Couple Face $746 Fine for Not Watering Lawn

[Peikko 1,575]

Gosh Charles, do you really think it's wise to call legitimate members trolls?

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Neighbours in our community are fined for not putting mulch around their trees. We were cited for having our little utility trailer out on the side lawn for a few hours while we were cleaning out the garage to make room for everything (cars were in the driveway), and we were also cited for having our garbage pail out in view. They were right - it was in view - it was full of garbage waiting to be picked up on garbage collection day! Sometimes things get really, really, really ridiculous and people who are so busy counting pennies while they are wasting dollars have definitely got things backwards!

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Gosh Charles, do you really think it's wise to call legitimate members trolls?

trolling and being a troll are two separate concepts

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So am I.

Actually, most places that have HOA's will fine someone for not watering their yard. Some of them even dictate what kinds of plants you can grow...and it's not just in Cali.

CA is a pretty big state too. I guess if you look hard enough you can find all kinds of wackiness pretty much anyway.

I liked living in CA - LA specifically. Lot of good times there.

[Peikko 1,575]

When you are cited, does it definitely mean you have to pay a fine, or are they like warnings? Just curious.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

When you are cited, does it definitely mean you have to pay a fine, or are they like warnings? Just curious.

The HOA's have a system of appeals, but in this particular case, it was the city of Sacramento's Code Enforcement Department who fined the woman with the dead looking lawn.

Here's from the Sacremento Bee:

....

Their small brick home was declared a "public nuisance" in violation of city code section 17.68.010, which states that front yards "shall be irrigated, landscaped and maintained."

A $746 fine will be next unless they correct the violation.

"In order to make the lawn go, I would have had to keep watering it intensely, and since the drought was declared, I decided that wasn't a good idea," said Hartridge. "Honestly, I think there's a disconnect within the city about priorities."

Two weeks ago, The Bee reported that Sacramento's per capita water use is among the greatest in the world. Later that week, the same day Hartridge got the citation, an audit revealed that the city has lost or misplaced nearly 5,000 water meters, out of more than 100,000 it must install citywide to comply with state law.

"On one hand they're mislaying their water meters, and on the other hand they going out and putting enforcement on people who don't have green lawns," Hartridge said. "And there's water running down the gutters of my neighborhood every day."

City laws forbid landscape irrigation on Mondays (code section 13.04.860), between noon and 6 p.m. (13.04.860), and to such an extent that water runs into gutters (13.04.850).

All these violations could be seen on Hartridge's street this week – one street among thousands in Sacramento.

Neighbor Lois Guy, a retiree, thinks the situation is "crazy."

"It's private property, after all," she said Tuesday while trimming hedges at her home around the corner from Hartridge's. "They're in the process of doing something (with the lawn). So they should be left alone while they're trying to improve it."

Dennis Kubo, city code enforcement manager, said his department does not communicate with the Utilities Department about drought concerns or water efficiency. His department only enforces health and safety and "general welfare" codes.

"The zoning ordinance tells us that the property owner's got to have landscaping. So that's what we have to do," he said.

The city's landscaping rule is intended to maintain neighborhood visual standards to prevent one neighbor's tastes from harming another's property values.

The rule was the subject of much conflict last year when amended to provide gardeners leeway to grow more than grass. Sacramentans can now grow large trees, shrubs and, yes, even food in their front yards without fear of reprisal.

But the rules still require front landscaping to be irrigated, which means scores of homeowners could be penalized for growing cacti or other drought-tolerant vegetation.

"The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing when it comes to the city," said Karen Baumann, who triggered last year's controversy after she was cited in 2005 for inadequate lawn cover after she removed grass to plant vegetables and flowers in her front yard.

Hartridge was already having trouble keeping her lawn green when nature turned up the heat this spring. She watered every other day and even tried reseeding. But it didn't take.

For her it was a natural decision to stop watering the grass after the governor's drought declaration. But she never got a chance to plan new landscaping before the lawn police arrived.

Last Thursday, the day after the citation came in the mail, she called Code Enforcement to find out how to correct the violation. She was told an e-mail with landscaping solutions would be forthcoming. It never arrived.

She also called her city councilman, Steve Cohn, who did not respond. Cohn also didn't return a call from The Bee on Tuesday.

Last weekend she decided to cover what's left of her small lawn with redwood mulch, which she spread around a few hydrangeas and azaleas that survive with occasional water.

Hartridge awaits reinspection by Code Enforcement. She does not know when that will happen or whether her yard will comply.

Probably not, Kubo said. Mulch is allowed only as one of the "design elements ... integrated as part of the landscape," according to code section 17.68.010(1)a(1)b.

"If it's just one tree out there, maybe a couple of plants and then the whole front yard is loaded with bark," he said, "then no, that's not going to meet the criteria."

http://www.sacbee.com/378/story/1054905.html

[Peikko 1,575]

I read it. I was asking Kathryn.

Anyway, I think the couple in this instance could have taken other measures beside watering. They could for example pave the front. It doesn't have to be a lawn. However, the reason I was asking was because I was wondering how long after the citation was the fine actually imposed? The fine hasn't been finalized in the story you cited either - it's the 'next step'. If she made serious efforts to pave the front would she still be fined? Was going to be my question. I am not sure how sensible the measure is all around but it is not new and it does seem as though this couple sort of want the publicity - just my gut feeling. I could always be wrong.

Edited July 22, 2008 by Purple_Hibiscus

[amiquechu 0]

I read it. I was asking Kathryn.

Anyway, I think the couple in this instance could have taken other measures beside watering. They could for example pave the front. It doesn't have to be a lawn. However, the reason I was asking was because I was wondering how long after the citation was the fine actually imposed? The fine hasn't been finalized in the story you cited either - it's the 'next step'. If she made serious efforts to pave the front would she still be fined? Was going to be my question. I am not sure how sensible the measure is all around but it is not new and it does seem as though this couple sort of want the publicity - just my gut feeling. I could always be wrong.

But water is an ingredient in concrete

[Peikko 1,575]

So?

[natty bumppo 297]

So?

don't you know that concrete needs to be watered 3 times each week in order to stay hard

Edited July 22, 2008 by Natty Bumppo

[amiquechu 0]

So?

If I read the article right, the couple is trying to make a statement by not using water. You suggested they pave over their lawn so that won't have to water it. So pouring a water-based material over their lawn....never mind.

[Peikko 1,575]

Quite, the comparison of their using water on a one off basis to create a concrete front yard as apposed to having to water the lawn at least 3 times a week forever is rather silly isn't it?

[amiquechu 0]

Quite, the comparison of their using water on a one off basis to create a concrete front yard as apposed to having to water the lawn at least 3 times a week forever is rather silly isn't it?

It was just a joke. Lighten up.

[Peikko 1,575]

Jokes are meant to be funny.

[amiquechu 0]

Jokes are meant to be funny.

You're a miserable ######.