Officials Sue Couple Who Removed Their Lawn 819
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."
I presume... (Score:5, Funny)
Right? Right?
Re:I presume... (Score:5, Informative)
I see you've never been to Orange county, home to such places as Irvine where it is illegal to leave your garage door open.
Re:I presume... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I presume... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I presume... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then, of course, you get the pricks who just hate nonconformity without any financial basis whatsoever. I'm pretty sure that they are just evil; but they become convenient allies to the first group, when it comes to keeping sacred property values high.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Have you ever been to California? It is pretty conservative once you get a hundred miles away from the coast.
If I were his neighbor, I would tear up my lawn if it would save me that much water. I'm trying to figure out why they needed 58,000 gallons to water woodchips though. In the Phoenix area the cities paid people to convert their lawns using xenoscaping (rocks). It looks very good, especially in the southwest. It's the developers that need to get on board with it. Maybe the city should mandate th
Re:I presume... (Score:5, Informative)
I'm trying to figure out why they needed 58,000 gallons to water woodchips though.
I think that was their total water usage, inside the house and out.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
xenoscaping
Don't you mean xeriscaping? [wikipedia.org]
Re:I presume... (Score:5, Funny)
no, he means his garden looks like the moon.
Re:I presume... (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't speak for the federal/state government issues because I'm ignorant about that. But is it left-wing to like the federal government? Here in Europe the commies hate the European Union's guts.
Redistributing the wealth of people with less than you is typical behaviour of the rich, right or left. They all want to escape taxes but they loooove juicy government contracts to make their companies richer. That's why the less government unregulated free-market bullshit will never succeed. Everybody wants to suck mama-State's big tits. The rich advocate less social spending because they want more for their own pockets. Of course this is not sustainable.
About healthcare, it is a right in all developed countries (and many 3rd world) except the USA, it works better than the system you have and it costs a lot less. So I don't see your point, here.
About the nutjob thing, I agree that many American right-wing politicians and pundits sound like dangerous psychopaths to me. When I was working in the USA I used to watch Fox News to have a few laughs in the end of the day. We have a few really bad newspapers and TVs here, but I could never imagine that something like that was actually possible.
Anyway, are the Hollywood millionaires and the Silicon Valley executives so keen on all these things? Are you sure? They live in hundred-million-dollar mansions. Why would they give a fuck?
Re:Leftists (Score:5, Informative)
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.
It's their lawn (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as it's not presenting a danger to neighbors, they should be able to do whatever the hell they want with it.
It's their government (Score:3, Insightful)
They get to vote on how much the private property fiction applies in their community.
Also America isn't a Democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Also America isn't a Democracy (Score:4, Informative)
Also America isn't a Democracy. It is a Constitutional Federal Republic.
It's still a democracy. Any country where people have a say in how it's run - whether directly, or via representatives - is called a democracy; check any English dictionary. "Republic" just means that there's no hereditary monarch, really.
This word had the narrow meaning that you ascribe to it 1) only in US; 2) a long time ago.
While there are strong Democratic traditions, it was designed specifically so that there isn't a tyranny of the majority (at least hopefully not).
For the fun of it, I had once calculated just how many people would it take to pass a constitutional amendment in US (= can do anything, supercedes any law, no limits whatsoever), going by the existing rules. All you really need is the majority in 3/4 of all states (first to raise the issue, and then to get it passed in the parliament). Given that state population is very unequal, if small states gang up, it's actually possible to amend the constitution with only slightly less than 1/3 of all people in the country actually backing it - and it would be legally binding on the other 2/3.
I guess that makes it "tyranny of the minority"? ~
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Switzerland has a large element of a direct democracy.
It's still a republic, however, because the head of state is not a king\queen.
There is no 'distinction' between a direct democracy and a republic. The sentence doesn't make sense - one describes the mode of government, the other the nature of the head of state. It's like saying that a force acting on an object along the X-axis means that the object can't have a co-ordinate on the Y-axis.
Re:Also America isn't a Democracy (Score:4, Insightful)
The distinction between a direct Democracy and a Republic is an important one, and you'll find it is still used.
It's used, but the correct terms are different - it's "direct democracy" and "representative democracy", respectively.
If you check the World Factbook you'll notice it is listed as a Republic.
Well then, CIA World Factbook is confused. Republic is a form of government; democracy is a political system. They're orthogonal. You can have a republic without democracy, and you can have a democracy without republic.
