What's next? A summons for fertilizing your lawn?

Never understood the white man's fascination with "owning" land.

Nothing to see here citizen, just mow along

So these guys are having a private park next to citys drinking water source...

Welcome to Obama's America

Protect your right to fertilize drinking reservoirs!

AgentPothead: Never understood the white man's fascination with "owning" land.

So Chinese, Arabs and Africans don't have those rights?

American Indians understood "ownership" of land, just in a different way.

Though I agree that people should not be allowed to "own" land.

How do you determine who "owns" a parcel of land? Inevitably it boils down to "God gave it to me".

/drunk, flame on

Subby is a troll... and a moron.

AgentPothead: Never understood the white man's fascination with "owning" land.

As opposed to all the zero other cultures that didn't have any form of land ownership? Yeah, those nonexistent civilizations that never occurred sure are superior to the rest of us.

//If you're referring to the American first nations I'm going to laugh at you even harder.

fusillade762: AgentPothead: Never understood the white man's fascination with "owning" land.

So Chinese, Arabs and Africans don't have those rights?

American Indians understood "ownership" of land, just in a different way.

Though I agree that people should not be allowed to "own" land.

How do you determine who "owns" a parcel of land? Inevitably it boils down to "God gave it to me".

/drunk, flame on

You can't OWN property, man!!!

Oznog: You can't OWN property, man!!!

I can, but that's because I'm not a penniless hippie.

fusillade762: How do you determine who "owns" a parcel of land? Inevitably it boils down to "God gave it to me".

Um, it's administered by whatever is generally regarded as the lawful government of the relevant region? Back in the day it was more or less enforced by force of arms, now it's generally backed up by the recognition of other nations, and typically traces back to the overall consent of the governed.

So it comes down to God in theocracies, I guess, in the US it comes down to legal force that traces back eventually to the voters.

AverageAmericanGuy: What's next? A summons for fertilizing your lawn?

.
.
In many waterfront areas the use of fertilizer is illegal. If you are using fertilizer you may as well have your toilet dump directly into the river, bay, or whatever.

Good for them. Although, I wonder how much of her property she's already lost to erosion - it's almost double jeopardy.

So subby thinks it is okay for people to mow land they don't own which needs to be left natural in order to filter run-off into the water that will later be used as drinking water for many people.

I sure hope subby doesn't own land next to any reservoirs.

The city seems to have been incredibly reasonable here. If anything, you're being too gentle (it's taken 15 years to move from warning to prosecution).

This is why we need a border fence, people.

In most municipalities if one maintains a property for five consecutive years said person can claim eminent domain and gain annexation of said property.
This, I feel, is the cities concern, beyond the excuse of water shedding problems.
So it shall be written, so it shall be done.

Hand Banana:
AgentPothead: Never understood the white man's fascination with "owning" land.

Thanks to property taxes we don't own land anyway, we rent it.

The difference is the city can put a lien on your property faster than a landlord could legally evict you. That said, property taxes are why I have a nice paved street in front of my house and cops who drive along it from time to time and a pipe to take away my bodily wastes and dish water. Hard to argue with that.

watch what happens when they stop shovelling the city's sidewalk in front of their houses.

Nidiot: So subby thinks it is okay for people to mow land they don't own which needs to be left natural in order to filter run-off into the water that will later be used as drinking water for many people.

I sure hope subby doesn't own land next to any reservoirs.

Teatards think everything everywhere should be mowed or paved.

Mr Cool: In most municipalities if one maintains a property for five consecutive years said person can claim eminent domain and gain annexation of said property.
This, I feel, is the cities concern, beyond the excuse of water shedding problems.
So it shall be written, so it shall be done.

You should probably not believe everything you hear.

AgentPothead: Never understood the white man's fascination with "owning" land.

And what about the fascination of not being kicked out of your home by anyone, due to having an inalienable right to be there? Do you understand that?

Nidiot: So subby thinks it is okay for people to mow land they don't own which needs to be left natural in order to filter run-off into the water that will later be used as drinking water for many people.

I sure hope subby doesn't own land next to any reservoirs.

THIS

I came here to say it.

It almost looks like the people here are doing a great service by trimming the verge and making it look nice, but the fact is, EVERYTHING bordering that reservoir needs to remain as it is. The environment is more important than your impression of how it looks. If you don't like it, build a fence.

>>"The bottom line for us is we have to protect our drinking-water supply unionized lawn-mowing jobs."

Fear not, farkers -- I have fixed it for you.

If the government isn't doing its job, fark you, I'll do it for you.

/Arizonan

STRYPERSWINE: If the government isn't doing its job, fark you, I'll do it for you.

/Arizonan

But the government IS doing its job.

let me guess, you didn't read the article?

