• I live in Lago Vista and the ROW backs up to Mallette. We don't have a huge ditch to mow, but the ROW is bigger than our backyard. It makes us angry that we have to mow property that is not ours. If we are going to take care of it, then why the heck doesn't it belong to us? I'd be happy to mow it if the city would allow me to move our fence back. I'd mow it, baby it, groom it, if they would just hand it over to me. If not, then why should I take care of it. This is the most ridiculous thing. I would love to see T.Michael put that inmate crew back together.

    September 14, 2010 at 9:30 p.m.
  • Once again. Has anybody looked at the grass growing along any major street in Victoria. Who ever threw out the "all but 60" number is not being very honest or done their research. They mowed for almost 30 years by mistake? Really? How do you write a city code than ignore it for 30 years?

    September 14, 2010 at 10:24 a.m.
  • Thank you for straightening that out mytwocents.

    This definitely does not pass the stink test. This officially becomes ridiculous. I guess the people that live in the back of Belltower and Carriage Point are really gonna have fun mowing all the way to the pavement of Loop 463. Yikes!

    It's probably a State ROW and thus not included, but it makes you think. I know its been said before but I would seriously consider round up. That'd teach them. Of course erosion would be a problem, but hey its the City's ROW.

    September 13, 2010 at 10:11 p.m.
  • Apologies for the incorrect information - it was late!

    September 13, 2010 at 10 p.m.
  • Here's the ordinance:


    It's all within the definition of "lot" which according to the ordinance is defined as:

    Lot: Land within the property lines and all areas of public right-of-way adjacent to and extending beyond the property line of said lot:

    (1)To the curb line of adjacent streets, where a curb line has been established; or
    (2)For a distance of fourteen (14) feet, where no curb line has been established; and
    (3)To the center of adjacent alleys."

    Thanks for posting this KyleC.

    It seems to me that the original intent of this ordinance might have been to make the mowing of City ROW's at the front of properties.

    In a city subdivision like Woodway for example the property line ends about a foot or so on the property side of the city sidewalk. The area from there to the property across the street is owned by the City. Both sidewalks and both grassy areas between the sidewalk and the streets is owned by the City. We routinely mow the are between the sidewalk and the street as we consider it to be our front yard. This ordinance seems to enforce that the property owner maintain this property and I doubt anyone would argue with that.

    But where they go overboard is the ROW outside the property owner's fence on say Nursery Dr. Or even outside a side fence on the same streets. Nursery Dr. has a ditch. Is it my understanding that they are expecting the home owner, which will actually be done by the HOA as stated above, to mow to the street (Nursery Dr. has no curb) or 14' beyond their property line. Is the line where pavement and grass meet a 'curbline' if a traditional concrete curb does not exist.

    Makes you not want to buy property backed up to a ROW or beside one, doesn't it.

    I know for a fact that vehicular access to many of these ROW's are prohibited by restriction or by City ordinance. So they'll make me mow it, but heaven forbid I try to drive a car across it.

    September 13, 2010 at 8:44 p.m.
  • I hope they give Mr. Lopez extra time to get his ditch mowed also, and by the way.
    On my way home I noticed the almighty Woodway ditches still weren't mowed. I was able to mow my yard and ditch when I got home today. Oh, that's because I don't have an HOA to depend on.

    September 13, 2010 at 7:35 p.m.
  • Hurtmike...I'd rather mow than pay a dime to an HOA nazi hoard. At least you can vote out the city council. Those who run Home Owners Associations are like tape worms -- they just hang around, bleed you, and don't do ANYTHING worthwhile.

    September 13, 2010 at 7:15 p.m.
  • As a resident of Woodway, my HOA fees pay for a contractor to mow the right of ways behind fences along Briggs Blvd. and Nursery Drive. I understand that this solution doesn't work for all neighborhoods but it is a workable solution for my neighborhood at our expense. The grass in the ditches is tall right now because of the tropical storm last week.

    September 13, 2010 at 5:01 p.m.
  • Just noticed that the story says that all but 60 homeowners has complied! Really? Where did this information come from? Drive along any of the streets mentioned and start counting. I really hope the city is reading these comments. Someone needs to check their facts. Where in the budget was the money coming from to mow before the tax loss?

