Orange county officials sue couple who removed their lawn

[hunter5]

story

Some Southern California cities fine residents for watering their lawns too much during droughts.

But in Orange, officials are locked in a legal battle with a couple accused of violating city ordinances for removing their lawn in an attempt to save water.

The dispute began two years ago, when Quan and Angelina Ha tore out the grass in their frontyard. 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.

They said they were trying to do something good for the environment.

"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 residents to cover significant portions of their frontyards with live ground cover. On Tuesday, the couple is scheduled to appear in Orange County Superior Court to challenge the city's lawsuit against 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."

But city officials determined the fix was not acceptable, saying city codes require that 40% of the yard be landscaped predominantly with live plants.

"Compliance, that's all we've ever wanted," said Senior Assistant City Atty. Wayne Winthers.

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.

They sent a photo of the yard to city officials in October. But according to the city, their landscaping still did not comply with city standards.

"They put up a nice fence, but [the photo] didn't show anything about how they had complied with code, as far as the frontyard goes," Winthers said, "nor did it include a site plan."

At the end of January, the Has received a letter saying they had been charged with a misdemeanor violation and must appear in court.

"It's just funny that we pay our taxes to the city and the city is now prosecuting us with our own money," Quan Ha said. "Doesn't it waste funds to go back and forth in court, rather than sending pictures, e-mails and having phone conversations?"

Winthers said he hopes the city can work out a compromise. "We know times are tough, but we're willing to work with them, we'd be more than happy to," he said.

Meanwhile, the couple said they had reduced their water usage from 299,221 gallons in 2007 to 58,348 gallons in 2009.

amina.khan@latimes.com

link has a picture of the lawn.

[Phantasee]

What kind of grasses are native to the area? Just throw some of that down and it'll more or less survive on its own, no?

[hunter5]

What kind of grasses are native to the area? Just throw some of that down and it'll more or less survive on its own, no?

That is kind of what they did just remember that area is naturally a desert so you don't really have plains of grass just sparse patches of plants here and there.

[General Zod]

I don't really see the problem. Stupid couple tries doing major renovations without checking city ordinance first, city promptly fines them for violating said ordinance. Good intentions aren't worth a whole lot here really. A lot of HOAs have similar regulations about homes maintaining certain standards on the outside, so this doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

[Sky Captain]

For someone who lives in place where you can do pretty much anything in your backyard as long as it don`t actively threaten other people thought that town officials could dictate how MY backyard has to look seems just crazy. That couple should be praised for actually doing something to reduce unnecessary usage of water which usually IS a scarce resource in desert areas.

[Liberty]

I don't really see the problem. Stupid couple tries doing major renovations without checking city ordinance first, city promptly fines them for violating said ordinance. Good intentions aren't worth a whole lot here really. A lot of HOAs have similar regulations about homes maintaining certain standards on the outside, so this doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

Did you click on the link? Their lawn still looks great. Really great.

[eion]

To quote the ponytailed, red fingernailed wonder, "Lawns are bullshit1"

They're using five times less water now! That's amazing, and the lawn still looks good. My grandparents lived in El Paso and one of the first things they did was tear up the front lawn and put down pebbles and native plants. They kept the back lawn to have something for the dogs to run around on.

[Simon_Jester]

I don't really see the problem. Stupid couple tries doing major renovations without checking city ordinance first, city promptly fines them for violating said ordinance. Good intentions aren't worth a whole lot here really. A lot of HOAs have similar regulations about homes maintaining certain standards on the outside, so this doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

The other problem here is that Orange County has a stupid set of water-wasting regulations. While it's stupid to do something without checking to see whether there's a law against it, it's also stupid to pass a law against doing something that would save water without wrecking real estate values... in the state with some of the greatest water consumption problems in the nation.

[CaptainChewbacca]

You'd think a rock/gravel garden would be acceptible. I've seen such yards and they're pretty nice.