Actually, if you want to see how badly it's messed up, open an entry on Russia. It just says "form of government: federation". WTF? "Federation" just means it's a congregation of smaller, relatively autonomous entities - it's doesn't say anything about form of government! Or Switzerland - "formally a confederation but similar in structure to a federal republic". And yet Canada is "parliamentary democracy". And Saudi Arabia is a "monarchy". So Canada is not a monarchy? Go figure.
So technically a couple thousand people could probably amend the Constitution. However you know as well as I do it doesn't work that way in reality. In reality, it takes a large amount of support to amend the Constitution. The system is well designed that way.
I think you misunderstood me. I'm not talking about some kind of coup when elected representatives gang up. I was assuming that representatives vote the way people who elected them do.
Re:It's their lawn (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as it's not presenting a danger to neighbors, they should be able to do whatever the hell they want with it.
One would think that but......
It looks as though you have yet to have the pleasure to live in a place with a home owner's association (HOA). If you get the wrong people in a HOA or you'll end up with crazy by-laws. You may think that "you'll just stand up to them" but you'll quickly realize that it's not worth the fight considering they can do things like put a lean on your home or take you to court and spend your own home owner dues to prosecute you. Combine this with the general legal craziness that is common in California and HOAs can be horrible.
If home values ever go back up and we move, finding a location without a HOA will be high on the priority list. I see no reason for a HOA as long as there are reasonable county laws. It's just an extra layer of bureaucracy that is often wielded by power-hungry disgruntled neighbors out to make sure the neighborhood looks and sounds just the way they like it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's their lawn (Score:4, Informative)
Re:It's their lawn (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's their lawn (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you look at the article? That's one ugly ass yard they have.
I don't have a blade of grass in my yard either - and at first when I just read the summary I thoght these guys were being hard done by - but from the photo, it looks like they have only planted 4 or 5 miserable little plants inside their fence, each of which is about half a foot high.
My yard has trees, covering about 1/3 of it, with low shrubs and ferns, bird of paradise plants, hibiscus, and other interesting stuff like that. Around 1/4 of it is covered in paving, with some pathways and "stepping stones" between trees. I let the leaves lay where they drop, and every now and then just sweep off the "stepping stone" areas. The trees are evergreens so they are always dropping leaves all year round but don't do a sudden big autumn dump of leaves.I cover areas like around the clothesline and small open areas with a local native small leaf ground cover that needs clipping back about every 4 months and flowers fairly often with bright yellow flowers, and handles the conditions here well. The shade under the trees naturally prevents grass being able to grow there anyway, so the shrubs/ferns under there are ones that like shade, and I hardly ever have to do any weeding.
The only grass I have to mow is the stuff outside my fence. Low maintenance, almost no watering needed, and the trees also help keep my house cool in summer, which is just as well because I don't have aircon. I live in the Gold Coast, so we do get some pretty serious heat here in the summer - avg 28 C (82.4 F) and gets up to 40 C (104 F) occasionally in the summer (climate chart here [weatherzone.com.au]) , but a fan does the job as the place is well ventilated and double brick, so naturally keeps most of the heat out.
Grass yards are boring as hell in my opinion - and a pain in the arse to maintain. These guys are taking the piss thogh if they think that their yard is landscaped. I am all for getting rid of grass, but you have to replace it with something or it really is an eyesore and obviously in complete conflict with the existing laws.
Obviously trees take a while to grow, but they should have a few saplings growing for their future trees and definitely a lot of shrubs/bushes/ferns etc already in the ground. it doesnt have to be expensive to do a great yard, but it does take a lot of effort to get it started. Once established though, you can kick back sucking down a beer from your hammock (if you plan well you should have a couple of trees at just the right spacing in a few years time) and laugh at your neighbors who are sweating it out with the lawnmower every weekend.
Re:It's their lawn (Score:5, Insightful)
And obviously if people change their property such that it is not athsteticly pleasing to you that gives you the right to take control of their property away from them and make sure it conforms to what you think is pretty.
Re:It's their lawn (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes.
That's why I deny you the right to sell any stock I've invested in when bad news comes out about the company -- my resale value might go down 10-15%.
Oh, wait, the risk you might lose money due to other people's actions is an inherent part of stock [i]and[/i] land speculation. As long as it doesn't actually harm the other person's property, only it's presumed resale value, it's not a problem.