    Also, if the city is going to charge to mow, they better be able to justify every penny. If they are looking for a pay raise they best worry about keeping their job.

    September 13, 2010 at 11:39 a.m.
  • On my way to work this morning I noticed that all the yards in Woodway that back up to Briggs Blvd and Nursery Dr. have ditches behind their fences and most if not all are unmowed with grass anywhere from a foot to three feet in them. I guess the same rules don't apply to neighborhoods where city officials live.
    At least that is the way it appears.

    September 13, 2010 at 9:21 a.m.
  • CHEAPO VICTORIA! The city is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Anything to save a buck and spend on nonsense items like good old Willie and the boys usually do! No surprise at all. Remember to vote when it comes time, and get these yahoos out of office. Starting with the Mayor.

    September 13, 2010 at 9:15 a.m.
  • wow!!

    Is the city serious?? I can see mowing to the curb or to the streets on the front line and on the sides of your land if this area is " normal yard or drainage ditches" but the canals the city is calling drainage ditches that run through out the city and ROW's for gas, electric,water, sewer, phone and cable are the duty of these entities to maintain not the taxpayers who already pay to have this done.
    Maybe instead of having probation clean up the same section or road every Saturday they could be mowing some of these areas in question.
    Restitution and community service would be better served if these things were done by inmates or probation for minor non violent crimes. Instead of putting them in jail or on probation for long periods they could sign up for a "house arrest sentence where they would have to work 40 hrs a week and remain in their house when not working. This frees up jail cells for real criminals and solves the cost problem by using free labor to do the work instead of paying county employees to do it freeing them up to do work repairing our horrible streets and roads.

    September 13, 2010 at 5:53 a.m.
  • Here's the ordinance:

    It's all within the definition of "lot" which according to the ordinance is defined as:

    Lot: Land within the property lines and all areas of public right-of-way adjacent to and extending beyond the property line of said lot:

    (1)To the curb line of adjacent streets, where a curb line has been established; or
    (2)For a distance of fourteen (14) feet, where no curb line has been established; and
    (3)To the center of adjacent alleys.

    September 13, 2010 at 12:03 a.m.
  • I'd really like to see this ordinance and read its wording.

    Could someone at teh Advocate provide a link or post it somehow?

    September 12, 2010 at 11:41 p.m.
  • are on a roll!! Keep up the good work keeping me amused!

    September 12, 2010 at 7:25 p.m.
  • When the going gets tough the tough stomp on the disabled vets and senior citizens.

    September 12, 2010 at 6:47 p.m.
  • This could be interesting to watch. Good points www. This could be the very issue that galvanizes the citizens of Victoria into making real change. This is a city wide issue, and one that cannot be ignored by parts of the city because it's not happening in their neighborhood.

    September 12, 2010 at 4:57 p.m.
  • Note to city council...There WILL be another election day, and the voters WILL remember this. It's not only people who are directly affected by this who will see this a wrong. My property doesn't back up to a city ROW, but it still makes me mad that the city collects taxes from property owners and then renegs on its responsibilities and wants to force the property owner -- under threat of fines -- to do that which the city is responsible for in the first place. Will they now decide that the grass needs to be cut at other city owned property and perhaps hold a lottery to decide which homeowner has the honor of cutting there? Rick Perry and TexDOT couldn't do it any better.

    September 12, 2010 at 3:46 p.m.
  • If it was me, I'd put round up on the whole area. It wouldnt need to be mowed for months! Force me to mow city owned property because they're cutting back...REDICULOUS!!!

    September 12, 2010 at 3:21 p.m.
  • How does that old saying go? "The grass is always greener, longer and angled at 45 degrees on the other side of your property line?"

    September 12, 2010 at 2:55 p.m.
  • I agree the county inmates need to start a cleaning crew again. Like they used to do. Not only trustee inmates, arm the deputys with shotguns ect. Wont take much man power to get a few crews going. Or see about bringing in TDC to help with city and county issues as such.

    September 12, 2010 at 2:55 p.m.
  • mowing is serious business in victoria

    September 12, 2010 at 2:50 p.m.
  • Pecos, you are right, the city does mow around Woodway. Some of the owners keep theirs up themselves. The city will mow around the railroad and Woodway at the same time.

