Council to wrestle with lawn enforcement

This story appeared in the Antelope Valley Press March 20, 2001.

By BOB WILSON
Valley Press Staff Writer

PALMDALE - After a month's delay, the City Council on Wednesday will pick up where it left off on a debate on whether to require property owners to keep up the appearance of their front yards.

Despite the delay, the stances of three of the council's five members appear to be unchanged.

The debate on the merits of such regulations stalled in February when two members of the council - Rick Norris and Mike Dispenza - said the proposal, as submitted, was too broad because it would place every homeowner at risk for a property lien.

Norris said Monday he would rather see money for this program go for "law enforcement rather than lawn enforcement."

While decrying the broadness of the proposal, Norris also criticized its lack of detail and said its enforcement would hurt senior citizens who cannot afford nice front yards.

Dispenza said he would not support the proposal without knowing more about its potential costs to the city to implement and enforce.

At the behest of Councilman Rod Penner, further discussion was postponed for a month to give Norris and Dispenza time to raise questions and get answers from city staff about specific concerns.

On Monday, during a media briefing, Mayor Jim Ledford called opposition to the measure scare tactics and "red herrings."

"I think the seniors have been used in this argument; there's a lot of fear being spread, when in fact this program provides help to our seniors," Ledford said. "This doesn't affect people who take care of their yards, (which) 99% of the people out there do."

According to a follow-up report for the council prepared by Planning Director Laurie Lile, about 3,000 of the 39,468 residential properties in the city would fail to meet the new requirements of the proposal.

Among those 3,000 units, 2,400 are occupied by their owners; 1,800 are occupied by low-income wage earners; and 600 are occupied by senior citizens.

According to Lile's estimates, between 500 and 1,500 of those units could qualify for assistance that would be part of the new proposal. At a cost of roughly $1,500 per yard, the price of providing financial aid to all of those residents could total between $750,000 and $2.25 million.

That money would come from redevelopment funds that, under state law, must be used to assist low- and moderate-income homeowners and cannot be used for any other purpose, Ledford said.

The cost to the city ultimately would depend on the number of complaints raised by people who live near offending properties, the mayor said.

"This is complaint-driven, not the type of ordinance where you have lawn police driving around," he said.

Contrary to what some residents believe, the proposal will not give the city the power to force residents to remove existing trees, shrubbery and grass if their neighbors don't like them, Ledford said.

It will give residents latitude in deciding how their yards will look, from simply planting grass to designing a lawn with trees, vine covers, flowers, rocks, stones, walkways, fountains, splash pools or decorative rocks or bark.

Residents would be given at least 18 months to take steps to improve their yards before code enforcement officers would begin responding to complaints about noncompliant properties.

Officers then would encourage compliance through a series of notices, personal visits, warnings and citations. If all else failed, only then would the city take steps to declare the property a public nuisance. Even then, the owner would be given time to cure the problem before the city would act and attach a lien to recoup its expenses.

The proposal also would allow the city to force banks and other financial institutions to keep up the lawns of properties that have been repossessed, Ledford said.

Reached Monday, Norris also remained unswayed by the new information.

"I would rather see the money go to law enforcement rather than lawn enforcement," he repeated.

In response, Ledford said Norris "is obviously confused on how we can use this money. It would be illegal to use it for law enforcement. It has to go to housing programs."

"It's not either-or," Ledford said, because the money for the housing assistance and the money for sheriff's deputies come from different sources.

Dispenza said the follow-up report only strengthened his objections.

Even if the city spends the money required to fix the front yards, "Who is going to keep up those yards?" he asked.

Some of those homeowners may have incomes of $900 to $1,000 a month, and it would be unfair to ask them to spend $50 to $60 a month on lawn water instead of food or medicine, Dispenza said.

And although the measure's supporters claim it will not generate a string of fines, liens and criminal charges, it will become part of a nuisance ordinance that includes those ramifications, he said.

"If we're not going to do it, why is it put there?" he asked.

In conducting its survey, the city found that as many as 47% of the homes in the older areas of the city would fail to comply with the regulations set forth in the proposal, Dispenza said. By enacting the new law "We would be targeting the people who cannot afford it."

In the worst case, such a law could be used by public officials to harass those who oppose them, he said. "I don't think any government should have that kind of power."

The council will resume the debate when it meets at 7 p.m. Wednesday in the council chambers, 708 East Palmdale Blvd.