City won't uncuff lawn police - yet
Council votes to narrow new ordinance

This story appeared in the Antelope Valley Press February 23, 2001

By BOB WILSON
Valley Press Staff Writer

PALMDALE - The city isn't going to play lawn police just yet.

That means city employees won't be out writing tickets to homeowners who have overgrown, brown or just plain dingy-looking lawns.

After hearing objections from councilmen Rick Norris and Mike Dispenza, the City Council voted unanimously Wednesday to try to narrow the focus of a new ordinance meant to improve the aesthetics of city neighborhoods by citing homeowners who neglect their lawns.

The ordinance would allow code enforcement officers to respond to complaints about neighbors who make no effort to maintain their yards.

"Our intention is not to require everyone to install a lawn and mow it every week; our intention is that weeds and dirt are not appropriate as frontyard landscaping in our community," Planning Director Laurie Lile told the council.

The ordinance also would allow residents to choose their own method of yard enhancement, from simply planting grass to spreading rocks or bark, Lile said.

The measure would require the landscaping of yards along front or side streets on residential properties of less than an acre, she said.

The landscaping could consist of, among other things, combinations of grasses, trees, vine covers, flowers, rocks, stones, walkways, fountains, splash pools and decorative rocks or bark, Lile said.

At the direction of the council, city staff could establish a program to help offset the cost of such improvements for low-income, elderly and disabled residents, she said.

Residents would be given at least 18 months to take steps to improve their properties before code enforcement officers would notify them of their failure to comply.

Officers then would encourage compliance through a series of notices, warnings, citations and - in the worst cases - property liens. The goal of the program would be to win voluntary compliance, not court cases, she said.

"This is the No. 1 issue I deal with when I meet with neighborhood groups," Mayor Jim Ledford told his colleagues. "There's always one, or two or three in each neighborhood who just don't seem to understand that part of home ownership is property maintenance."

While acknowledging the good intention behind the proposal, Norris said he has many concerns, including that the measure fails to give the city power to penalize lenders who foreclose on properties and let them degenerate.

That is not true, noted Senior Deputy City Attorney Cesar Bertaud.

Under the new measure, as well as the existing public-nuisance law, any owner, including a lender, is subject to penalty, Bertaud said.

While on one hand Norris objected to the city being able to force residents to make improvements, on the other hand he asserted that the measure failed to give the city enough enforcement power.

"I know there are problems out there, and there are people who don't take care of their lawns, but I really have a problem with Big Brother coming in and saying, 'You will do this,' without really delineating what you're going to do, and if you do this, these are the problems you're going to encounter," he said.

"I'm not sure I understand," Mayor Jim Ledford said in response to Norris.

Norris said he was troubled with the notion of requiring residents to water their grass when that water may be unavailable during a drought. He also said he had trouble with forcing people to replace lawns that die because of the lack of that water.

On the other hand, "I have a problem when we're creating an ordinance but we're not really creating any enforcement provisions," Norris said. "You can recommend that they use drought-tolerant landscaping, but we're not telling them (they must)."

Forcing owners to install only drought-resistant plants or only water-free alternatives in their yards would be the ultimate in Big Brotherism, Ledford said.

Planting grass is only one of many ways owners may comply with the ordinance, Lile said, noting that it also allows them to use decorative paving, rocks, bark, trees, shrubs and other materials that require little or no water.

Since only a few people are failing to keep up the appearances of their yards, the threat of liens should not be used against every homeowner in the city, Dispenza said. "We're going Chihuahua hunting with an elephant gun."

"We have the few to deal with, not the many," Norris said. "The issue is that we are putting a blanket over the entire city that says, 'Thou shalt; you will; and we will decide.' "

"Instead of passing a blanket ordinance, let's make it specific," he said.

Bertaud pointed out that under the U.S. Constitution, all laws must be applied equally to all citizens, with no favoritism or exemptions or targeting of any group.

Without a law, the city is unable to act, Ledford said.

"What are we talking about - 2% of our population? What about the 98% who are taking care of their property?" the mayor asked. "I would rather cater to the 98% that care ... as opposed to the 2% who don't care."

And, Dispenza said he would not support the measure without knowing how much the move would cost the city to implement and enforce.

Without knowing how many complaints residents would make about their neighbors, how much staff effort would be expended to spur compliance, and how many people might apply for assistance, a specific cost would be difficult to formulate, Lile said.

Councilman Rod Penner suggested that Norris, Dispenza and any other council members with specific concerns raise them with members of the staff so that answers can be brought back to the council at its March meeting.

"If our problem is the 2%, let's go after the 2%," Norris said.

"I don't argue with the intent of this. If I had someone next door to me (with a bad lawn) I'd really be up in arms about it," Dispenza said. "But I really want to see a little more work done on this."

"This (delay) gives us a month to get specific," Ledford said.