Re:It's their lawn (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets try a challenge:
List 10 actions other than sitting at home alone very quietly with your hands on the table that could not in some way theoretically impact someone else or their property or their enjoyments of their sensory input in some way shape or form.
My problem with your philosophy is that if it is followed then it gives you the right to complete control of every single aspect of my life, bar none.
All because you are too much of a pussy to deal with having something you don't find athsteticly pleasing where you can see it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You have no right to a high resale value.
None at all.
Not one iota.
If you want to drive up your resale value then make a deal with them to improve the view from your house.
beyond that their property is their property.
Not yours.
Just because my actions could theoretically lead to lower cash value of your property that does not give you the right to take control of my property.
Re:Fire hazard (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Fire hazard (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Fire hazard (Score:4, Funny)
'.... In these places you've actually got such a scarcity of water that you have to measure how much you use and pay based on that! Why would you want to live like that?'
For the spice.
Idiots... the rest of the county is conserving (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Idiots... the rest of the county is conserving (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah here in Melbourne, Australia we have been short of water for a long time but it was illegal to install a water tank to capture your own rain water. Then literally overnight tanks were not only made legal but encouraged with a subsidy.
Re:Idiots... the rest of the county is conserving (Score:4, Informative)
In Colorado (USofA), it is still illegal.
The owners of the downstream water rights also own the rainwater that feeds those streams.
http://www.gazette.com/articles/water-55602-rain-bill.html [gazette.com]
Re:Idiots... the rest of the county is conserving (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah it depends on where you are. If you have a farm in my state you are allowed to put a tank on the roof on your primary residence but runoff from your land definitely does not belong to you. I think if you owned a big shearing shed and collected the water from the roof you might be in trouble.
I assume that Colorado, like Queensland in .au is an upstream provider of water, while places like California and South Australia are downstream consumers where the laws should be different.
Re:Idiots... the rest of the county is conserving (Score:5, Insightful)
the idea behind water rights is to stop upstream farmers daming up rivers and bankrupting their neighbours, people collecting the water that's fallen on residental roofs shouldn't be the target.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I found this one:
Twenty years ago it was illegal to install a rainwater tank in Sydney. Every kilolitre a household collected from their roof represented a loss to the water authority. [74.125.155.132]
And I am pretty sure the situation was the same in Melbourne.
I see you (Score:5, Funny)
electrolytes (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Its got lectrolights
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:electrolytes (Score:5, Funny)
No one is wrong here... (Score:5, Insightful)
... 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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unrelenting rule of law often leads to stupid and even outright nasty things. That's why we also have this thing called common sense. The long-term solution is obviously to fix the law, but short-term, it is a perfectly sensible solution e.g. to have the executive branch refuse to enforce it, if it is absolutely clear that it is extremely unpopular.
I mean, would you prefer all the various ancient laws still on the books in US to also be enforced, just because they happen to be there?
Now, whether the law in
As someone who grew up in the country... (Score:5, Funny)
Right?
Right??
Re:As someone who grew up in the country... (Score:5, Insightful)
in many of these suburbs backyard clotheslines have been banned as well. some people reading this will think I'm making it up. Others reading it will think that everywhere has these laws.
apparently the "logic" goes that only poor people don't use electric dryers in the desert, and that perceived perception lowers the property values for the neighbors.
live free or die? hell no! these chains have resale value.
How do you define Irony? (Score:5, Informative)
LA Offers upto a $2000 rebate for ripping up your lawn [latimes.com]
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. [socalwatersmart.com]
Re:How do you define Irony? (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, but that's LA county. This is OC. An entirely different demographic. For one example, LA is solidly blue on a political demographic map. OC is bright red.
US politics background (Score:5, Informative)
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!"
Re:How do you define Irony? (Score:4, Informative)
Revenue Streams (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Seriously you guys... (Score:5, Funny)
Lone voice of reason... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Lone voice of reason... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
On the benefits of communism (Score:5, Interesting)
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 :-)
Re:On the benefits of communism (Score:5, Insightful)
Political discussion in USA is hampered by the fact that instead of discussing if a certain change is good or bad, frequently it's discussed if it'd be "socialist" or "communist", with the implied understanding that if yes, then it's nessecarily bad.
