Well, you COULD eat the day lillies.... And the Rose of Sharon attracts pollinators... Any size area you have is good. You may not have all the zones that someone with a larger space would have; but you can do a lot just in zone 0 and 1. You can always go vertical to increase your usuable space. Pole beans, cukes, tomatoes; even mini canteloupe (Minnasota Midget) and the smaller icebox watermelons will grow vertically. I like the idea of the veggie and herb garden in the front yard - heck, put some strawberries in there too; and add fruit to your mix! Put a few flowers out by the street (gotta have those pollinators!) and the neighbors will never know the difference! How about a couple of espaliered fruit trees near the front of the house; or those new collonade ones like Stark Bros. has? Or grape vines if you've got a porch post or rail to train them along? I helped a friend design a very productive raised bed garden in a long, narrow area along side her garage - if you start early and use succession planting; you can really grow a lot of produce in a small space; especially if you are concentrating on fresh use produce. You can also use containers; and move them to get the most out of the sun that you have. Lots of work; but could be worth it. Another thing to look for is productivity of the stuff you grow - I really like Juliet tomatoes; a 2" long plum tomato that is incredibly prolific - and tastes good too! Grow one of them up a trellis, next to a mid size cuke; and put some onions in around their feet - then, long about late June, enjoy a tomato/onion/cuke doused in Italian dressing salad -mmm mmm! Is the book that you have "Gaia's Garden"? I really like their illustrations of keyhole gardens; and am planning a perennial flower/herb one for the area between the house and driveway. Have you read "The Self-Sufficient Surburban Gardener" by Jeff Ball? He's got lots of ideas for efficient use of space. Good luck!

I have three that have pleasantly surprised me. Knock-out roses. I purchased 2 double pinks and have been really pleased with the low maintenance requirements and ease of cultivation from these roses. They smell good to boot! The Encore azaleas. I have a couple of cultivars that have been very easy to grow and are prolific bloomers. They grow very nicely in full sun and fertile, well drained soils (make sure no alkaline soils). A third is an annual-tender perenial that I was given some seed is 4-O'clocks. These are easy to grow and self sow without taking over. There are many colors to choose from, I have a fushia color that is very pretty. If you have not tried these guys, I would suggest trying. They like full sun and do not seem to be picky about soils. I am sure that there will be more that I could name that I have had some success with but these three come to mind.

"LAVISH SPENDING IS NOT THE SAME AS PROVISION OF CLEAN, WELL MAINTAINED AND SAFE ENVIRONMENTS. SPENDING DOES NOT EQUAL RESULTS, EITHER. WHERE DID ANYONE SAY THAT THIS TYPE OF MONEY WOULD IMPROVE OUTCOMES?" I was assuming that by what you said, "It seems to me that if we concentrated dollars on the things we can control, the outcomes certainly won't be any worse and they might just get better." and what beaglesdoitbetter1 said, "What if the community doesn't care about the school and the local politicians don't focus on making sure that it is in good repair?" that curriculum and opportunity was part of what you meant. The KC "experiment" was meant to address the fact that the inner city schools were losing so many students to nearby, better performing districts, which meant less money for the inner city. To put it bluntly, they were trying to solve their white flight problem. The theory was that if they pumped enough money into the district to make it completely state of the art, then parents would be more likely to move into or stay in the district. And because they would have every available educational tool at their disposal, the students would be better educated and test score would go up. What they found was that the district wasn't failing because of lack of funds, but because of a useless school board, 10 incompetent superintendents, and the fact they made it impossible to fire terrible teachers. The district has been mismanaged for decades, has lost its accreditation twice in the past 15 years (in 2000 and in 2011) and, last I was aware, only provisional accreditation status. There was a discussion a couple of years ago about a state takeover of the district, essentially dismantling the school board, but it wasn't a popular option, because no one wanted that kind of government oversight. I am 100% for a state takeover. The district has had 30 years to be successful and has failed, and I think that having the state takeover would be a step in the right direction, since clearly nothing else has worked. The Governing article is dated Sept 2011. They didn't mention it in the article, but in 2010, 29 out of 61 schools were closed in order to save money due to low enrollment. It was a radical thing to do and people were understandably furious about it. The superintendent who did this was hired in 2009, vowed to make a change for the better, and was apparently known for turning around struggling districts. In Aug 2011, he abruptly resigned to take a job in Detroit. Sorry for the passion, but it's a serious issue and one I've been following closely. I don't have kids, or even live in the district, but a failing school district affects more than just students; it's detrimental to a city. Someone who has or wants a family is going to think twice about living in the city because of the schools, resale value on homes won't be as good as they could be because the demand isn't there. About half of my friends have children and the ones who are transplants to the area wouldn't dream of living in the city (where they'd prefer to live) because of the schools. The ones who do live in the city and are locals, do so because they went to Catholics schools and will send their kids there.

I live in Ontario, where minimum wage is $11.00 currently. That seems pretty high in comparison to in the U.S., but of course I don't know the cost of living in individual States. My daughter often watches the t.v. show 'House Hunters' as she and her husband will be looking for their first home in a year or so, and they pick up helpful hints from these shows. However, it is disappointing for her to see that a very nice house can be purchased in some cities in Texas, for say $350,000 that would cost about $750,000 where we live! So I'm wondering if the wages are also much lower, in balance with the lower cost of living? For example, here in Ontario, the average starting salary range for new elementary school teacher is approximately $37,000 to $77,000 with the median salary being $57,000 per year. The range reflects location (teachers in major cities make more than those in small rural communities) and any additional skills/certifications that are valued over and above the standard teaching certificate qualifications. DD says if elementary school teachers in Austin Texas are making similar to the median range in Ontario, they're getting an amazing bang for their buck, when it comes to being a home owner!