[Guardsman Bass]

You'd think a rock/gravel garden would be acceptible. I've seen such yards and they're pretty nice.

Or one of those xenoscaped front yards, where they use dry-climate plants and grasses. My next-door neighbor ripped out half of their front lawn to do that, and it's actually quite beautiful in its own way.

[Kodiak]

I've seen quite a few Chinese people in the Bay Area (California) that have Dolemite/white rock front yards with small potted plants. It looks really amazing and in California we need all the water we can get. Farmers can't grow crops and yet we expect the good people of Orange County to dump a few hundred gallons on their yard each month

I realize they're violating ordinances, but the ordinances are obviously broken in this case.

[Vympel]

hunter5, its "their" not "there", and use proper capitalization in your posts from now on.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Funny, that looks exactly like a majority of the yards in Arizona. Way to go zero-tolerance bullshit.

[The Spartan]

Funny, that looks exactly like a majority of the yards in Arizona. Way to go zero-tolerance bullshit.

That's really what the problem is, city ordinances and/or HOA rules. They often don't have much wiggle room and the folks in charge of those things have a reputation for being sticklers for the rules that they're enforcing and when they aren't they don't have the discretion to make reasonable accommodations because of that lack of wiggle room.

[Mayabird]

That fence is gorgeous and if I had a house to landscape I'd want one just like it.

So how hard would it be to change the bullshit city/county ordinances? Is it something that the actual city council would have to vote on or could it just be changed by some official somewhere? It sounds like they really need it

[Solauren]

While I approve of what the couple did (water saving in a dry area, and with style I might add).

The problem here is the way they did it. You should ALWAYS check with the local government regulations and requirements before doing anything major on your property. It seems stupid as hell, but that's government for you. (Says the government employee). There is usually a good reason for it.

You can always get zoning permits and exceptions and so forth from local governments. Hell, if you frame your approach right, you could even get their economic support.

[Broomstick]

I don't really see the problem. Stupid couple tries doing major renovations without checking city ordinance first, city promptly fines them for violating said ordinance. Good intentions aren't worth a whole lot here really. A lot of HOAs have similar regulations about homes maintaining certain standards on the outside, so this doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

And a lot of the HOA's in desert regions are full of shit for requiring water-intensive landscaping. I've visited friends in Phoenix who use natural landscaping with stones, various mulches, cacti, succulents, and other such plants. It's low maintenance, survives on the area's meager rainfall (it is desert after all), and is very attractive. And while their subdivison has no problem with it (in fact, most of the homes around them use similar landscaping) quite a few others nearby absolutely forbid such sensible landscaping and forces their residents to spend thousands of dollars a year struggling to maintain plants completely unsuited to the environment. That is fucking stupid. I might even go so far as to say it's immoral but that's a subjective assessment on my part - the waste of precious water in the desert is an objective fact.

[Surlethe]

hunter5, its "their" not "there", and use proper capitalization in your posts from now on.

Sorry, Vymp, I just can't let this one go.

[General Zod]

I don't really see the problem. Stupid couple tries doing major renovations without checking city ordinance first, city promptly fines them for violating said ordinance. Good intentions aren't worth a whole lot here really. A lot of HOAs have similar regulations about homes maintaining certain standards on the outside, so this doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

And a lot of the HOA's in desert regions are full of shit for requiring water-intensive landscaping. I've visited friends in Phoenix who use natural landscaping with stones, various mulches, cacti, succulents, and other such plants. It's low maintenance, survives on the area's meager rainfall (it is desert after all), and is very attractive. And while their subdivison has no problem with it (in fact, most of the homes around them use similar landscaping) quite a few others nearby absolutely forbid such sensible landscaping and forces their residents to spend thousands of dollars a year struggling to maintain plants completely unsuited to the environment. That is fucking stupid. I might even go so far as to say it's immoral but that's a subjective assessment on my part - the waste of precious water in the desert is an objective fact.

