LETTERS; PALMDALE LAWN POLICE AN OUTRAGEOUS CONCEPT.

I attended the Palmdale City Council meeting to hear all about the lawn police issue. The entire council chambers was filled to the brim with concerned residents, until midnight.

After all were given the chance to speak, the notion of being able to see a growing green lawn for every home sounded good - but at what cost to the individualism of each of us?

According to Mayor Ledford, this lawn issue arose because the council feels there is a large number of homes without green yards, namely HUD, VA and FHA properties, foreclosures, bank repossessions and homes simply without front yards.

Incidentally, HUD, VA and FHA properties cannot be affected by these two proposed lawn ordinances, so that narrows the field to you and me.

I moved to Palmdale to get away from an association's rule book that required their grass types, their tree types and their color schemes for my home.

Moving to Palmdale brought independence in allowing me to landscape my own property inside and out.

I feel that after 14 years, our City Council is knocking on this association-dominated rules door. Keeping and having to maintain a lawn is one thing but to require the installation of a specific number of trees, of a specific type, in a specific location is a cost to every homeowner.

I already pay property taxes for landscaping maintenance that is not provided directly to me. To require every home to have a lawn and a certain number of trees is outrageous.

My developer installed one frontage tree. This tree's roots grew right into my sewer system and destroyed the PVC piping in my front lawn.

After this, I decided not to replace the tree. If these ordinances pass, too bad for me. I will not have a choice. I do not have to wonder who will be responsible in the future for the broken PVC pipes and sewer problems this tree's roots will cause. It will be me again.

If the council wants to remove the landscape tax on my property bill, I say vote for these ordinances. However, if we keep the property landscape tax and these two ordinances are voted in, each homeowner will be taxed higher for the extra expenses the city will incur in the future to keep the lawns growing for all.

Making provisions to exempt the elderly, the disabled, and an unknown (number of) low-income homes will increase taxes. Someone has to pay for these city-provided services.

If the council feels this is what everyone wants, why not put it on the ballot? We received the chance to vote on a Wal-Mart store installation that does not affect my personal property, yet we cannot vote on an issue that does.

Council members weren't elected to monitor the greenness of your lawn; they were elected to bring new business to the city, provide for the general welfare (safety) for the citizens such as traffic lights and provide law enforcement. That's it.

It is clear after watching and looking at the expressions of the council during the public's outcries that three members need to be recalled. If this lawn issue is the most important ordinance they can come up with, then in my opinion they are morally bankrupt on the issues and have absolutely no vision for the future of Palmdale.

The scary thing is that these three council members remain in power so they can tell you how you should live your lives and how green your grass should grow.

Mayor Ledford, Councilmen Root and Penner already decided a yes vote without giving any regard to the public outcry, while Councilmen Dispenza and Norris took notes and asked questions of concern.

- Chris Van Dyk

Palmdale

A WATER WASTER

The recently published series of articles on the ``Palmdale Pride Ordinance'' (also derided as the ``Lawn Police Ordinance''), points directly to the shortsightedness and tunnel vision of local bureaucrats.

While one group of government agencies is diligently studying the predicted shortfall in the available water supply in the Antelope Valley, the city of Palmdale is doggedly proposing to force its residents to waste that same resource.

Despite attempts to bulldoze every Joshua tree in Palmdale, to make room for more houses, the fact remains that Palmdale is in the Antelope Valley - a part of the western Mojave Desert.

What separates the desert from California's coastal and valley plains is the scant rainfall, and the scarcity of water. The once-abundant groundwater under the Antelope Valley has subsided more than 200 feet, since it was first tapped in the early 1900s, and subsides more each year, because of continued overdraft.

The demand upon this diminishing supply is increasing every year.

Instead of ignoring the plain fact that they live in a desert environment, Palmdale officials should follow the wise example of long-established desert communities such as Tucson, Arizona: Rather than mandating temperate-climate landscaping with water-thirsty plants such as grass, they prohibit it.

The State Water Project (aqueduct) water is being used to near capacity. The only other source of local water is the overtapped groundwater supply. Antelope Valley communities need to look ahead to the future, and take immediate steps to conserve this most precious resource.

- Ralph Livingstone

Lake Los Angeles 

RESIST FOREST FEES

Congress created the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program (Fee Demo) in 1996, by a rider - a nondebated piece of legislation. It includes Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Fish and Wildlife Service lands and some 90 million acres of the National Park Service - land originally designated ``in the public trust.''

The Adventure Pass, implemented in 1997, is a fee for parking your vehicle on any road, any amount of time, within the boundaries of the Los Padres, San Bernardino, Angeles and Cleveland national forests. It costs $5 a day or $30 a year and has a maximum $100 fine for violation of any project of Fee Demo.

Fee Demo allows private entities/corporate lobbyists to enter into ``partnerships'' with the Forest Service and other agencies for profit. Disney, REI and other companies assisted in the design and implementation of the Adventure Pass.

I oppose Fee Demo because: The fees aren't being used as promised. It commercializes our national forests and parks. As a taxpayer, I support my forests through my federal taxes. This fee is double taxation. I own the forest. It's my birthright. I'm an American citizen. It's discrimination: the people who can't afford the fees won't have access to their own public lands.

How can you help? Don't buy a pass or pay the fees. Most important, call, write or e-mail your congressperson and senators. Call or write the Forest Service. Sign the online petition at www.PetitionOnline.com/feedemo/petition.html.

- Tami S. French

California City