Robert Gehrke, in his July 10 column entitled, “Salt Lake City should revisit its ban on artificial grass and give some leniency to property owner,” is sympathetic to property owners who have laid down artificial grass. Gehrke is a fine columnist but I think he missed a couple of points.
Artificial grass seems reasonable. It saves some water. It is easy to maintain. And modern synthetics look almost real. It raises the question why would Salt Lake City have policies prohibiting the practice and fines to enforce it.
I am a retiree who walks a good deal and loves our city’s trees and yards. It is unusual for a desert city to have them. The Mormon pioneers who settled here started planting greenery from the beginning, having come from the lush green spaces of New England and the Midwest, where water was plentiful. Visitors often remark how green our city is.
With green plants come birds, squirrels, bees, butterflies and life itself. Those are good reasons alone for the city regulating against artificial grass and for minimal amounts of vegetation on park strips and in front yards.
Another practice endangering our urban forest is the growing practice of homeowners who lay 100 percent gravel and rocks on their park strips — incidentally, property that belongs to Salt Lake City.
Perhaps they feel they are being environmentally aware, conserving water while saving utility costs in the process. But as gravel and rocks need no water, the trees sharing park strip space quickly become “out of sight, out of mind.” They need regular water, and many trees aren’t going to get it. They can die quickly in our desert climate.
Water conservation is essential but replacement of our urban forest with drought-tolerant foliage must be done thoughtfully.
Ted Wilson, Salt Lake City