<p>ID - please read back again - I used the word agenda - meaning she is acting on this situation for her own interest - and nothing more than that - no sinister - no doesn’t fit in - <<<another poster - so don’t blame me.</p>
<p>I’m not blaming you Jeep, nor was I referencing YOUR comments regarding agenda or addressing you specifically when I said “some of you”. You just jumped into the hot seat all on your own. ;)</p>
<p>garland - upscale aesthetics aside, MANY people have the bulk of their life savings invested in their homes and it is a very uncomfortable feeling to watch someone beyond your control take a course of action that devalues that investment.</p>
<p>
Yup, that was meeee! I gladly take credit for that comment. I am not saying that anyone is sinister and I never said that. I AM saying that if the character of the neighborhood is upscale young families, they may not be tuned in to the concerns of elderly neighbors. </p>
<p>And it certainly sound like the first interest in Connie came with the issue of the undesirable fence, rather than over a year ago when they realized that their elderly neighbor was being harassed and vandalized. Where was everybody a year ago? 
Furthermore, why don’t they protect Connie AND themselves and address the root of the problem? Even if their real issue is the fence that devalues their property, the human solution would help everybody.</p>
<p>(Maybe the OP has left because the problem is solved to everyone’s mutual satisfaction! We can only hope!)</p>
<p>One of our association rules is that if you ask a neighbor to trim a tree hanging into your property they have 14 days to get it done or you can choose a service and have the neighbor billed!
ldmom (fogive me, I thought it was ID), isn’t the issue that if the neighbor can do what they want to do legally that you have to let it go or get the town to change its rules? </p>
<p>Neighbors do crazy things all the time. We have a house down the street painted a shade of purple that would be beautiful on a SF Victorian but looks like hell here. Lots of the old people let their gardens go. They cut down beautiful trees and do ugly remodels. That’s just life. If you are going to have heart failure over these things you need to choose acerage in the country.</p>
<p>lkf, in many areas the problem is there is a mix of elderly and young families and their interests are quite different. For example in many CA towns there are so few people with school aged kids it’s difficult to pass much needed new school taxes. </p>
<p>We watch towns being gobbled up as young families come in and tear down small older homes to replace them with homes as large as the town will allow, generally several times the size of the old home. Big swimming pools that create noise go in. Those remaining in the original homes feel engulfed. The new families consider the old homes eyesores.</p>
<p>In one town we lived in a group of well funded young families got together and ousted the town council because they were anti growth (of home size). With their new people installed McMansions went up faster than I could believe.</p>
<p>“And it certainly sound like the first interest in Connie came with the issue of the undesirable fence, rather than over a year ago when they realized that their elderly neighbor was being harassed and vandalized. Where was everybody a year ago? :/”</p>
<p>Hey…wait a minute…didn’t someone say ‘this isn’t a commune’? ;)</p>
<p>you’re excused. (Sorry couldn’t resist). </p>
<p>Okay…ahem… </p>
<p>As one of our most esteemed posters put it so well a few weeks ago…we NEVER have the privilege of knowing anything other than what is presented here by our posters. It’s fine to speculate about what we may not know, but to suggest that a poster has some sinister unspoken agenda (‘Connie doesn’t fit in so she isn’t wanted’??) is way over the line. </p>
<p>I’m not blaming you Jeep, nor was I referencing YOUR comments regarding agenda or addressing you specifically when I said “some of you”. You just jumped into the hot seat all on your own. </p>
<hr>
<p>ID - this certainly was addressed to me - there is no indication that it is addressd to any one else - your initial words are definitely directed right at me - so I take it as directly addrressed to me as I see ‘no other’ indication that is addressed to ‘other posters’.</p>
<p>SO - I am sending you back your hotseat :)</p>
<p>Okay…again. The OP has said MORE THAN ONCE, she respected the right of Connie to do as she pleases on her property…that ‘she is well within her rights’ to erect this fence. But she was disappointed because it does adversely affect the property values of homes in the neighborhood and a chain-link fence is not the most lovely thing to look at.</p>
<p>Everyone AGREES Connie is within HER rights to do what she wishes with her property. But some of you (not just you Jeep) start equivocating when the OP speaks of exercising her own rights with regards to her property.</p>
<p>In this case, this is not a new home vs. old home issue. Or a case of the elderly being disposed of… The OP was sympathetic and validated Connie’s feelings of harassment by the incorrigible neighbor kids. Unfortunately, some of you don’t feel similarly inclined to validate the OPs feelings of disappointment about 100 feet of new chain-link that will be installed alongside her home.</p>
<p>“But some of you (not just you Jeep) start equivocating when the OP speaks of exercising her own rights with regards to her property.”</p>
<p>Whoa whoa whoa, I’m confused. What happened with regards to the OPs property? You’re obviously not talking about her son pulling the survey markers, because that wasn’t her property. And the letter she wrote warning neighbor to stay off her property- that was before anything actually happened that required her to protect her property, right? Am I missing something, or has someone done something to the OPs property?</p>
<p>We sympathesized but as there’s nothing she can do about it we’ve suggested preserving good relations.</p>
