Hello RedShoe, I'm not a designer, just an amateur, but I grew up in a house built on empty prairie in the SW suburbs, so can relate to the photos and here's my 2 cents. I lived in the Western burbs for decades, and wonder if your last home was in a more built up area with established shrubs and trees. You said you just moved to this one in November - perhaps the contrast of a previous suburb with this open setting is getting to you? Although a long open side on a corner lot can make you feel like you are over-exposed, you might come to like the unconfined visual sweep of a prairie setting. My mom still likes it that way - my fenced yard gives her claustrophobia. How is your area set for access to water? Are you on wells, city water or what? This may make a difference in how close to plant your trees & shrubs, especially with such a big lot. If you can give them an adequate, regular water supply, a Norway spruce can grow pretty fast up there in Chicagoland, but if you are on tight rations, like a lot of the suburbs have been in recent years, the size increase will be much slower. Your present and future ability to keep any plantings watered has to be considered in any design. Even the native plants and drought resistant trees have to get established first before they can be left on their own. Is it possible that your designer thinks the eventual size of 'Prairie Fire' is too small for your large lot? Or does it grow in a ball instead of the more graceful spreading form? I think it's a 15 X 15 size. Maybe that's what 'urban' means. I would want a clearer reason on this one! Maybe he just doesn't like the flower color. Good luck, Annie

Lisa, Boy, do I hear you! I started canning when I lived in the city and begain growing tomatoes in the backyard. Had a big harvest and wanted to not waste it. What I didn't realize was how good it would feel to have that sense of self-reliance. I first thought of my home-canned goods a special treats, to take out on special occasions or show off for guests. But I found it easy and fun to can and before long I was canning all the tomato products we ate in a year right from my backyard garden on the streetcar line in Toronto! Most of my friends thought it was weird --- at first I had a hard time even finding the equipment (I remember a young stock boy in the grocery store looking at me with a completely blank look on his face when I asked if they sold jars; he gestured at an aisle of commercial jarred tomato sauce (DUH, lady, there are jars everywhere), and when I said, "No, I mean, EMPTY jars," he clearly thought I was insane. ;-0 ). (In the end I discovered they could order it for me easily at the local chain hardware.) Anyway, I'm warning you that you never know where it will end! Somehow I'm now living in a tiny town of 4,000, buying most of my produce in the warm months at farm stands, and filling up my pantry every fall with home canning (I got a freezer, too). This winter I started making my own sandwich bread and adding a few meals a week based around beans, which I now cook from dried rather than canned. Just like you, I find it incredibly satisfying. Some folks on this forum put up almost all their own food, raise their own meat, etc.; I'm not nearly in that category. But I feel really good looking at shelves full of food I preserved, tasting summer in the frozen goodies, and knowing that if we don't have time or energy to shop or cook one evening, there's plenty of good, homemade stuff to eat in a jar or a freezer bag. My urban friends still think I'm odd but they love getting homemade goodies as gifts. Good luck! Z P.S. jude, great illustration of the "successful sauce" theory of "failed jam" ! ;-)