Which fails to be true offcourse. Communist dictatorships where abhorrent in many ways. It doesn't follow that any policy they might have supported, is automatically bad. This sort of black-white thinking is seriously broken. "If my enemies do that, I'll do the oposite, just because."
Universal access to education is a good example. Because what you say is true; while the people to benefit FIRST are the poor people who get a good education they wouldn't otherwise get, the rest of society benefits second, because with that education, the people will WORK, and pay TAXES, and in general contribute more than they otherwise would.
It's not hard to show that education-levels correlate positively with just about every positive thing you can think of, from low teenage-pregnancies, low crimerate, good health, low unemployment, etc etc etc. USA is not alone in accepting a large dirt-poor uneducated underclass. But it's not a clever thing to do. Even if you're in the upper quartile, it'd be beneficial to you to do something about it, your quality of life would improve, unless you LIKE high crime-rate in your society.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Is that communism? If so, I want more of that :-)
As a Norwegian I would say that what you descripe is more or less what we have here; Social Democracy [wikipedia.org]. Interestingly enough when it comes to land rights all land ultimately belongs to the nation; yet individuals and companies have various rights to use and administer the property. The only place I know we have something like a HOA (Home Owners Association) is for appartment buildings/complexes and what they can or can't do is severly limited by the confines of the law. As far as lawn goes I have not yet hea
It is certainly my business (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Lone voice of reason... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't?
Be honest. Almost everybody does. Even environmentalists.
Re:Lone voice of reason... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
I lived there for better than a dozen years... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I lived there for better than a dozen years... (Score:4, Funny)
Sadly, I can't think of any viable solution to the problem.
Arizona Bay?
news for nerds???? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm surprised at kdawson, this looks more like the kind of crap article that samzenpus regularly inflicts on us.
really? (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power (Score:5, Insightful)
hush, don't force reality on him. He thinks he's going to be one of the warlords as opposed to the plebes
Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power (Score:5, Insightful)
"...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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 [nytimes.com] was behind the Somali gov "collapse" and for several years now has been illegally invading the country [antiwar.com] 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 [independent.co.uk] of the methods used [bbc.co.uk] might give pause [wikipedia.org] to that romanticized "It'll be good for 'em" notion of war and invasion.
. Of course, It's all about oil, again [google.com]. Won't someone invent a replacement already.
Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power (Score:5, Funny)
sigh. You do realize that the worlds biggest warlord [nytimes.com] 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?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power (Score:4, Insightful)
Discretion? By the very nature of the law it should be applied all of the time indiscriminately, anything else is corruption.
Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power (Score:4, Insightful)
then any law which, when enforced, would have insane consequences (like this) must be abolished.
Let's try and tot up what would survive...
Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power (Score:4, Interesting)
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."
Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power (Score:5, Insightful)
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.)
Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 m
Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power (Score:4, Informative)
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 [wikipedia.org], 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)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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, l
Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree with Sitting Bull on this. Nobody owns land. It belongs to everybody. When you use it, you rent it from the community.
property value of a lawn (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:property value of a lawn (Score:5, Insightful)
There's nothing wrong with a small lot. For the majority of homeowners, having a yard that's large enough for a patio, a BBQ and a small garden is probably more than enough to meet their average needs.
If you want to question lawns, question the people who think they need two acres of weed-free lawn that they are unlikely to step on outside of mowing it.
Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power (Score:5, Insightful)
"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 [wikipedia.org]. I *do* have the right to security of person [wikipedia.org].
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.
Astroturf! (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
NOT quite like building a large tower on your land (Score:4, Insightful)
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... :-/
Re:How is this any different... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:grass-free and eco-friendly landscaping scheme (Score:4, Informative)
By not maintaining grass they are only worsening region's drough issues.
Importing water and evaporating it (which is what a lawn does) is an ineffective strategy in desert regions. The slightly more humid air will be blown away.
Besides the ocean is right next door in this case. Air humidity measured in g/m3 must be quite high, even though the relative humidity is low.
Perfect solution! (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You'd be amazed how much water people pour on their lawns in OC (where I currently live). It spills out onto the street in great floods when the sprinklers are going in some places - and they run them *every night*. Of course, we're in a desert here, so it makes sense if one must have a lawn - most of it evaporates in the daytime.
Therefore, the GP's assertion that no one in this area should have a lawn - why this isn't obvious to more people who live here, I don't know. Perhaps this case - if properly publi