The print edition of this opinion piece showed pictures of two addresses: one with a brown lawn and one with a green lawn. Having identified these residences, the article leaves to the reader the conclusion. How grossly unfair! Two points: 1. where does it say that a brown lawn is a requirement or that a resident did not meet the 25% reduction because the lawn is still green? 2. The golf course uses recycled water - who is to say the address shown in the print edition did not use water picked up that reclamation plant to water the lawn.
And what was the purpose to list the addresses in the print edition? What was the point? To slam the resident?
This story contains 125 words.
If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.
If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.