Too bad the link doesn't include a picture like the paper did; the paint job is a hoot, 110%
OFFENSIVE.
Still the article is worth a read cause it raises some big issues:
1) What property rights does a homeowner have as far as their landscape is concerned?
This has been an issue my business has faced when we install a "natural" looking landscape in a butt-anal neighborhood, and the neighbors freak about the "weeds".
2) Are innovative green technologies always better than old school approaches?
I have to wrestle with this when we convert a lawn or garden to organic care, and the weed outbreak imperils adjacent natural spaces.
Or, is uprooting buckthorn stumps really better than painting them with Garlon?
3) Can a municipality legislate against one type of hazard, without addressing others? In the article, the city says his lawn is a hazard to fish, but aren't the chemically-maintained lawns also a potential hazard?
In our county, new homes can't have more than a 30% viewing corridor within set distances of lakes, but existing homes can have nothing but lawn across the whole shore.
4) How do we determine if a landscape's overall impact is positive or negative? The dudes lawn uses no water or chemicals (at least initially) but pollutes the water.
Lots of tough ???s, that got me thinking.
And you got to hand it to the guy, he's got the guts to even piss off the wife
