What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Should Lawns be banned? (1 Viewer)

Should Lawns be banned

  • Yes

    Votes: 13 18.1%

  • No

    Votes: 30 41.7%

  • Depends on the state

    Votes: 29 40.3%
  • Total voters
    72
Voted no.  Government's job is to find solutions, not ban something benign that is aesthetically pleasing.  Let the individual decide what they want their yard to consist of. 

 
I read this as "should laws be banned" :lol:  

My snap reaction is that I would rather see recreational lawns restricted (like golf courses) than private lawns.

 
John123 said:
Voted no.  Government's job is to find solutions, not ban something benign that is aesthetically pleasing.  Let the individual decide what they want their yard to consist of. 
Click to expand...
As long as that individual is charged the full cost of providing those assets.  

As water becomes stressed across the Country because of the changing climate the cost to upgrade infrastructure is in the billions.  We aren't doing those projects for the single mother in the low rise apartment.  We are doing those projects for the people that demand water for their lawns.  You want it - you pay for it.  As it stands now that cost is split equally (typicall) between households.  

This is so typical of the disconnect out there. Everyone is outraged by taxes but want absolutely everything.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
killface said:
As long as that individual is charged the full cost of providing those assets.  

As water becomes stressed across the Country because of the changing climate the cost to upgrade infrastructure is in the billions.  We aren't doing those projects for the single mother in the low rise apartment.  We are doing those projects for the people that demand water for their lawns.  You want it - you pay for it.  As it stands now that cost is split equally (typicall) between households.  
Click to expand...
So you think that the cost for water infrastructure is distributed solely through utility payments? 

 
parasaurolophus said:
So you think that the cost for water infrastructure is distributed solely through utility payments? 
Click to expand...
Well i a work in utilities as a water distribution engineer before you get into this argument with me.  

Different cities and utilities have different methods.  Some use blended taxes, some use flat rate fees, some use increasing block rate, some use decreasing block rate, some use block pricing period.  But mostly the poor end up subsidizing infrastructure for the rich no matter the revenue scheme.  

 
killface said:
Well i a work in utilities as a water distribution engineer before you get into this argument with me.  

Different cities and utilities have different methods.  Some use blended taxes, some use flat rate fees, some use increasing block rate, some use decreasing block rate, some use block pricing period.  But mostly the poor end up subsidizing infrastructure for the rich no matter the revenue scheme.  
Click to expand...
I would like to see an example of a place where the poor subsidize the rich regarding water infrastructure spending. I just looked at some budgets around me and there is no way that is true for them. But I also live in an area where many of the suburbs are buying water from the city and the flat fees are a very small % of the charges. 

 
parasaurolophus said:
I would like to see an example of a place where the poor subsidize the rich regarding water infrastructure spending. I just looked at some budgets around me and there is no way that is true for them. But I also live in an area where many of the suburbs are buying water from the city and the flat fees are a very small % of the charges. 
Click to expand...
The poor subsidize through the rate schedule.  If you take 3 billion in new infrastructure and divide it by the gallons used by each household - that would be the fair way.  There are no places i know of that are even close to that.  

Where do you live and I'm happy to do the math for you.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
killface said:
The poor subsidize through the rate schedule.  If you take 3 billion in new infrastructure and divide it by the gallons used by each household - that would be the fair way.  There are no places i know of that are even close to that.  

Where do you live and I'm happy to do the math for you.  
Click to expand...
Is this done at a county or municipality level?  If we look at roads as a similar infrastructure, we should be taxing the #### out of logistics companies compared to private citizens, but we don't.  Flawed for sure, but not sure how to address it.

 
parasaurolophus said:
IvanKaramazov said:
This should definitely be a local decision.  It's pretty easy to grow a lawn in the midwest, but I can see why things might be different in Nevada.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I watered my lawn exactly zero times last year. 
Click to expand...
I don't water my lawn either. It also looks like #### and we keep adding garden beds and trees and anything and everything else in hopes of one day never having to mow again.

Am going to try some clover in one area instead of grass and see what that is like.

But the overal point of the article is a good one. People in AZ and NV and other deserts should not be using water resources for a bright green lawn

 
-jb- said:
Is this done at a county or municipality level?  If we look at roads as a similar infrastructure, we should be taxing the #### out of logistics companies compared to private citizens, but we don't.  Flawed for sure, but not sure how to address it.
Click to expand...
Roads are a lot tougher obviously but that has always been the intent behind gas taxes and the new demand based charges for roads.  The problem of course is that those roads are still built primarily through property taxes (sometimes with a mix of state and fed $$$s).   That means again that low-income households and people that don't use those assets end up paying for those that overuse those assets.  

My big beef has always been with developers.  Cutting a new service into road decreases the life of that asset up to 25%.  They pay peanuts to make those cuts and then taxpayers have to fund replacing the road much sooner than they would have had to otherwise.  

