Here's my take on the agricultural sulphur/ferrous sulphate and iron chelate. Agricultural or elemental sulphur will provide more acidifying power per pound of material applied, however the soil microbes have to convert it from the sulphur form to oxides of sulphur, which can then act to acidify the soil. It takes time for the acidification to work and it will occur over a period of time, you have to get the sulphur into the ground for the microbes to attack, and the effect will be a bit longer acting. The larger the sulphur particles you spread, the slower the process. Elemental sulphur is relatively cheap so is often used agriculturally. We generally use sulphur strictly as a fertilizer to replace what the crops are removing from the soil, being leached away, or tied up into mineralized compounds, plus it is relatively low volume. As a fertilizer, we often apply it at 30 lbs/acre. Another option is to use gypsum, calcium sulphate, which is commonly used to treat highly alkaline/saline soils as it is quite cheap, acidifying, and provides additional calcium. (In moister climates where soils are more acidic, they do the opposite, applying lime -- calcium carbonate-- to raise the pH). When applying gypsum, we would apply it on the order of 1000-2000 lbs/acre or more. With ferrous sulphate, you have moved up a step in cost but you are providing sulphate ions (or is it anions?) that will provide the acidifying effect, and because it is already converted to a soluble and ionic form, it will work quite quickly. At the same time, you are providing free iron that the plants can take up and the acidifying effect of the sulphate slows the process of tying the iron up in the soil. Many soils, particularly in alkaline areas, have plenty of iron, but it is tied up in the soil and unavailable to plants, and that is the situation here. We have a lot of red soils, the red coming from oxidized iron (rust). There is no deficiency of iron but it is mineralized and unavailable. Combine that with a pH of around 8 or higher and there are a lot of plants that will die of iron deficiency. Conifers, golden willows (lost a row of them in the cemetery to that, and nearly lost the spruce trees), petunias, raspberries, and even kentucky blue grass where the lawn is only sprinkler irrigated, for example. With iron chelate, you have a form of iron that is more available to plants, however it is relatively much more expensive. The chelate can be absorbed into the leaves if used as a foliar spray, though too strong a solution will burn. Because it can be pretty well directly absorbed by the plants, it can have an almost immediate effect on new growth. I've seen it recommended to water the ground with the iron chelate, but I think it tends to get tied up in the alkaline soil fairly quickly (I think the chelate breaks down fairly quickly, then the high pH ties up the iron again, and you need large quantities which become quite expensive. I had always had recommendations from the extension service to use iron chelate for iron deficiency, but later I was advised to use the ferrous sulphate by a professor for the combined free iron/acidifying properties. When I used the iron chelate, I never had much in the way of results unless I sprayed weekly at least, and that just doesn't happen with me. With the ferrous sulphate, I could spread it once and see lasting effects for anywhere from the remainder of the summer to several years. Part of my lawn is watered with a sprinkler using well water which is very high in lime. Gradually it turns yellow and thin with iron chlorosis. Fertilizing with nitrogen had no effect. Add some ferrous sulphate and in a week it was turning green, growing like it was badly overfertilized, and the stand thickens up. One year my supplier stopped carrying the ferrous sulphate but had ferrous gluconate and said it was much easier to use and worked the same--so I wondered but tried it. Think I still have most of the bag. It showed no effect on the plants, smelled like molasses and had no irritating dust so I found a new supplier for the ferrous sulphate (I'm not going to apply it if I don't get results). I don't fully remember my chemistry from school, acids/bases, oxidizers/reducers, strong vs. weak acids & bases & the chemical reactions that take place when these chemicals are placed in solution and I'm sure there are those out there that can more than adequately cover the subject (not that I'd want to learn it all over again, though!) I mainly try to cover some of the principles and describe what has worked from experience. Plus, I've never tried to grow blueberries as trying to provide an acid environment in my soil seems like too high a maintenance. Overall, what is being dealt with here is that in drier climates, the soils tend to have a large reservoir of lime and an alkaline pH. Acid loving plants may not need acid to live, however they consume quantities of minerals which are mineralized and unavailable at high pH, but become readily available at lower pH and blueberries have adapted to soils where these minerals are readily available. Trying to lower the pH of the soil to create an acid one suitable for blueberries is very hard, because to make the soil acid you have to essentially eliminate the alkaline lime in the soil, and it will take tons of amendments to do that. To compensate, you remove the soil, replace it with organic matter which is naturally acidic, then work to counteract the ongoing process of your climate and geology from turning the new acidic, organic soil back into an alkaline, mineralized soil and add a few of the more important nutrients the plants need so that they are readily available, even if the pH is a little higher than the plant desires. One last caveat--in acidic soils, NEVER add ferrous sulphate for an iron deficiency. You don't need more acid (unless you actually want a more acidic soil). Use iron chelate or the ferrous gluconate. Sorry this is much too long, but hopefully it explains the basis of my thoughts so you can judge for yourselves what is best in your situation.