So what? I didn't say it wasn't a stupid regulation. I just said it was an open and shut case. The ethics involved are entirely separate from the legality of it.

[Prannon]

I can't help but wonder if there's an issue with keeping the top soil grounded in having live plants cover up to 40% of the front lawn. You know, having roots going through it and preventing dust from being kicked up into the air by winds. That's the only way it would make sense to me, as, you know, the lawn still looks awesome. Then again, HOA's don't make a lot of sense most of the time and seem to assume that any sort of unusual landscaping must be the sign of degredation. My mother has had a lot of negative experience with them.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I don't really see the problem. Stupid couple tries doing major renovations without checking city ordinance first, city promptly fines them for violating said ordinance. Good intentions aren't worth a whole lot here really. A lot of HOAs have similar regulations about homes maintaining certain standards on the outside, so this doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

Have I informed you that you are a fucking dipshit lately?

The couple tried to do something nice and water-conserving. They live in a fucking desert, and apparently in a city that is not cognizant of this fact. Then here you are, referring to the couple as stupid saying that it is perfectly legitimate for the city to ruin their lives because they did not think "Hey, maybe the city we live in has some completely unreasonable insane regulation that will fine us if we do not waste metric fucktons of water every year"

Fuck you

What kind of grasses are native to the area? Just throw some of that down and it'll more or less survive on its own, no?

There aren't any.

There is usually a good reason for it.

And what good reason could there possibly be in this case?

So what? I didn't say it wasn't a stupid regulation. I just said it was an open and shut case. The ethics involved are entirely separate from the legality of it

No dipshit.

You said this

I don't really see the problem. Stupid couple tries doing major renovations without checking city ordinance first, city promptly fines them for violating said ordinance. Good intentions aren't worth a whole lot here really. A lot of HOAs have similar regulations about homes maintaining certain standards on the outside, so this doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

Implying that the matter at hand is not open and shut, but in fact trivial and that you saw no problem either with the law, or the ethics underpinning the law.

Most of us can read. I would recommend that you either grow a conscience, or at the least learn to write.

[General Zod]

Have I informed you that you are a fucking dipshit lately?

The couple tried to do something nice and water-conserving. They live in a fucking desert, and apparently in a city that is not cognizant of this fact. Then here you are, referring to the couple as stupid saying that it is perfectly legitimate for the city to ruin their lives because they did not think "Hey, maybe the city we live in has some completely unreasonable insane regulation that will fine us if we do not waste metric fucktons of water every year"

Fuck you

Implying that the matter at hand is not open and shut, but in fact trivial and that you saw no problem either with the law, or the ethics underpinning the law.

Most of us can read. I would recommend that you either grow a conscience, or at the least learn to write.

I'm failing to see how forcing them into compliance equates to "ruining their lives", but feel free to keep up the hysterics. If they really wanted to do something for the environment then maybe they shouldn't have moved somewhere that required wasting so many resources to begin with. Or, you know, found a way to work with the city in the first place instead of doing everything on their own. So again, open and shut.

[Kon_El]

So what? I didn't say it wasn't a stupid regulation. I just said it was an open and shut case. The ethics involved are entirely separate from the legality of it.

But many laws are changed precisely because someone broke them, bringing attention to how foolish the law was in order to get it changed.

[Stofsk]

I'm failing to see how forcing them into compliance equates to "ruining their lives",

They're not being forced into compliance. They're being sued. The costs of defending themselves in court will be onerous for what is essentially a bullshit reason, and if the costs can't be met then it is potentially ruinous.

[Formless]

Meanwhile, the couple said they had reduced their water usage from 299,221 gallons in 2007 to 58,348 gallons in 2009.

For me, this says it all, really.

And Zod, if the law contradicts ethics you change the law. Legality is not a valid excuse for wasting money forcing people to waste water, especially when the law is there essentially to enforce a bullshit, misplaced aesthetic.