Is it time to outlaw St. Augustine grass? (middle school, income tax)

[austinite45]

Originally Posted by AustinAaron

$6-7/SF + installation = manufactured grass. No watering, no mowing, no maintenance. Stays green all year long. Looks like grass, feels almost like grass. Either way, solves every problem. Give me a shout. I have pics/video of a yard with the grass installed.

I'd strongly advice against using "manufactured grass". It's a form of pollution. It's anti-earth. It's evil.

I hope the manufacturer get bankrupted soon.

Since the US (in fact, the earth) is grossly overpopulated, I think the only sound solution is to start getting rid of lazy/useless/anti-earth people (I call them environmental terrorists) through legislation.

[CptnRn]

HA! The Statesman Editorial this morning agrees with me!

With lawns, maybe green isn't the way to go (http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/2009/08/26/0826water_edit.html - broken link)

It's time to move beyond green — as in St. Augustine grass — to something browner and less thirsty.

And they are promoting a conservation incentive that many of us would like to see. It could be coming!

Because we use water for landscape irrigation more than any other single purpose, it makes sense to focus conservation efforts there. Austin's water utility does not offer incentives to replace St. Augustine with drought-tolerant turf grasses. That should be a priority

[hound 109]

Originally Posted by iceshots

Technically yes. But in most new subdivisions the developer keeps control of the HOA until a certain percentage of the lots are sold. And since the developer can keep adding new phases into the mix, this can take a LOOONNNGGGG time to happen.

In the meantime, the developer is going to make sure that rules are in place to make the whole place look neat and inviting and convince new people to buy the new houses. That usually means nice green lawns.

This is exactly the problem. The developer puts in cheap (but nice & green) St. Augustine on new lots that have no business having lush lawns. We all pay the price for the next 50 years.....& the developer is long gone & selling boxes somewhere else.

What genuis woke up one day & decided that a front lawn makes sense? It was a just marketing plan decided by Northeasteners (the original suburbs) in the late 40s to design their little Levittown homes like an english manor (but without sheep eating & pooping out front). Now the only "sheep" are the current crop of homeowners that actually think that their big ol' St. Augustine lawn is "normal".

If the local govt. doesn't want to "outlaw" it.....then let's follow the advice of the "they'll pry my St. Augustine out of my dead fingers" crowd.

Let's get the people who caused the problem (the developers) to pay an infrastructure fee (say of a couple of grand) if they want to lay the cheap, green grass down (for the long term problem they are causing).....that will take care of the deposit. And then initiate the tiered system of billing for water use (like what Captn Ron suggests) for the St. Augustine lovers out there...which will help pay the monthly nut.

This might be a good conservative approach of letting the people who cause the problem (the developers) pay....& also of letting the market dictate (watch the St. Augustine lovers start yanking their green grass out of the ground once the water bill hits $800 a month under a tiered system )....on whether St. Augustine stays or goes.

[mimimomx3]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

HA! The Statesman Editorial this morning agrees with me!

With lawns, maybe green isn't the way to go (http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/2009/08/26/0826water_edit.html - broken link)



And they are promoting a conservation incentive that many of us would like to see. It could be coming!

Well, the Statesman's opinion doesn't mean a whole lot to me.

FTR, I'm not a die hard fan of St. Aug, but I'm a libertarian who doesn't think that it's the government's job to tell me what to plant. Raise water rates and let the market decide.

[mimimomx3]

Originally Posted by hound 109

This is exactly the problem. The developer puts in cheap (but nice & green) St. Augustine on new lots that have no business having lush lawns. We all pay the price for the next 50 years.....& the developer is long gone & selling boxes somewhere else.

What genuis woke up one day & decided that a front lawn makes sense? It was a just marketing plan decided by Northeasteners (the original suburbs) in the late 40s to design their little Levittown homes like an english manor (but without sheep eating & pooping out front). Now the only "sheep" are the current crop of homeowners that actually think that their big ol' St. Augustine lawn is "normal".

If the local govt. doesn't want to "outlaw" it.....then let's follow the advice of the "they'll pry my St. Augustine out of my dead fingers" crowd.

Let's get the people who caused the problem (the developers) to pay an infrastructure fee (say of a couple of grand) if they want to lay the cheap, green grass down (for the long term problem they are causing).....that will take care of the deposit. And then initiate the tiered system of billing for water use (like what Captn Ron suggests) for the St. Augustine lovers out there...which will help pay the monthly nut.

This might be a good conservative approach of letting the people who cause the problem (the developers) pay....& also of letting the market dictate (watch the St. Augustine lovers start yanking their green grass out of the ground once the water bill hits $800 a month under a tiered system )....on whether St. Augustine stays or goes.

