have a bunch of rocks with cacti and other desert plants, and at the most you might have to trim some tree branches once or twice a year.
There are a bunch of people here who waste lots of water on green grass, but that's by choice, not because of stupid government. These people are usually transplants from the East Coast and California who want to turn the desert into a copy of where they came from. Even so, there are some low-water use grasses and ground coverings you can plant, such as dichondra (which is nice because it grows flat and doesn't need to be mowed very often), if you want something your kids can play on.
Or worse, it's 1940 Germany and a runaway Jew shows up at your door asking for help. If you believe in following the law, you'd turn him in so he could be executed, starved, tortured in medical experiments, or some other such horrible fate.
That's why I don't bother following laws I don't agree with, if I can avoid getting caught. I let my conscience be my guide, not a bunch of megalomaniac lawmakers and their idiot henchmen.
Most people don't live in a house for that long: 5-10 years or so. People change jobs now and then, and that frequently requires them to relocate. If you spend $250k for a house, and some people move in next to you and fill their yards with dead cars and dog shit, you'll never find someone to buy your house for $250k (let's assume we're in a normal realty market for a moment), or anywhere near that. You'd have to take a huge loss, and you'd still have a hard time selling it, and meanwhile your new job expects you to move your butt to your new city and start working by a certain date.
If people kept houses in their families for generations like they did long ago, it wouldn't be a big deal, but things have changed a lot since then.
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
How can there be an I495 in New York, and also an I495 in Massachusetts?
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.
I495 is also the designation for the Capital beltway in Maryland.
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.
Yet the deregulation as a result of the repeal of Glass-Steagall is at the center of the current financial crisis.
Nope. The current crisis is the result of the Fed flooding the economy with unlimited credit at an effectively negative interest rate (IE, interest rate below the rate of inflation). Greenspan and Bernanke have created the biggest bubble in the history of the Fed, and sooner or later all bubbles burst.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Ridiculous. Somebody has to pay for the services that maintain your rights as a property owner
Around here, public schools are the largest component in property tax (60+%). I don't see how that is maintaining my rights as a property owner.
Another day, another update to a Google android app.
That's just because we are currently mowing lawns!
Lawnmowers, they are the new lion repelling rocks!
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
Given the number of iatrogenic fatalities and the recent revelations about tritium leaks at Vermont Yankee, it's clear that neither medicine nor nuclear power plants are being effectively regulated. Nor are banks.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
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.
They are all spur routes off of I-95, there are more than 9 of them, so the numbers get reused...
I grew up a few miles from 459 in NY, and go to school up in MA now, it still throws me off when i have to momentarily consider the difference between the two roads.
The more I learn about Windows the more I am surprised it runs at all
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.
No, Jim was just a guy I'd drink with, who had an alarming habit of getting out his knife and talking of his ambition to drive the White Man back into the sea. Last I heard he was also "on permanent tour, walking the earth just as his Apache ancestors did."
I only met LaVey once, and we talked Tommy-Guns, but I wish I'd asked him his take on the nut-jobs that seem compelled to be his "followers". It reminded me of Brian Cohen- "How shall we fuck off, Master?"; He did sort of ask for it, with that Addams-Family style house and all.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
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.
Actually, she probably would have told you to piss off, her feet hurt, and she wasn't moving.
I didn't say there's no waste in property taxes. I said property taxes have to exist (or some other, more-unfair scheme does). And interestingly property taxes where I live are divided up approximately the same way.
-- Old Man Kensey
To be accurate the requirements were not based on ethnicity but community. They basically said if you are doing business in a community, taking deposits from community members, then you need to invest a certain amount back into that community. The fact that some communities are largely defined by their ethnicity is beside the point.
I'd have to say that you aren't being sufficiently accurate here. Restricting your attention to the superficial wording of a law is not the point. You also have to consider both what the law does and what it was intended to do. My take is that this was a blatant handout to traditional Democrat ethnicities, particularly the Afro-Americans and Hispanics and it was intended as such.
Hah, you're right, my mistake. I RTFA but didn't VTFP. I guess I scrolled right past to get to the text.
It is pretty sparse. I could go on about that being their right but they did have the opportunity to look into the rules before they moved there I am sure. I looked into our neighborhood's rules pretty hard before I agreed to buy the house.
I do wonder if it looks so bad from ground level. The picture seems to have been taken from the roof of a car or something. I bet that fence blocks the view better than it appears in the picture. It doesn't sound like anything is written into the rule about it being ok so long as they block the view though. Also, they certainly could have chosen a better fence for that job.
I wonder why the middle is so empty. Maybe they wanted to be able to walk on it? Those plants don't look very resilient to being stepped on. Or maybe they are being cheap. I bet those plants cost more than grass. If the rule just says it must be landscaped then why not just some pea gravel? Then again, I guess that's what they probably thought about the woodchips.
Nevermind it says live ground cover.
How unfortunate. In a place as drought prone and environmentally obsessed as California should there really be a rule requiring LIVE ground cover? On the other hand these people didn't do a very good job replacing it. I'm sure it's possible to make it look nice w/o grass. After this experience the city will be more resistant to change though.
The people charged with enforcing the laws are not those charged with revising them.
In truth there are many laws on the books that no one enforces in the USA, yet they have not been revised. So discretion has and can be used. However, there are interests at work here that might be behind selective enforcement. Could be one of his neighbors with connections in city hall who is angry about the impact of his yard on neighborhood property values. Might be a government official with a bee in her bonnet. Who knows?
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain