SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Posted: Mar 05 2010 12:00 pm

Quote:

A couple in Orange, California have been threatened with a lawsuit from the city--because they tore up their water-wasting lawn and replaced it with wood chips and drought-resistant plants. The Los Angeles Times reports that Quan and Angelina Ha reduced their annual water usage from 299,221 gallons in 2007 to 58,348 gallons in 2009: an 80% savings. The city says the Has are not in compliance with an ordinance requiring 40% plant coverage. On Tuesday Quan Ha pleaded not guilty to a misdemeanor for violating county codes.

Sometimes when people have kids of their own,they start to question the kind of world they will leave to their children and children's children. Mr. Ha explains: "We've got a newborn, so we want to start worrying about her future." Not only is the non-lawn saving tens of thousands of gallons of scarce water, but it is also saving the family hundreds of dollars a year. Should they be sued for not complying with an outdated, even harmful, suburban aesthetic ideal?

A California Public Policy Institute report estimates that outdoor water use accounts for more than half of all residential water demand. Ironically the Ha family, by removing their lawn, are actually abiding by the recommendations of the state water agency. The State of California's Water Use Efficiency website urges conservation efforts, including:"Water-efficient landscape designs using low water-use plants" and "Minimized turf areas." Just what the Has had done.

Water is a key political and economic issue in California, as in other parts of the Southwest. The state has endured three consecutive years of drought and reservoirs are low. There is ongoing wrangling between agricultural and residential water interests, and concern grows that water will be the new oil, a conflict-prone linchpin and threat for the long-term viability of the state. While legal compliance is important, surely common sense is more so. Let's hope this ridiculous charge is dropped in favor of responsible behavior, especially behavior that considers the needs of generations to come.

http://www.care2.com/causes/environment/blog/couple-sued-for-water-wasting-lawn/

wow, this is fucking retarded. i know cali has a huge budget crisis, but come on now?!

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

As a home and property owner in a neighborhood I would be fucking pissed if my neighbors ripped up their yard and did this sort of thing. It could significantly lower the value of surrounding homes. Did you happen to catch that this is not in the middle of east bumblefuck but is directly in Orange County?

Where I live, we don't have the same type of water problems, but it doesn't change the fact that zoning is zoning. If you don't like the laws, get them changed or move.

Also, what are the environmental ramifications for a community if large areas of grass begin to be removed? In a town with dry weather would it begin to have larger amounts of exterior dust and sand blowing around?

I haven't seen pictures, so it is hard to know exactly what was done. I am interested to hear how this works out.

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

Article with several images: http://www.ocregister.com/news/city-237063-orange-yard.html

The case was dropped: http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local-beat/City-Drops-Case-Against-Lawnless-Man-86352427.html

Posted: Mar 05 2010 02:29 pm

GPFontaine wrote:

As a home and property owner in a neighborhood I would be fucking pissed if my neighbors ripped up their yard and did this sort of thing. It could significantly lower the value of surrounding homes. Did you happen to catch that this is not in the middle of east bumblefuck but is directly in Orange County?

Where I live, we don't have the same type of water problems, but it doesn't change the fact that zoning is zoning. If you don't like the laws, get them changed or move.

Also, what are the environmental ramifications for a community if large areas of grass begin to be removed? In a town with dry weather would it begin to have larger amounts of exterior dust and sand blowing around?

I haven't seen pictures, so it is hard to know exactly what was done. I am interested to hear how this works out.

i agree about the property value. i understand that point, but they did add some plants. from that pic, it doesnt look too bad, but i agree w/your point nonetheless.

Posted: Mar 05 2010 02:55 pm

My Aunt and Uncle have a house on the bay in New Jersey, and they've got a woodchip lawn like the one described. I think it actually looks pretty cool, at least against the beachy setting they have there. I guess in the middle of a normal neighborhood it would look odd, though.

Posted: Mar 05 2010 04:03 pm

When I move out, I'm going to place without a lawn. Those things are way too much trouble.

Posted: Mar 05 2010 05:15 pm

Instead of taking them to court, addend the zoning law so that other types of low water use terrain are allowed. Seems like a simple problem with a simple solution.

