I think that esthetically there's a lot to be said for them (not that I would support a law requiring homeowners to get rid of their lawns).
Posted on 05/20/2008 9:07:41 AM PDT by calex59
Ok, this is about a news item I heard on KRAK radio out of Sacramento, Ca. Roseville is a town linked to Sac and actually part of it physically but is a separate township. Roseville is paying people to eliminate their grass because of water considerations, either take up your grass and put down mulch(which the city will supply if you wish)or artificial turf. I didn't hear all the details but I think it is laughable that they are screaming about CO2(and the Sacramento Bee is one of the biggest screamers)causing global warming but at the same time you are supposed to get rid of one of the biggest oxygen generators in the USA, grass.
The average lawn supposedly supplies enough oxygen for the average person to breathe yearly and of course it converts CO2 in order to do this.
Talk about your liberal stupidity.
I think that esthetically there's a lot to be said for them (not that I would support a law requiring homeowners to get rid of their lawns).
i live in lincoln, a stone's throw from roseville, and the situation is much the same here.
it's nice that the city will pay for mulch, but there are risks to using it instead of grass. last week, my backyard caught on fire because the heat ignited the decomposing mulch. the firemen said that the mulch 4 inches below the surface had probably been smoldering for a couple days, and the heat (it was over 100 that day) had caused it to somewhat spontaneously combust. the firemen said this happened not infrequently on road medians.
maybe the city will pay for a new fence, since we were being such good citizens.
here in florida along the gulf coast where water is in short supply many people turned to replacing their grass with rock gardens and cactus which is very drought resistent.....doesn’t look bad at all if done right....
The report I heard was that they were going to pay them money to get rid of their grass based on the square footage of their lawns. Way to squander tax money!
I’ve got all the open space on my lot covered with ivy. No way am I going to waste my time mowing, or pay illegal aliens to mow. Find a ground cover that is hardy in your area, and liberate yourself.
Read my post five, I am not against replacing lawns, I am against liberals crying about global warming being caused by CO2 and then paying people to get rid of large areas of CO2 converting grass.
My point here is this: Liberals are being contradictory, they say one thing and then advocate something else, in this case, complain about CO2 and say we need to get rid of it, and then reality sinks in and they say: Get rid of lawns they take up too much water! They are hypocrites and liars and this points that up. I am surprised so many think I posted this because I like lawns, I do not like them but I think liberal hypocrisy should be exposed at every chance.
Up until recently this area did not have water meters. Our water fees were based on parcel size. So people tended to not care about the amount of water they used.
Now with water meters coming and people wanting to save money they will use less water. However once that starts impacting the revenue the local water districts receive, rates will increase to cover the difference and in the end I expect to be paying twice as much as before even if I conserve.
Mulch? I would suggest a nice layer of ground city regulation forms. There seems to be plenty of that available.
Well, nice to see one person got the gist of my post anyway! I am sure that forms are plentiful and that every resident of Roseville would be able to "paper" their yards with it, and the city would not have to pay extra for it!
We got rid of lawns years ago and planted Rosemary, Red Buds and other California natives that use little or no water.
We do deep water our two 240 year old Blue Oaks when temps exceed 95 degrees. Water conservation is nothing new to the Sac valley and the San Joaquin as well.
Several years ago San Diego had a drought. Ads were run on TV, radio and in the papers save water. They said we need to save 50% and the public did it. All the water utilities screamed we’re broke not enough money coming in, so they doubled water rates.
Part of what makes the Roseville move so ridiculous is the entire area’s water policies...
El Dorado County (to the east of Sacto) borders Tahoe and has the American River, yet water is extremely expensive.
Downstream on the American River side is Rancho Cordoba, with unmetered water and incredibly lush lawns.
A little to the west are rice fields, which are vast tracts of land that get flooded each year for rice, later drained, and the stubble burnt off after harvest, which generates billowing clouds of smoke that get trapped by the Sierra foothills, settling in to blanket Sacto with smog (smoke from the fires plus fog from the Sacramento and American rivers).
It is an insane place. Insanity rules. Arnold should feel at home.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