"As I've said in other postings, any advisor that won't give you the names of at least 3 long-time clients to call and talk to, isn't worth considering." The problems are 1) he cherry picks clients and 2) clients have no clue what they are paying or how they are really doing. They just know they 'like' they advisor and he 'seems' to be doing great. The people I have helped all thought initially that their advisor was their dear friend that was doing wonderful things with their money. They would have given glowing recommendations. I think EF Moody said it well: "And that's the same critical problem with referrals as well- and the reason that they are so effectively used in the business. Literally every salesperson is told/taught to get referrals to friends, neighbors, relatives, co-workers, Martians, whoever, since that is a great lead in. Unfortunately, the person getting the referral believes- or wants to believe- that the agent has already been critically and thoroughly analyzed and must be of the highest caliber and competency. Invariably they do NOTHING themselves to check out whether such knowledge or ability exists- and nothing was done before. Then this happens to the next person and the next, ad infinitum, as the referrals continue. It ends up that no one did any checking on anyone at all and then they later wonder how it all went wrong. They end up buying the wrong product at the wrong risk level at the wrong time- and certainly from the wrong person. They get little or ineffectual service, etc. Now referrals may work with physicians and certain other professionals (sometimes with CPA's or attorneys- but not all the time) since they at least have a degree and other background and training. Even here, people are finally recognizing there are problems. But referrals to agents who have essentially nil background (read further) is illogical. It is for these many reasons that I feel that referrals to brokers, insurance agents, financial planners, attorneys and most other entities is a waste of time unless a comprehensive review of the individual is commenced before any product is purchased or any fee paid. And such review is NOT calling the SEC/NASD or your State offices to see if any formal arbitrations or law suits have been instituted. Only an infinitesimal number of agents have ever been sued. That still says NOTHING about competency. You need to do a LOT more to assure yourself of some reasonable competency." "That seems to set you off in a very strident manner." Because I know what a scam these people are probably in for. Unless they find an honest, knowledgable, hourly fee-ONLY planner. I would totally love to see ignorant investors finding good, honest, low-cost advice. I could then turn my attentions to all my hobbies. The fact is, these people need advisors because they are ignorant and have no confidence. Salesmen will snap them up and manipulate them and hurt them. I see this over and over and over. "But any good CFP who has been in business for 10+ years should be able to show a track record of at least 6-8% after expenses." Should, but they don't. Numbers don't lie. "Yes, it is hard to track all expenses (whether you use an advisor or not), but a rough total can be managed by diligent clients and figuring out the ROI is easy after that." First, why should a client have to hunt down elusive fees? Shouldn't a financial ADVISOR (!!!!) be telling the clients all about the fees? This alone is very telling. And I can't even track down all the fees! Fund turnover is not in the prospectus let alone the expense ratio. Take a look at this: "Mercer Bullard, president, Fund Democracy and assistant professor of law at the University of Mississippi, added: "This study demonstrates conclusively what consumer groups have argued for years: fund expense ratios are misleading. Expense ratios exclude portfolio transaction costs that on average equal 43 percent of the total expense ratio. In some cases, hidden portfolio transaction costs are five or six times the total expense ratio. Congress should act promptly to ensure that America's investors are provided with full disclosure about funds' portfolio transaction costs." Even if you find the turnover, figuring out the cost from there is a bear. Can't you see what a problem this is? "People also need to consider that many CFPs offer their clients purchases at NAV and reduced management fees on funds." From the BCT study: "Do advisors help clients find funds that are lower cost (excluding distribution costs)? After analyzing several trillion dollars worth of transactions, the answer is no." "He changed all his clients over to a fee basis " Yes, the new and improved way to get big fees from clients. This is usually more expensive than loads for the client in the long run. Fee basis means he can get commissions (probably from 12b-1 fees) and a percent of the client's assets. That percent of assets gets subtracted from the client's investments year after year after year after year. Never to compound. And for what? "But I don't make the mistake of thinking that everyone enjoys doing this type of thing;" They don't have to. They can buy a target retirement date fund (very low expense ratio, no load, no percent of asset fee, no 12b-1 fee, index funds, automatically rebalanced) or have a salaried Vanguard planner do it (often at no cost) or hire a fee-ONLY planner by the hour to set up a simple portfolio. I am saving amazing amounts of money and spend less that 8 hours a year on my investments. Had I been better able to dig through the industry BS when I first started, I would have been able to set up a great portfolio in a weekend. "In the end, all we are doing here is trading opinions. " Hard numbers are not opinions. This is not an opinion: "the BCT study found that the raw returns of equally weighted mutual funds (net of all expenses) for 1996 to 2002 were 6.626% for the investors working on their own and were 2.924% for funds provided by advisors." I know that I'm passionate about this. It's because I have looked at enough evidence over the years to reach certainty. And, I have seen so many people that have lost years of retirement to fees they were never told about by their trusted financial ADVISOR. Maybe it's just my opinion, but I think that if someone pays for a service he should get a value from that service - not badly hurt. And the worst is that all those clients initially defended their broker like crazy. It was only after I took them out to Morningstar and showed them reality that they started realizing what was being done to them.

"Get references for an energy rater and make sure that they are trained." ditto I am reading in other forums of 'free' or minimal cost energy audits. if the sole purpose of the audit is to sell the fix up package and leakage is defined simply as equivelent to 3x5 hole in wall it isn't showing you where the leakage is located. Ideally have the audit done by an independent company that tests before and shows you leakage sites with recomendations as to how to seal them..and tests once sealing has been completed. This way the auditors loyality is to the consumer..not the company doing the repairs. caulking seals a lot of leakage and is flexible enough to provide a long lasting seal. mastics for ductwork and hvac related leakage will provide a long lasting seal for hvac. knowing where the leaks are and how to seal them is the true goal of an energy audit..imo & experience. foam insulation provides air sealing and insulation in one. sealing the leakage and conventional insulation is the equal if enough of the air sealing is done. this takes time and materials.. first you want an air barrier..then insulation. recessed lights that are not ICAT (insulation contact air tight) oversized cuts at bath fans, stove vents are large leakage sites. cuts in ceiling where supply boxes are installed should be mastic sealed as should return air and all duct connections,and plenum connections. sealing these (and other leakage sites) will improve your air barrier to the attic.. if you install cellulose keep in mind that the 'dust' from the newspaper & borates is very fine and can enter the living space and duct system. this is recirculated throughour the house. any gap from attic to living space will allow these particles to enter the house, as will leaks at supply boxes, r/a and plenums. one place to find energy rates is natresnet.org best of luck.