<p>I live in a very autonimis (sp) area - rich live next to poor - old live next to young - very mixed neighborhoods. I personally live in a 30 year old neighborhood - not a development - but my property backs up to a much more upscale development.</p>
<p>Case scenerio - one neighbor behind us wanted to put up a fence - to contain her dogs - ok - not a bad thing - had the surveyor out- markers in and everything set to go - materials in their yard - workmen arrived - never a word to us - until we were approached and were told we had to take down a tree - it was in the way of making a straight line for the new fence - on our property!! LOL - well guess what - it was a no go on our part - neighbor attempted to do alot of what the OP is trying to do - and she quickly escalated to threats of sorts.</p>
<p>Seeing as she had the survey in her hands - and the markers were in place - she could see that we were in our legal rights to refuse - since we owned the tree - there was no question at all. She proceeded to tell the fence guys to put up the fence as they had been instructed - they refused and left - as we stood there - camera in hand LOL.</p>
<p>She then proceded to have her pals put up the fence - wrong side out - (we get the good side LOL) - attached to our tree - out came the camera… and off to town hall - they agreed that she was in the wrong - breaking the law as the town reqires a 6inch leway to the property line - and proceeded to make her a visit - with a cease and desist order - which she decided did not apply to her.</p>
<p>She ended up in front of the town - then to court - and was forced to remove the fence completely - move it out of the ‘green-space’ and to place it within 20 feet of her house to contain her dogs. All of this at no cost to us - but huge cost to this wonderful neighbor.</p>
<p>We did not argue with her at any time - we chose our battle and proceeded - well within our legal rights.</p>
<p>All this lady wants is her legal rights respected - nothing more. Choose ones battles.</p>
<p>Jeep - if you are going to resort to splicing my posts in order to justify your need to portray yourself as my victim, well I just can’t help you with that. </p>
<p>But to clarify…my post stating that I didn’t blame the OP for leaving is a followup on Jym’s post where she said she wished the OP would return.</p>
<p>My comment to you regarding the phrase ‘excuse me’ was meant to be funny. I responded to you exactly as I do with my kids when they say ‘excuuuuse me’.</p>
<p>The comment following that was regarding lk’s odd assertion that the OP was hiding from us her true feelings about Connie. Imho, it isn’t right to make negative insinuations about members of our community and many here have done that. It was a statement addressed to no one specifically.</p>
<p>Does this help you out at all Jeep?</p>
<p>UUUmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm</p>
<p>Your victim?? Don’t think so :D</p>
<p>But carry on please…</p>
<p>and PS - I am not your kiddo :)</p>
<p>doubleplay - a little kid pulled up two stakes. There was no malicious intent and truthfully, two stakes shouldn’t affect the survey. It wasn’t like the OP went out there and pulled those stakes up herself. Don’t froth the incident up into something it’s not. </p>
<p>Good for you Jeepmom - you made the lady with the fence respect your property. I hope the OP does the same. But honestly, you don’t exactly sound like a passive participant in your conflict. I mean, why didn’t you just let her have her fence attached to your tree? I’m assuming ‘out came the camera’ means you were giving as good as you got?</p>
<p>come on jeepmom - you can do it. ;)</p>
<p>Interesting that jeepmom mentions her town has a 6" within property line rule (which apparently came to light after she hauled her neighbor down to town hall over an offending fence).</p>
<p>I kinda think Connie telling her concerned neighbors she was putting a fence “2 inches” from the property line and their property could be construed as bit ‘in your face’ and unnecessarily antagonistic.</p>
<p><<<< waving white flag and ducking as I cautiously re-enter this boxing ring>>>>>
Just to clarify,doubleplay
I don’t think that letter was written yet. I think she said they were going to write it.</p>
<p>And with all due respect jeepmom, I have to laugh. Sounds like you have been exactly in the OP’s shoes and politely stood your ground (literally and figuratively) with camera in hand, and motions filed to appropriate courts…
Why are you being so hard on the OP? Again, I am not so sure this has a lot to do with the OP and her issues. If this current thread is really about being “neighborly” and “cordial”, am I the only one who is a bit confused? </p>
<p>BTW, fyi, since you put ???s, I believe the correct spelling is autonomous. (Only trying to be neighborly and helpful here.)</p>
<p>absolutely right jym. The OP and one neighbor, Don, were considering a letter which would state they did not want any footings or other part of the fence on their property and that Don did not want workers on his property. That’s it. No big group of neighbors picking on one little old lady, no letter submitted or even drafted yet, OP not requesting workers stay off her property (though I do think it’s a good idea).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes! It seems that way to me!</p>
<p>You know, I’m not happy to look at my neighbors’ pools, trampolines, pitching cages, bikes, dog toys, etc. But I remember when I had young children and I like my neighbors and their kids. They have a right to have their things in their yards. I don’t like looking at houses that need paint or weeding, but I like my elderly neighbors who can’t keep up with their homes as well as they used to (and we all help them out as needed.) Maybe these things are eyesores and devaluing our properties, but I like the people. They are more important than the stuff.</p>
<p>Heck, put up some arborvite or something if you don’t like the view.</p>