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.

You didn't say what exposure the front is-it will make a difference. One option that noone has mentioned yet is camellias-evergreen & flowering, but they will do better w/ a protected location. The Ackerman varieties be best in this region & I think you can see alot of them at the Natl. Arboretum? (someone please correct me if I'm wrong). I have 3 Winter's Star in my front bed, planted 2 years ago, they're kind of sprawling, but much nicer than the Japanese hollies I dug out. I also have another Winter's Star & a Snowflurry in the back, they've both made it through 2 winters, while some of the other camellias bit the dust (partly my fault, planted under pines, western exposure, w/ no protection from the wind). I have 2 weigelas, 'Wine & Roses', in the front also, they only just started to leaf out. They look like dead, twiggy lumps during the winter, I'm replacing them this year with either loropetalum or Kleims hardy gardenias.

It sounds as though you should plant whatever you want to look at, while at the same time, being mindful of what could have an impact on your yard, as far as future shade, blocking your views, re-seeding, etc.. I would certainly go for shade from the SW for her, a mix of low growing shrubs and small trees, maybe evergreen, with flowers and fruits, and fall color, that won't block views for the property lines, and things that enhance the view from both your yard and her house. I am thinking of things like magnolia species, bald cypress, beech (purple or green), a grouping of deciduous magnolias, deciduous hollies, various spring flowering understory trees and shrubs such as Juneberry, fringe tree, itea, calycanthus or redbud, the more rare species dogwoods (pagoda, gray, red- or yellow-twig), various viburnums, summer to fall flowering plants such as vitex, franklinia, stewartia, gordonia, sourwood, abelias, caryopteris, clethra, bottlebrush buckeye, woody sages, camellias, witch hazel or native azaleas, etc.. I could go on, but.... Keep in mind that someone will have to water things, whether her or you. Setting up an easy watering system of temporary drip hoses around trees (for 2-3 years) might be a time and effort saver for all concerned, as connecting a hose, or two, to the end of a run of drip hose is relatively easy, while dragging hoses from tree to tree and spot to spot is a pain! Making beds or berms, and groups of trees, which you mulch, will both pull the look together and unify the yard, and make watering issues simpler. As I am sure you have already thought of...

chazparas, I'll throw in an extra .00001% I am positive now this is an Aster. I would of never put this together myself, I have always thought that every Aster had a daisy like flower Another sort through my seed packets and I have planted Aster azureus, Aster shortii and Plains Aster (which is an annual) So now its just waiting until next year to see what happens and it is entirely possible that I have planted New York Aster which this most closely resembles but I haven't found the seed packet. I don't know how I got mixed up with the tall and short of the plants but what has happened is I got an ID 2 for 1. Over the past year I have tried to photograph and identify every plant that has bloomed in my yard, be it a native, a weed, pretty ugly whatever, I have also tried to figure out how and why it has arrived in my yard. If I have another question I know where to come and I am sure I will get another lesson, so thank you to everyone for your help. When I get everything online I will share.