Going green, without a lawn: "Still, a large-scale shift away from lawns probably will take years and cost hundreds of millions of dollars in California.
Government agencies would need to offer more – and perhaps bigger – rebates so residents can afford to redesign their yards. Some cities and many homeowners associations would have to permit fake turf or desert-friendly plants. And it may be a while before the public is convinced that native shrubs and ground covers can look as good as grass.
There is no official statewide count of lawns, making it difficult to measure change. By one estimate, residential lawns cover about 300,000 acres in California and suck up about 1.5 million acre-feet of water per year – equal to the amount used by 3 million typical homes."
-------------
Lots of legal work would go into changing all those covenants, unless the state legislature makes an exception for them, as a number of states did for removing race restrictive covenants.
1 comment:
The problem is that industry sought amendment capabilities under the pretext of removing race restrictive covenants without limiting the scope of the amendment accordingly. So in one way, the minority class was abused once agin.
However, instead of putting this in the hands of a "Board" it would be better to put it in the hands of the INDIVIDUALS in these places by voiding any restrictive covenant that mandated these lawns and providing any homeowner who is threatened by a managing agent or the Board with a damages claim of say $1500 or actual costs + attorney fees as the case may be.
Post a Comment