I'm with those who like the house color. It's mine, in fact. Regarding the garage doors, those are the trouble spot in the typical home. Ideally, the garage would be detached and hidden, your chauffeur would drop you off and then make the car disappear too. These days, instead of hiding garages discretely hidden behind hedges, we have big, klunky utilitarian garage doors trying to grab attention from what should be a compelling and delightful front entry. So, my recommendation is to not try to punch up the garage door in any way. THAT's not where you want people to look. Your painter had the right idea, but still went the wrong way in painting it the typical bright look-at-me white. I'd take the house color itself a shade or two two darker and paint the garage doors that color. It's so nice that you do love the front door color, which is lovely with the gray. I agree with Bronwynsmom, though, that more contrast would fix the washed-out effect you're seeing from the street. Just look to something else to add more. Flowers are ephemeral, so not so great to depend on even in the warm seasons and gone entirely in winter. How about establishing more permanent energy with a pair of large, decorative, winter-hardy pots? They could hold flowers in summer, seasonal decor in winter. Yellows-oranges-reds are across the color wheel from blue, and the complement would really make the door area pop. If that's too colorful for your tastes, you could add contrast in a quieter manner by going dark against the relatively pale colors, black, very deep green, eggplant, or...?

I had the same satisfying results yesterday as Fightingoverfinishes. Our honed Carrara counters have been in for under a month now and the Thanksgiving holiday really put the marble and my sealing efforts to the test. I deliberately did not fuss/fret or baby the stone all during prep and clean-up. I'd decided in advance that I had to accept the qualities of the stone in action; I cannot live happily in a kitchen that requires me to watch what everyone is doing or rush to wipe, swipe, cover or protect it. And ta da! The marble survived. Did I go over it with a fine tooth comb looking for etches? Not a chance. That's what I did the first couple of weeks it was in. Now I just want to enjoy it. Test a big chunk if you can get one. Seal it well and then seal it again the next day. Then play with it as the other posters have advised. Sealing it well will protect it from stains; nothing will prevent etching. I have a couple of etches already. When that happened I thought I was gonna keel over. But honest to goodness, if I didn't point them out to you, I guarantee you couldn't find them. (Etches are kind of like a shadow or clouding within the stone, but they're not ready detectable.) Only you know what you'll ultimately be happy with in your kitchen. Don't feel pressured by anyone - just make a well-informed decision.

@BT I dumped your first line into Google with quotes and the next paragraph was, "Uniquely though, this statute requiring the payment of taxes was enacted in 1927 due to a large number of squatters claiming title to land; this statute has rarely been applied to many adverse possession decisions." [emphasis mine] When looking further into precedent on how the court's have handled the law, you find a great summary of precedent and cases in Fraley vs. Minger https://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06200501bd.pdf ----- Some legal commentators expected that the adverse possession tax statute would "blow the lid off the kettle" with regard to the doctrine of adverse possession. Neu at 219. In the first twenty-four years after the adverse possession tax statute was enacted, however, this Court neither cited nor relied upon the adverse possession tax statute in seven decisions involving adverse possession. [...] During the past twenty years, however, several decisions of the Court of Appeals have construed the adverse possession tax statute as interpreted in Echterling by viewing its purpose to be that of providing notice to the legal owner and concluding that, where clear notice was otherwise provided, courts could disregard the statutory requirement for payment of taxes by the adverse claimant. In Kline v. Kramer, 179 Ind.App. 592, 600, 386 N.E.2d 982, 989 (1979) [emphasis mine] ----- So the precedent is largely to ignore the tax statute. So I say again, paying taxes is not enough to defeat an adverse possession claim or even come close to it.