Water assets are usually tremendously expensive, especially those that deal with supply.  There are few places in this country where supplies aren't decreasing in some way shape or form.  There is going to need to be tons of $$$$s spent in the coming decades to address those shortages (mostly because of people with fancy laws and gardens).  Typically water use is 1.5 to 2 times greater during the summer months.  All of that summer use is discretionary.

 
the moops said:
I don't water my lawn either. It also looks like #### and we keep adding garden beds and trees and anything and everything else in hopes of one day never having to mow again.

Am going to try some clover in one area instead of grass and see what that is like.

But the overal point of the article is a good one. People in AZ and NV and other deserts should not be using water resources for a bright green lawn
Click to expand...
Clover is a great idea.  Highly recommended.  Also investigate the concept of xeriscaping

You should look into you area as well. Most places in this country are suffering from decreasing supplies over the last couple of decades. 

 
killface said:
Roads are a lot tougher obviously but that has always been the intent behind gas taxes and the new demand based charges for roads.  The problem of course is that those roads are still built primarily through property taxes (sometimes with a mix of state and fed $$$s).   That means again that low-income households and people that don't use those assets end up paying for those that overuse those assets.  

My big beef has always been with developers.  Cutting a new service into road decreases the life of that asset up to 25%.  They pay peanuts to make those cuts and then taxpayers have to fund replacing the road much sooner than they would have had to otherwise.  

Water assets are usually tremendously expensive, especially those that deal with supply.  There are few places in this country where supplies aren't decreasing in some way shape or form.  There is going to need to be tons of $$$$s spent in the coming decades to address those shortages (mostly because of people with fancy laws and gardens).  Typically water use is 1.5 to 2 times greater during the summer months.  All of that summer use is discretionary.
Click to expand...
Thx.  Re: the bolded, would it not be true that low income folks are less likely to even have property taxes to pay, and would pay much less in state/fed income tax?

 
-jb- said:
Thx.  Re: the bolded, would it not be true that low income folks are less likely to even have property taxes to pay, and would pay much less in state/fed income tax?
Click to expand...
Absolutely true.  That's the point of a progressive tax system and why they make sense.  

That being said overuse of water/roads/other infrastructure comes from a select group of people and the progressiveness of the tax system (or utility rates) never covers that discrepancy.  A low income household will pay less for water in many cities (although many still use flat rates) but the increasing tiers of rate structures are far from making the system use-based.  Same thing for property taxes and other infrastructure

 
One day the thinking on this board will dominate this country.

Ban this....cancel that....and on and on.

I'll be dead and gone by then and thankfully that will be true because I have zero interest in living in the America so many of you want to have.  

 
supermike80 said:
One day the thinking on this board will dominate this country.

Ban this....cancel that....and on and on.

I'll be dead and gone by then and thankfully that will be true because I have zero interest in living in the America so many of you want to have.  
Click to expand...
Again i would be happy if it was just user pay and then it would naturally ban itself.  

New supply infrastructure is often in the billions of $$$s and most utilities and local governments do not have access to those kind of resources.  Supply has been extremely stressed the last couple of decades even in the PNW

 
This is where the source police would be attacking New Republic for pushing a left extremist ideas.

I will just point out that it's a lefty extremist agenda.  When water demand goes up so does the price, if you can afford it that's your choice.  Let the free market dictate.  For me it's not worth it (~$300/month).   If we have an unusually dry summer the grass will survive with 1/4" of water a month so I just make sure it gets that.

 
killface said:
Absolutely true.  That's the point of a progressive tax system and why they make sense.  

That being said overuse of water/roads/other infrastructure comes from a select group of people and the progressiveness of the tax system (or utility rates) never covers that discrepancy.  A low income household will pay less for water in many cities (although many still use flat rates) but the increasing tiers of rate structures are far from making the system use-based.  Same thing for property taxes and other infrastructure
Click to expand...
You keep mentioning flat rates. Can you give an example of a city with a flat rate?

My city has a flat fee of 9.95 per qtr for fire and whatever else is tied in there. Then the rest is based on usage. So sure the 9.95 is evenly spread, but it is a small % of the bill and any federal money or state money we ever get would more than offset the burden on the poorer households(of the 9.95 fee). 

ETA: Just maybe one?

St Louis.

for the use of water for domestic family residence, flat or apartment purposes, for periods of three months in advance:

Room charge, each: $3.76

Water closet, each: $14.72

Baths, each: $12.35

Shower, separate from bath, each: $12.35

Sprinkling charge of $0.25 per front foot shall be assessed each three month billing period for lawn sprinkling and other outside uses.
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
tonydead said:
This is where the source police would be attacking New Republic for pushing a left extremist ideas.

