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
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"
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.
... 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.
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.
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??
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.
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.
... 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.
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
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.
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.
I propose astroturf then. Though that's still in violation (it's not living). But plastic grass is in the true spirit of LA right? :)
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.
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...
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
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
f 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.
It's none of your goddamn business what goes on in your neighbors property. None. Laws made to that effect are either communist (enforcing a community good over personal freedom) or they are authoritarian (I'm gonna tell you how to live, and you better like it).
My beef with this is that ordinances like this aren't exactly put to a public vote - they're voted on by a bunch of blow-hards who see themselves as the second coming of Martha Stewart or Napoleon Bonaparte. Furthermore, they're generally supported by blow-hards who argue for free markets, freedom and personal liberty in every other circumstance that doesn't cost them money. These things are short-sighted and just plain wrong on so many levels that I'm amazed people who think that way managed to find their way to the meeting where the vote was held.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
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.
Sooo... Basically, you value your personal property over the environment of the entire planet? How unselfish of you.
"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.
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 :-)
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.)
Let me introduce you to the concept of "Limited Government". There are hundreds of thousands of Federal laws - not just statutes, but via treaties, bureaucracies creating their own laws, what have you. You are in violation of at least several right now, I guarantee it. Everyone is. Just because it's on the books doesn't mean it itself is legal or can be enforced.
A city's government doesn't own your property. They should have very limited rights to tell you what to do with it, especially if it costs money, and one consideration is safety. Beyond that, I look down at most laws. Especially "property" value. What is property worth when you can't do anything with it anymore except conforming to everyone else?
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.
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?
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.
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.