The thing that frustrates me about small children is this. When Junior is warned if he flicks his peas across the dinner table at his brother one more time he will be sent to his room, and then Junior goes ahead and flicks peas just as he was told not to, and Junior is then sent to his room, as he was told would happen, Junior then cries at the top of his lungs about the unfairness of it all. Now I can grasp that small children do not have developed brains and therefore may be incapable of understanding the very basic concept of stop doing action x, or if you don't, consequence y will occur.

Adults on the other hand have absolutely no excuse when it comes to not understanding the repercussions of their actions, particularly when it is directly spelled out in the form of stop mowing ground that does not belong to you and needs to be left natural, or we will have to prosecute you. Fifteen years worth of warnings at that. Yet they somehow still cry at the unfairness of it all. I don't get it. Are they all retarded?

Pantubo

STRYPERSWINE

If you wont read the article then read the post above yours by durbnpoisn. The grass by a reservoir is not meant to be mown. It is not about what looks pretty to your eyes but what is best for the quality of people's drinking water.

AgentPothead: Never understood the white man's fascination with "owning" land.

That's OK, you don't have too. By the way, rent is due - pay up.

Mr Cool: In most municipalities if one maintains a property for five consecutive years said person can claim eminent domain and gain annexation of said property.
This, I feel, is the cities concern, beyond the excuse of water shedding problems.
So it shall be written, so it shall be done.

It's called "adverse possession," but I would be surprised if it was five years. In Massachusetts it's 20 years. It looks like Ohio requires 21 years. You may be right that this is the city's concern. They may feel they need to stop the possession now, rather than argue in court after 21 years have elapsed.

I mow my lawn about half as much as a "normal" person would. I would wait longer but it would get too tall and the mower would have trouble mowing it, plus my wife hates snakes and they love tall grass (not to mention ticks).

It doesn't get bad, but I don't obsess over it. Plus the taller it is, the more fireflies I have in the yard.

/of course, it hasn't really rained in weeks, so I haven't mowed it for awhile
//its starting to turn brown :(

And even worse - They're on a 1 game losing streak to Michigan. Go Blue!

Columbus is a decent town. Mostly centrist. Fairly smart. Plenty of things to do. Passable food. Decent people.

It's like an oasis surrounded by the wasteland we call Ohio.

CommieTaoist: The old woman was told since '97 to stop it and they just charged her now? What an abuse of power! If they charged her the first time, fine, it might be an overreaction, but fifteen farking years?!

First of all, the city's reasoning is flawed:
"The city says that the land needs to be kept natural to filter runoff before it makes its way into the reservoirs."
...
"she ignored directives dating back to 1997 to stop mowing the 20 feet or so of city property next to her back yard "

"20 feet" of weeds ain't gonna do shiat to "filter runoff". It looks like hell, though.

The guy built a fire pit on property that wasn't his?

No, he built it on land he thought (thinks) was his. Or did you miss the part where "he's gone back and forth with the city over where the boundary line of the property is"??

As someone who drinks that water and pays his fair share of Columbus taxes and water bills, I can finally say: stay off my lawn!

It's not a lawn, it's 20 feet of ugly weeds.

STRYPERSWINE: If the government isn't doing its job, fark you, I'll do it for you.

/Arizonan

Your comment is amusing, as it clearly shows that you failed to understand that the government was and is indeed doing its job, and the idiot residents are intentionally screwing that up by fudging public property even after being explicitly informed that they are idiots and shouldn't be doing that.

fredklein: CommieTaoist: The old woman was told since '97 to stop it and they just charged her now? What an abuse of power! If they charged her the first time, fine, it might be an overreaction, but fifteen farking years?!

First of all, the city's reasoning is flawed:
"The city says that the land needs to be kept natural to filter runoff before it makes its way into the reservoirs."
...
"she ignored directives dating back to 1997 to stop mowing the 20 feet or so of city property next to her back yard "

"20 feet" of weeds ain't gonna do shiat to "filter runoff". It looks like hell, though.

The guy built a fire pit on property that wasn't his?

No, he built it on land he thought (thinks) was his. Or did you miss the part where "he's gone back and forth with the city over where the boundary line of the property is"??

As someone who drinks that water and pays his fair share of Columbus taxes and water bills, I can finally say: stay off my lawn!

It's not a lawn, it's 20 feet of ugly weeds.

Do you even know anything about urban planning and water management?

Endive Wombat: But seriously, how does the length of the grass affect the natural filtration process?

Perhaps, and I'm not a biologist or whatever, so I'm just spitballing here...but perhaps tall grass needs to absorb more ground water to survive, thereby serving as a more effective filter.

Like I said, that's my guess...but it's just a guess.

My city is better. They sent me a summons because I didn't mow their land.