Community Commentary:

Your editorial calling for a ban on the use of artificial turf products (“You can go green without the color green,” Saturday) emphasizes aesthetics, packaging and disposal issues without mentioning other factors. I’m no fan of artificial grass, and I have concerns about its carbon footprint. I don’t much like fake Christmas trees or plastic flowers, either.

But I question whether now is the right time to ban any water-saving methods or products.

I may not like the look, but artificial turf saves our most precious resource and has the added benefit of putting cash in the pockets of property owners. I’m talking about the residential rebate program launched by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California last summer to great acclaim only one week after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proclaimed a statewide drought of crisis proportions.

The draft ordinance being considered by our City Council is unquestionably a big improvement for homeowners who want to re-landscape using drought-tolerant materials. It will also help keep landscape architects and gardeners employed in tough times. I myself have just hired a Glendale landscape designer to help me create a new yard to save water, and to return my property to a more natural state. The ordinance will encourage plans like mine.

But why, during the worst drought in California history, would we pass a local law banning use of one particular water-saving product primarily because a committee of local landscapers voiced aesthetic objections to it?

The proposed law will forbid any artificial turf in residential property within the public’s view, regardless of the amount of ground to be covered and regardless of the product’s quality. These products are being constantly improved and tested. They have already been installed in numerous public spaces around our city. How can we justify denying to private property owners access to the very products deemed good enough for the public sector?