Joined: Mar 13 2009 Location: Arlington Posts: 467

GPFontaine wrote:

Article with several images: http://www.ocregister.com/news/city-237063-orange-yard.html

The case was dropped: http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local-beat/City-Drops-Case-Against-Lawnless-Man-86352427.html

That place looks like shit. I would be so pissed if I lived across the street and had to see that every morning.

Joined: Feb 22 2010 Posts: 351

California may as well Succeed from the us...and Take Florida with you...

Posted: Mar 05 2010 06:50 pm

No, we don't want that fucked up state. They're on their own; not even Texas will take Florida.

You have to realize that California has the strictist zoning and building codes of any state, especially in Los Angeles. You can't do anything to your home without 3 building inspectors signing off. And yeah, it's pretty understandable that a front yard made of wood chips looks like shit and needs to be spruced up.

They could have at least put in some cacti.

Posted: Mar 05 2010 06:59 pm

I dont get it, how are they saving water?

Posted: Mar 05 2010 08:10 pm

Ermac wrote:

I dont get it, how are they saving water?

They no longer have a lawn to water. Plants need water to live too, not just humans.

And that lawn looks hideous. In the shots from the street (what passersby would see), it looks like it's just a dead lawn with a few tiny plants clutching for dear life.

Posted: Mar 05 2010 08:30 pm

A great way to keep those stupid kids off your property. Also a great way to invite destructive kids to "finish the job".

Posted: Mar 05 2010 11:10 pm

Unless these people were in a homeowner's association, I don't see why it's anyone's fucking business but the homeowner's, One yard being ripped up will not decrease property value. Unless that yard had a few trucks on cinder blocks in it.

I agree with the other homeowner's complaints because they have to look at it and all, but really, some of the complaints are nothing but "I don't want to look at it" or "If I sell this house I won't get as much money as I should have!" No one on the anti-lawn guy's side has brought up the issue that it saves money and uses less water, which would, um, be a good thing in a desert climate with water shortage issues. It's basically nothing but selfish, whiny, rich assholes bitching because they find something unsightly. To follow the slippery slope, it's like griping that solar panels completely replacing fossil fuels means they have to drive uglier cars. No concern for the greater good, just "how am I inconvenienced?"

Look at it this way-- having lush lawns in Orange is pretty much a strike against the water system in the first place. Water is scarce, so how do we use it? Not for drinking, but for keeping up with the Joneses. What a crock of shit.

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

Undeath wrote:

Unless these people were in a homeowner's association, I don't see why it's anyone's fucking business but the homeowner's, One yard being ripped up will not decrease property value. Unless that yard had a few trucks on cinder blocks in it.

There is a zoning law, that is why there is no need for a homeowners association.

Also, Vegas is only 250 miles to the north east, if they want a shitty cheap landscape, the desert is right there.

Lastly, one shitty house is all it takes to make people not want to move into a neighborhood.

Posted: Mar 06 2010 06:59 am

Undeath wrote:

Unless these people were in a homeowner's association, I don't see why it's anyone's fucking business but the homeowner's, One yard being ripped up will not decrease property value. Unless that yard had a few trucks on cinder blocks in it.

I agree with the other homeowner's complaints because they have to look at it and all, but really, some of the complaints are nothing but "I don't want to look at it" or "If I sell this house I won't get as much money as I should have!" No one on the anti-lawn guy's side has brought up the issue that it saves money and uses less water, which would, um, be a good thing in a desert climate with water shortage issues. It's basically nothing but selfish, whiny, rich assholes bitching because they find something unsightly. To follow the slippery slope, it's like griping that solar panels completely replacing fossil fuels means they have to drive uglier cars. No concern for the greater good, just "how am I inconvenienced?"

Look at it this way-- having lush lawns in Orange is pretty much a strike against the water system in the first place. Water is scarce, so how do we use it? Not for drinking, but for keeping up with the Joneses. What a crock of shit.

It's everyone's fucking business because their lawn, or lack of it, is on display for the entire neighborhood. It creates an eyesore that may put potential buyers off buying a home in that area. I know I'd think twice buying a house that was surrounded by wood chip lawns and dead plants.

Also, as I said before, California (especially Los Angeles) has very strict zoning and property laws. You literally cannot do anything to your house unless it's signed off by the state. This is to prevent goofballs from turning their lawn into a hamster cage or putting a pink spire on their roof. It makes the whole neighborhood look bad.