    September 12, 2010 at 2:34 p.m.
  • "Attention Wal Mart Shoppers, we just received another five pallets of one gallon containers of Roundup available on aisle 3 in the Lawn and Gardening area. You can show your citation from Uncle Willie and the Boys for a $1.00 rebate from the City of Friends."

    September 12, 2010 at 2:24 p.m.
  • Alrighty then, that settles that question.

    September 12, 2010 at 2:17 p.m.
  • LOL...I was thinking earlier if Robin Holy had been elected this wouldn't be an issue!

    September 12, 2010 at 1:51 p.m.

  • I think Robin Holy would do the mowing for free.

    Why don't we ask him?

    September 12, 2010 at 1:48 p.m.
  • So the people who have houses in Castle Hills that back up to Guy Grant are going to have to mow those 6ft deep, steep incline ditches, with a push mower? The City has done lost its mind!

    September 12, 2010 at 11:41 a.m.
  • like i said before, time to clean house .city government needs a change. the city need to organize a group who will campaign for cleaning out old city officials.

    September 12, 2010 at 10:56 a.m.
  • I would also like to to note that it may not be safe for non professionals to mowe right of ways or grass next to highways. Someone could get hurt!

    September 12, 2010 at 10:47 a.m.
  • We should not have to mowe land that is not ours! That the city would fine or charge a homeowner to mowe land that he does not own or rent is slavery! I thought we pay taxes for the city to up keep city grounds?

    September 12, 2010 at 10:44 a.m.
  • the victoria illuminanti strikes again !!!

    will their greed ever be satisfied ????

    September 12, 2010 at 10:36 a.m.
  • I have no problem keeping my lawn maintained. I do, however, have a problem with the city not keeping their areas mowed. For instance, fire hydrants, you can drive all throughout the Northcrest area and the grass is 2 feet above the hydrants! Go up and down the loop, any corner connected to the loop like airline, same problem. All cities I have live in the hydrant is bright red with reflective silver for the covers or bright reflective yellow hydrants. This crazy city has green on the hydrants. If they can't keep the hydrants trimmed around, how can we expect the firefighters to rind the hydrants during a fire. I say get more of these criminals out of the jail that are serving some time and get them to work. There is a house on Broadmoor and Northcrest that has horses on their property. They mow everything but the Broadmoor side. The grass is above the white fence. But the city mows "their" property. Don't understand it!

    September 12, 2010 at 9:52 a.m.
  • I think the city wanting us to do their job is crazy! If we fail to take care of OUR property we are given a nice little citation. Let's take a look at some salary cuts.

    September 12, 2010 at 9:22 a.m.
  • So this means that WOODWAY will mow to Briggs Blvd and Nursery Dr., COLONY CREEK to Loop 463 and John Stockbauer, BENCHMARK to Loop 463, HIDDEN MEADOWS to Larkspur, etc. etc. ? I can't see this going well.

    September 12, 2010 at 9:14 a.m.
  • Forget the Roundup...get 10% vinegar solution, available at any nursery. It may take a bit longer but isn't toxic to the environment.

    Or...get some goats and call me when the BBQ is ready.

    September 12, 2010 at 8:44 a.m.
  • Corruption has reached the hallowed halls of city government! You can't use the land to build on it belongs to the city, but you will mow it because we say so! We need to clean out the city government.

    September 12, 2010 at 8:26 a.m.
  • This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

    September 12, 2010 at 8:05 a.m.
  • To the city of Victoria: I smell a lawsuit coming on! You are getting money for nothing. Taxing the home owners and making them do the job they are being taxed for. That is unconstitutional as far as I am concerned. I think they also call it theft! Paying for a job that is not done. If I did that they would arrest me for theft by check. Maybe the city council needs to be arrested for the same thing.

    September 12, 2010 at 6:40 a.m.
  • Might as well MOW. your gonna pay one way or the other, your personal sweat or your tax dollars.

