England's tendency to accentuate surroundings (streets, storefronts, lawns, balconies) with plants and flowers lends a natural beauty, grace, and charm to cities -- as though a piece of the countryside were still a part of them. If people in L.A. find that they can afford to do the same, why should they not? For some it will seem like a waste of money, but let the facts tell the story: those who will protest are the same who are likely to offend in less tasteful ways. As for sticking to native plants -- I believe it is a novel idea. There is something to be said for sticking to nature's plan: if cacti are what are most natural, then let us plant cacti. This may be the highest wisdom to prevail in these discussions. For those who wish to surround themselves with fauna and flora of a different climate, there is this advice: move to such a climate. Otherwise, deal with the...

We should promote a naturalizing process of Californian surroundings -- let the desert come back to the area: such a promotion could kill two birds with one stone: at the same time it reduces water usage, it could also serve to beautify the land in a naturalistic way -- a return to pre-Industrialization -- a return to native flora that reminds us of what California is truly like.
In conclusion, to effect a beautiful and aesthetically pleasing California should be one goal; but reducing water usage should be another: therefore, let us achieve both ends by restoring our surroundings to a naturalistic beauty with native plants that do not require what the climate itself cannot deliver: we will save water, and stay naturally beautiful.