Water isn't that scarce. Everyone says it is, but it's not. And if they wanted to save on water bills and all that altruistic bullshit, they could have planted cacti or other local desert plants that require almost no water and still look nice. Stop pretending these people are victims when they violated the TOS they agreed to when they moved in and attempted to destroy the property values of their neighbors.

It's not greedy to expect the most out of your home when you try to sell it. You'd be pretty pissed if you got $30k less money after years of trying to sell the house just because of the crazy Korean neighbors' lawn. When you grow up and actually own a home, you'll understand.

Joined: Oct 12 2007 Posts: 821

Pandajuice wrote:

It's everyone's fucking business because their lawn, or lack of it, is on display for the entire neighborhood. It creates an eyesore that may put potential buyers off buying a home in that area. I know I'd think twice buying a house that was surrounded by wood chip lawns and dead plants.

Also, as I said before, California (especially Los Angeles) has very strict zoning and property laws. You literally cannot do anything to your house unless it's signed off by the state. This is to prevent goofballs from turning their lawn into a hamster cage or putting a pink spire on their roof. It makes the whole neighborhood look bad.

Water isn't that scarce. Everyone says it is, but it's not. And if they wanted to save on water bills and all that altruistic bullshit, they could have planted cacti or other local desert plants that require almost no water and still look nice. Stop pretending these people are victims when they violated the TOS they agreed to when they moved in and attempted to destroy the property values of their neighbors.

It's not greedy to expect the most out of your home when you try to sell it. You'd be pretty pissed if you got $30k less money after years of trying to sell the house just because of the crazy Korean neighbors' lawn. When you grow up and actually own a home, you'll understand.

From what I understand, they weren't being sued for the way the lawn looked, as I think that would be stupid as fuck. Especially, when asked, they clearly installed the 40% plants they needed in order to be up to city code. From what I understand, it was the wood chips that finally had the city try to get legal action, as if I am correct, Orange is at a high risk of fire.

I live in Los Angeles, and my dad is in the process of doing something similar (Currently half our lawn is grass and the other is dirt/wood chips) and so far we haven't had any problems with the city or complaints from the neighbors. This is the first time I have heard of any action taken against people trying to save water by changing their front lawn.

Joined: Aug 04 2009 Posts: 2515

This is bullshit.

*reads Pandajuices comment*

Let me be honest. If i own a house and i want to conserve water i don't give a fuck about it being an eyesore or if it puts off potential buyers. That is their fucking problem. If i want to save money then i should be able to especially when it is supported by water conservationists.

In California the amount of water they need is ridiculous and how they get their water is even more ridiculous.

If memory serves me in the past they have imported ice from the North for their water needs as well as diverting the Colorado just so they can enough.

Can you really blame people for wanting to save money - i don't know if you have to pay water charges or not.

Quote:

Water isn't that scarce. Everyone says it is, but it's not.

You best be fucking shitting me.

I remember you saying before that you live in both the UK and USA. I can't speak really for the US but living in the UK i thought you would know better.

UK: Droughts of 75/76 - water is plentiful then? As well as various droughts of the 90s and 2000s. I don't know how long you've lived there but i remember there being water bans due to the lack of water and my parents and grandparents certainly due in the mid 70s.

You have to understand it isn't just "oh look there's water everywhere it's not a problem" that is not how it works.

Water in the UK for a litre is more expensive than a litre of petroleum. In the future (as a famous hydrologist once said):

"Wars will be fought not over oil but over water".

Here's even a quote for you America:

http://www.allbusiness.com/environment-natural-resources/natural-resources/11710206-1.html

Water is a finite resource - especially fresh water - less than 1% of the water in the world is freshwater i.e. drinkable.

You can hardly say there's an abundance of it. I won't even get into the problems of supply and demand as i could be here forever but to say that oh "water isn't scarce" is just wrong on so many levels.

Dunno where you live in the UK - England i presume?

Where is the most water demand in England? South East - London.

Where does the least amount of water fall - South East - ergo more demand there.

Most falls in the North West/West and has to get piped. London itself is a bit of anomaly since it depends on its groundwater sources - though generally it doesn't even have water under it cause it gets depleted so fast.

Title: Titlating Joined: Dec 17 2007 Posts: 5042

I believe he was referring to california when he said water wasn't so scarce not water as a whole.