    September 12, 2010 at 3:26 a.m.
  • And one more thing to say to all the posts here that made the statement " if you can't afford it, sell it" WHAT? are you crazy? Sell it? Who's gonna mow it then? Do you even care that some people have no means to mow outside of their property? the ditch is too deep to mow? Not every house in Victoria was built on a FLAT lawn to the road area. Your only saying this because you don't have any problems mowing yours. And think about this, What if your mom & dad's house had a big ditch behind the back fence out of sight, they are too old and can't get out, would you go mow for them a ditch that they never had to mow before because it had been mowed for years by the city and now are being told if they don't mow it they have to sell? Well maybe you would but only once, then you would be pissed too!

    September 12, 2010 at 2:52 a.m.
  • I'm not a home owner in the city and would not own in the city if it was given to me....but I have this to say to all the loons of the city management, get your ducks in a row! the electric company uses the right of way for there utility poles, the cable company uses it and the gas company uses it as well....why aren't you making them responsible for mowing the same thing your trying to make the property owners maintain? one more thing the city water lines cross there as well make the city water department do there part as well, those guys could carry a weed eater with them while there reading meters and kill 2 birds with one stone. Man, I don't know why you guys can't see the irony in all this. City government must think this is something that will make them look better to more home owners than it will make them look bad. This is a perfect example of why I would not own in the city, too many idiots trying to making my life better for me when there life is most likely worse than mine.

    September 12, 2010 at 2:33 a.m.
  • Pilot,

    I do agree with you. If you can't afford it, sell it.

    I would like more clarification if it's a ROW or city owned property or city owned property that has a ROW.

    This issue is a tad different from my prespective. It's a property law issue. If it IS city owned land how can the city make the neighbor next to it maintain it?? Was this Right of Way & who is responsible for maintaining it disclosed in the deed.

    This is a 1969 City Ordinance, state property laws have changed since then. Is it even valid & would it hold up in court???
    Did the City Legal Department research this or just look through the old Ordinances and say BINGO.
    I would like to have had an Attorney who specializes in Real Estate Law weight in in this issue. Wish the Advocate would have consulted one for the article.

    September 11, 2010 at 10:30 p.m.
  • They city's strapped for cash in what appears to be a permanent downturn in the economy. They can no longer afford upkeep of that which they own, so throw the responsibility on homeowners. Homeowners are cash strapped also, but that's beside the point. This is principle and the city is flat wrong on this one - even with an ordinance on their side. If they own the property then they should be responsible for the property. Where does the line get drawn? Will homeowners be forced to keep the sidewalks in good repair when they chip, crack and crumble? When the sewer line under the street collapses in front of the homeowner's house, are they going to be responsible for that also? The trend of the years to pay for services for which a homeowner is already being taxed has now become the norm. It seems taxes go to pay city salaries, but essential services are billed as used. Soon, you'll be billed for a police visit to your home to catch a thief robbing it. Then again... soon, homeowners won't be able to afford to pay taxes period anymore.....

    September 11, 2010 at 10:21 p.m.
  • goats!

    September 11, 2010 at 9:31 p.m.
  • Mr. Tewes--

    Is there any way you could get us a figure on the proposed cost of the contractor? I'm curious how the rate will be determined--by the linear foot? By the square foot? By the hour? Per individual yard?

    September 11, 2010 at 8:02 p.m.
  • I can understand inforcing a law in 1969 for low taxes....But it is 2010 and we pay taxes out the wazoo now. They have enough OF OUR MONEY build a road (loop) then a few years later begin working on it again. So they have enough of OUR MONEY to mow property around Victoria that belongs to the city! I agree..... use inmates. That is the best solution out there. let them earn the food that our taxes feed them and the electricity that our taxes pay for.... We pay property taxes, we take care of our property. You need to take care of your own property.

    September 11, 2010 at 7:44 p.m.
  • a little diesel goes a loooooooooong way

    September 11, 2010 at 7:43 p.m.
  • If I was a homeowner being affected by this, I'd dig out my deed papers and seeing who's responsible for maintaining the ROW and/or if the ROW is even within my property line.
    Also, make a trip down to the Courthouse and pull out a copy of the subdivision plat and look at the boundries.

    I still want to know why the practice of using County Jail Inmates is not being used. Does anyone know???