Word on your post. Let's take it a step further and charge the developers an Aquifer fee for paving over what used to be wide, open spaces and bringing new water users on board. Let's make THEM build the new water treatment plants!

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by mimimomx3

Well, the Statesman's opinion doesn't mean a whole lot to me.

FTR, I'm not a die hard fan of St. Aug, but I'm a libertarian who doesn't think that it's the government's job to tell me what to plant. Raise water rates and let the market decide.

It should be fairly obvious by now that I, too, don't think the government should micromanage. However, this goes a bit beyond raising water rates and letting the market decide - it speaks to all of us having water to drink at all, not just those who can afford the rates and thus use whatever they want FOR whatever they want.

If incentives to encourage developers or individuals to install landscaping more appropriate to our kind of climate might help conserve water, I think we should look at it, at least. Or do you have any other creative suggestions for solving the problem beyond "raise the rates and let the rich have the water"?

[AustinAaron]

I say get rid of front yards altogether. What use are they? Honestly, what use are they? We have them because the City requires that improvements be built back a certain # of feet. Utilities, visibility, etc... It's all BS. You ever seen Brownstones? Built up TO the sidewalk. Sure, Brownstones are in different cityscapes that most of our local neighborhoods. Regardless. We don't NEED our front yards.

That's a lot of square footage being wasted on green grass, rocks and bushes, etc... Let me build within 5ft of the city street. I'd love to have that usable square footage as a new living room, or workshop. Maybe even a family room. And as I've mentioned before, I'd have a drop top roof. Bring the outdoors in when need be. Friends/Family could still be inside, while technically enjoying the blue sky. Whatever the plans may be, you get the idea.

Seriously, when's the last time you hung out in the front yard as a family? Or, with friends? I'm not talking about planting your bushes, moving around your rocks, or watering your yard (yes, I water my yard a lot). I'm talking about really just sitting outside, or playing catch, or hanging out with all your neighbors for an extended period of time. And IN your front yard. What you can do in your front yard, you can certainly do in your backyard. And for all the nay-sayers who are just going to rag on me for cutting out the "social" aspect of a front yard, I didn't say that once you have the extra square footage you had to stay inside it. My point is that I rarely see ANYONE just chilling in their front yard longer than 15'ish minutes.

I'd prefer the extra square footage. More housing for everyone, more space for everyone, and just think if the air-conditioned space (which used to be your lawn) could be used as a live/work space? Not saying that would fly in Circle C. But in South Manacha it would definitely work. Sure there are other neighborhoods, too. Would be pretty cool to have a small neighborhood cafe in what used to be my neighbors' front yard. Or a neighborhood art/gathering space in what used to be my front yard. Just ideas. Rather be sitting in a store front in my front yard talking with one of my neighbors about how great the neighborhood ice cream is, rather than worrying about if the "water police" are about to roll through and ticket me because I'm having to fight back the brown spots the cinch bugs left behind IN MY FRONT YARD.

[TexasHorseLady]

How about turning your front lawn into an edible estate?

[hound 109]

AustinAaron....you're thinking way too far outside the box for Mr. Developer Man & his little flock of sheep.

Besides if you open a cool neighborhood cafe, or shop....what would those fine corporations such as Starbucks, Home Depot or Chili's do? Someone's got to look out for them.

[mimimomx3]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

It should be fairly obvious by now that I, too, don't think the government should micromanage. However, this goes a bit beyond raising water rates and letting the market decide - it speaks to all of us having water to drink at all, not just those who can afford the rates and thus use whatever they want FOR whatever they want.

If incentives to encourage developers or individuals to install landscaping more appropriate to our kind of climate might help conserve water, I think we should look at it, at least. Or do you have any other creative suggestions for solving the problem beyond "raise the rates and let the rich have the water"?

1)Education- Let's use government to teach people about new grasses and landscaping options. Cash for clunkers is an example of how people can be incentivized to buy more enviromentally friendly products.

2)Tiered Costs- If you use more, you pay more. Yes, rich people will be able to use more. That's how it works. If you're rich, you get more stuff. It isn't fair, but that's the reality of it. That's why people work- to get rich and get more stuff!

3)Penalties for waste- If you don't follow the laws designed for conservation, you will be punished. The trick is apply this fairly, and that means the government (the Capitol is exempt from watering restrictions- why?) and golf courses (also unexplainably exempt).

4)Developers- Force them to plant eco friendly and surcharge new developments to pay for new water treatment plants.