I will just point out that it's a lefty extremist agenda.  When water demand goes up so does the price, if you can afford it that's your choice.  Let the free market dictate.  For me it's not worth it (~$300/month).   If we have an unusually dry summer the grass will survive with 1/4" of water a month so I just make sure it gets that.
Click to expand...
If it makes you feel better there 100s of similar articles on the AWWA website.  You can start here if you like.  Engineers and water planners have been talking about this for years.

https://awwa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/j.1551-8833.2006.tb07586.x

 
killface said:
Again i would be happy if it was just user pay and then it would naturally ban itself.  

New supply infrastructure is often in the billions of $$$s and most utilities and local governments do not have access to those kind of resources.  Supply has been extremely stressed the last couple of decades even in the PNW
Click to expand...
Why don't you let the individual municipalities decide?  Why does it have to be a state decision?  If Reno decides to ban it but Las Vegas is still allowed why is that a problem if Las Vegas wants lawns?  If my city bans lawns I can deal with that by working to get rid of those city council members who voted against my interests.  I may win; I may not.  But I can do it.  At the state or federal levels I have less and less ability to have a say in these decisions.  So, it seems to me we should try to keep decisions at the lowest level nearest the affected constituent as possible. 

 
parasaurolophus said:
You keep mentioning flat rates. Can you give an example of a city with a flat rate?

My city has a flat fee of 9.95 per qtr for fire and whatever else is tied in there. Then the rest is based on usage. So sure the 9.95 is evenly spread, but it is a small % of the bill and any federal money or state money we ever get would more than offset the burden on the poorer households(of the 9.95 fee). 
Click to expand...
https://www.bv.com/sites/default/files/2019-10/50_Largest_Cities_Rate_Survey_2018_2019_Report.pdf

 
John123 said:
Why don't you let the individual municipalities decide?  Why does it have to be a state decision?  If Reno decides to ban it but Las Vegas is still allowed why is that a problem if Las Vegas wants lawns?  If my city bans lawns I can deal with that by working to get rid of those city council members who voted against my interests.  I may win; I may not.  But I can do it.  At the state or federal levels I have less and less ability to have a say in these decisions.  So, it seems to me we should try to keep decisions at the lowest level nearest the affected constituent as possible. 
Click to expand...
I'm not even suggesting banning it.  As I have said over and over again I just think the people that use it should pay for it.

Because taxes and rate increases are political suicide there is a massive infrastructure deficit that is coming due in the next 20 years (especially at the local government level).  Everyone's rates and taxes are going way way up to meet those needs unless we figure out how to reduce use or focus more on user pay.

https://www.awwa.org/Portals/0/AWWA/ETS/Resources/2019_STATE OF THE WATER INDUSTRY_post.pdf

I should edit to add that the infrastructure deficit does not even include the increasing supply risks and stress on supplies.  In the last 20 years, here in the PNW we get tons of rain in the winter but more and more drought conditions in the summer and we are drawing down our reservoirs during the summer months at unprecedented rates.  Sure we could build a new dam to capture new water but that cost is greater than $10 billion.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
John123 said:
Why don't you let the individual municipalities decide?  Why does it have to be a state decision?  If Reno decides to ban it but Las Vegas is still allowed why is that a problem if Las Vegas wants lawns?  If my city bans lawns I can deal with that by working to get rid of those city council members who voted against my interests.  I may win; I may not.  But I can do it.  At the state or federal levels I have less and less ability to have a say in these decisions.  So, it seems to me we should try to keep decisions at the lowest level nearest the affected constituent as possible. 
Click to expand...
Right, but, the lowest level is the consumer.  This is purely supply and demand issue framed as a new green deal.  

 
tonydead said:
Right, but, the lowest level is the consumer.  This is purely supply and demand issue framed as a new green deal.  
Click to expand...
What?  I get it - you love the political rhetoric.  This response makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.  It has nothing to do with the green new deal and has been discussed for decades by engineers and scientists.  The bill is coming due however.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
-jb- said:
@killfaceI assume you've read Cadillac Desert.  Been meaning to, but haven't gotten to it yet.  Recommend, or is it kind of no-duh at this point?
Click to expand...
That's must reading for anyone interested in the subject.

Although you are right that it's kind of no-duh at this point although it does a good job of tying land-use planning, taxes, rates etc...all together.  Lots of people can't make the connection of what land use planning has to do with it all. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
killface said:
What?  I get it - you love the political rhetoric.  This response makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.  It has nothing to do with the green new deal and has been discussed for decades by engineers and scientists.  The bill is coming due however.
Click to expand...
"Framed as a" not "framed as in".

You don't need the law.  Price should dictate, if it gets high enough people will stop watering.  The left always want government to control things where they don't need to.

 
tonydead said:
"Framed as a" not "framed as in".

You don't need the law.  Price should dictate, if it gets high enough people will stop watering.  The left always want government to control things where they don't need to.
Click to expand...
That's because the political climate in this country has made it impossible to go user pay on anything.  The cost would be astronomical. 