    September 11, 2010 at 7:26 p.m.
  • Personally, I don't see it as legal or ethical. If the land was still as it was in 1969, then maybe. Since the country has deepened the ditches, making it hazardous to mow, then it should fall on the city or county.
    If someone got hurt doing something the city is making them do even if it is dangerous, then the city is responsible for injury or death.
    The city cannot have it both ways.

    September 11, 2010 at 5:47 p.m.
  • For the most part, mowing the grass between the fence and sidewalk, although a pain is not that bad. The person quoted in the article is talking about being forced to mow a ditch on guy grant.

    In not only the city but in the county, city and county crews have deepened the ditches which makes the sides steeper to help with drainage. A person cannot use a lawnmower on a 45° angle or more on some ditches I have seen, they would have to be cut using a weed eater.

    Kill all the grass in a ditch? That would probably get you a fine to, grass is needed in ditches to control erosion.

    We all know Victoria is immune from the downturn in the economy, I heard that on channel 15.

    September 11, 2010 at 5:06 p.m.
  • Barry..."I for one am glad to see the city forcing property owners into keeping their property mowed."

    Uhhh, Barry, it's NOT their property. It's property that the city says they should mow but it doesn't belong to them. This is wrong. Property owners are responsible for maintaining their own property but should not be required to pay for the gas and go to the considerable effort to mow city owned right-of-way. Did you notice in the story that the fences were erected ON the property line thereby leaving the city property open? I think the suggestion of Mzmizer of using county inmates to cut the grass and weeds is the best solution. Failing that, spray Round-up. As in most areas of life these days, government is wrong.

    September 11, 2010 at 4:22 p.m.
  • Beakus: "What a mess. For 41 years we have a law on the books that seems very few property owners were aware of, and if so it seemed not to be a problem or enforced."

    Just because code enforcement officers have neglected their duty over the years...doesn't mean the law should not be followed. I for one am glad to see the city forcing property owners into keeping their property mowed. If they don't want to, or can't do it...sell the property! The city also needs to aggressively enforce graffiti abatement and removal. This city is quite unkempt.

    September 11, 2010 at 3:57 p.m.
  • Some Roundup would work wonders. No more grass to think about for awhile.

    September 11, 2010 at 3:55 p.m.
  • Not great solution but how about just spraying the unseen area with weed and grass killer. No grass to mow that way. I know it will look bad but if the city doesnt care, why should you. And it will be cheaper so that should make the city proud.

    September 11, 2010 at 3:51 p.m.
  • What a mess. For 41 years we have a law on the books that seems very few property owners were aware of, and if so it seemed not to be a problem or enforced. Now we have hundreds of landowners who are expected to keep an area of grass/weeds from 3 to several feet wide mowed that is behind a privacy fence and will require most to transport a mower several blocks to reach this isolated area. Good luck. We will probably have better results by these neighbors getting together and having volunteers to periodically mow a long stretch all at one time.

    September 11, 2010 at 3:12 p.m.
  • Why doesn't the City get the inmates from the County Jail to do this. It's a win-win for everyone.

    Back when Ratcliff was Sheriff, you always saw inmates mowing and weedeating all over town. They even helped with the Courthouse restoration. With O'Connor you never see this.
    Why is this??

    September 11, 2010 at 2:51 p.m.
  • First they take the land and I can't use it. Now they want to charge me for not using the land. What does the code say about dirt? If there is no grass or weeds will they still charge the landowner? First bill turns it into a sandbox.

    September 11, 2010 at 2:30 p.m.
  • First of all this is 2010 and this ordinance was createde in 1969. And lately cause the city is short due to money so they say, they will force home owners to do there job after we pay our taxes. Fixing to go up on our taxes to fix up things on the curb that I already haul off myself but will have to pay anyways. between going on taxes us paying our taxes yearly that should even it out so they are paid to do there job duty. Why wait untill 2010 to enforce a 1969 law. Then this man is physically not capable of doing this but the city is so called going to enforce him to do it anyways. City of Victoria Grow up. Just because this happens dosent make yall no better. The county and state has to pay private contactors to mow bigger areas you dont see them crying hardly. Grow up Victoria City Hall.

    September 11, 2010 at 2:29 p.m.