Posted: Mar 07 2010 12:19 am

I don't understand how, with modern technology, desalination plants aren't more common. Pull in copious amounts of seawater. Boil. Vent steam to cooling area. Scrape away salt.

Sure it wouldn't meet much of the demand, but it would help.

Posted: Mar 07 2010 01:06 am

Probably because SimCity 2000 is still ahead of its time.

2010 SLF Tag Champ Joined: Jun 07 2006 Posts: 12294

why didn't they just get the whole thing paved into a giant driveway?

Posted: Mar 07 2010 04:26 am

FNJ wrote:

why didn't they just get the whole thing paved into a giant driveway?

That's what I would want to do if I had property, mowing the grass in a pain in the ass.

Posted: Mar 07 2010 08:03 am

Alowishus wrote:

*reads Pandajuices comment*

Let me be honest. If i own a house and i want to conserve water i don't give a fuck about it being an eyesore or if it puts off potential buyers. That is their fucking problem. If i want to save money then i should be able to especially when it is supported by water conservationists.

Be honest all you want and go ahead and think that, but that's not how the real world works mate. You don't give a fuck, fine, but the city does and therefore, you must. We're not talking about bumfuck Yorkshire here. We're talking Los Angeles, California where city governments are almost as powerful as the federal government and like I keep saying, Californian building codes are insane.
You can't just rip your lawn up and put down wood chips without getting permission from the city and possibly your neighbors.

Alowishus wrote:

In California the amount of water they need is ridiculous and how they get their water is even more ridiculous.

If memory serves me in the past they have imported ice from the North for their water needs as well as diverting the Colorado just so they can enough.

Can you really blame people for wanting to save money - i don't know if you have to pay water charges or not.

You're right, it is a bit insane. California prides itself on turning deserts into oases, using non-native deciduous plants that need a lot of water in 110 degree Southern California. People always moan about droughts, but I lived in California for 25 years and was never impacted by a lack of water. My lifestyle never changed no matter how hot it got or how "scarce" water became. I don't care where they get the water from, they succeed in doing it all the time and will continue to do so. Humans will never let water run out or get to dangerous levels.

Quote:

I remember you saying before that you live in both the UK and USA. I can't speak really for the US but living in the UK i thought you would know better.

UK: Droughts of 75/76 - water is plentiful then? As well as various droughts of the 90s and 2000s. I don't know how long you've lived there but i remember there being water bans due to the lack of water and my parents and grandparents certainly due in the mid 70s.

You have to understand it isn't just "oh look there's water everywhere it's not a problem" that is not how it works.

Water in the UK for a litre is more expensive than a litre of petroleum.

I'm not sure where you get your data from or what reality you live in, but I can get a 5 gallon jug of fresh water for less than a pound at the supermarket. A gallon is about 4.5 litres. That means I can get 22.5 litres of pure, fresh, bottled water for 90p. Petrol (gasoline) costs £1.10 per litre atm.

I've only lived in the UK for 5 years and haven't ever experienced a whiff of a drought, but I can tell you living in the North East (West Yorkshire), the thought of a water shortage makes me burst out laughing. This is an area where it rains 270 out of 360 days of the year. This country literally drowns in water from what I've seen anyway.

Quote:

Water is a finite resource - especially fresh water - less than 1% of the water in the world is freshwater i.e. drinkable.

Like I said before, humans will invent something or sort out a water shortage before it becomes a problem. The world isn't going to die from mass dehaydration because we drank all of the rivers.

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

Pandajuice wrote:

Alowishus wrote:

*reads Pandajuices comment*

Let me be honest. If i own a house and i want to conserve water i don't give a fuck about it being an eyesore or if it puts off potential buyers. That is their fucking problem. If i want to save money then i should be able to especially when it is supported by water conservationists.

Be honest all you want and go ahead and think that, but that's not how the real world works mate. You don't give a fuck, fine, but the city does and therefore, you must. We're not talking about bumfuck Yorkshire here. We're talking Los Angeles, California where city governments are almost as powerful as the federal government and like I keep saying, Californian building codes are insane.
You can't just rip your lawn up and put down wood chips without getting permission from the city and possibly your neighbors.

I agree with Panda. If you don't like the zoning codes, don't move into an area that has them. How your property looks reflects upon your community. If you don't appreciate that, then move out of the community.