There is a reason government throws billions in subsidies every year to all sorts of industries.  

We have gotten to comfy with the concept of having it all and paying low taxes.  The two don't mix

You don't get to have your new $10 billion dam to support your new lawns and low rates at the same time.  Try standing in front of an audience though and telling them if they vote you in they are going to have to let their lawns go brown.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
tonydead said:
"Framed as a" not "framed as in".

You don't need the law.  Price should dictate, if it gets high enough people will stop watering.  The left always want government to control things where they don't need to.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with this at a fundamental free market level, but what if those that can afford to keep watering their big lawns*, puts the entire water supply at risk where there isn't enough to go around? I suppose one answer is to just keep raising rates until it becomes a #### all situation, but you ultimately wind up in the same place. I don't have a solution here, but this is obviously serious business in the West.

*I have one, and pay through the nose, trying to convince the wife to get rid of it.

 
-jb- said:
I don't disagree with this at a fundamental free market level, but what if those that can afford to keep watering their big lawns*, puts the entire water supply at risk where there isn't enough to go around? I suppose one answer is to just keep raising rates until it becomes a #### all situation, but you ultimately wind up in the same place. I don't have a solution here, but this is obviously serious business in the West.

*I have one, and pay through the nose, trying to convince the wife to get rid of it.
Click to expand...
That's the theory and it's hard to implement obviously for political reasons.  Can you imagine going into any typical suburb and telling them that the cost of their water is going to reflect the true cost of their use and their rates are going up 10x?  

 
killface said:
That's because the political climate in this country has made it impossible to go user pay on anything.  The cost would be astronomical. 

There is a reason government throws billions in subsidies every year to all sorts of industries.  

We have gotten to comfy with the concept of having it all and paying low taxes.  The two don't mix

You don't get to have your new $10 billion dam to support your new lawns and low rates at the same time.  Try standing in front of an audience though and telling them if they vote you in they are going to have to let their lawns go brown.  
Click to expand...
I'm not running for office, why would I take that pay cut?

Sounds like you don't like how government is spending tax dollars, if this bill changes that fine.  But, if it just more restrictions on people because of bad government surely you see the problem with that.

 
killface said:
That's the theory and it's hard to implement obviously for political reasons.  Can you imagine going into any typical suburb and telling them that the cost of their water is going to reflect the true cost of their use and their rates are going up 10x?  
Click to expand...
At the end of the day, we can't cry SOCIALISM when public utilities are essentially socialist. :shrug:

 
I'd astroturf my lawn in a hot second if I could get some tax credits or other finical incentive. 

Long island NY, so water is not a huge issue here but I would love to not have to worry about mowing and watering again. 

 
-jb- said:
I don't disagree with this at a fundamental free market level, but what if those that can afford to keep watering their big lawns*, puts the entire water supply at risk where there isn't enough to go around? I suppose one answer is to just keep raising rates until it becomes a #### all situation, but you ultimately wind up in the same place. I don't have a solution here, but this is obviously serious business in the West.

*I have one, and pay through the nose, trying to convince the wife to get rid of it.
Click to expand...
Entire water supply at risk?  I guess I'm assuming the law of supply and demand would kill the lawns way before people started dying of thirst.

 
parasaurolophus said:
So it looks like according to that 36% of the cities in that report have a flat rate. It didn't list which ones though. Do you know of one of them?

St louis turns out to not be a good example since a large % of their revenue is metered and their flat rate is adjusted by size of home and they have additions for swimming pools and other things.
Click to expand...
OMG.  They are coming for our swimming pools next!

 
tonydead said:
Entire water supply at risk?  I guess I'm assuming the law of supply and demand would kill the lawns way before people started dying of thirst.
Click to expand...
You understand that utilities don't work that way.  If you run out of water it is for both drinking and discretionary uses.  In the middle of a severe drought it's near impossible to react in a timely manner to save the supply.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
tonydead said:
I'm not running for office, why would I take that pay cut?

Sounds like you don't like how government is spending tax dollars, if this bill changes that fine.  But, if it just more restrictions on people because of bad government surely you see the problem with that.
Click to expand...
This has nothing to do with bad government and everything to do with people not taking personal responsibility

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Should Minors Be Legally Banned/Restricted From Using Social Media? (6/11/22 17:47 PST)
Replies
20
Views
745
moleculo
moleculo
GordonGekko
Will The GOP Push For A Nation Wide Federal Abortion Ban When It Attains Needed Majorities? (7/2/22 12:11 PST)
Replies
0
Views
237
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
Newsweek: Muslim & Christian Parents Unite In Michigan Against "Sexually Explicit" School Books (10/14/22 02:46 PST)
2
Replies
53
Views
1K
Captain Cranks
Captain Cranks

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top