I am new to Southern California, and so the drought resistant landscaping is not as familiar to me. I recently purchased a house in a new subdivision which has installed what they label as "natural landscaping" throughout the common areas. There are some very nice areas with certain drought resistant plants and trees which seem to be very complimentary to the neighborhood. Yet there are other sections where they have planted natural grasses where the developer has done little to nothing in terms of keeping them trimmed and mowed. The result is that we now have numerous areas where those grasses have grown quite thick, and are now in fact up to waist high. These areas to me frankly look like overgrown weeds, and that the developer is trying to save a few dollars on the landscaping by hiding behind this mantra of "natural landscaping." I fully understand and support the need for drought resistant, but I still feel that areas that in prior years would have been lush landscaping should still be manicured, not simply left to grow as they would in a deserted area. I worry about more than just the unkempt look, but also about fire dangers and the danger of snakes/coyotes now having easy areas to be hidden, which is troublesome since I have a 4 year old and adventurous little dog. Does anyone have advice on how the proper balance can be struck -drought resistant yet still appealing and well maintained? Every time it's been brought up, we get berated for trying to make drought resistant look like the "wasteful" landscaping so many other neighborhoods still maintain.