Going Nuclear Option on Neighbors

Neighbors breaking the law, plain and simple. 

If all the good ol boys had an issue, they could have prevented it from going into effect. As it seems, this did not occur. The trashmongers can clean up or move on.

“We live in a society”

Really, I’m appalled by the folks calling OP a dick. Dudes trying to find the least obtrusive way to enforce the laws in his neighborhood, ffs. Kudos for that - I’d go full shiny happy person because the neighbor certainly has. 

Justjim75 said:

 

He did say the house with the junk was a rental owned by an elderly gentleman that made sure it was kept up, read the thread.

I did read, someone asked him was it like that when he moved in, his reply was "Sorta. Mister Junkyard had just recently acquired his property through inheritance, and his property was mostly clear. In the two years we've been here he's gone from 80% of his property being clear to about...30%. and "We also bought the place in winter, when snow covered up the majority of his junk."

So no idea why you think there was an elderly guy there, with a well kept house when he moved in. Maybe you are thinking of the photo he posted that was a year before he moved in?

The LAW is on his side, he didnt make the law, lobby for the law, or petition for the law.  While he may have supported it, he didnt just make up rules all by himself after he moved in.

Correct, but moving to a place then changing the law to get your way, is a lousy move.

And where did you get the idea he is harassing anyone?  He came to us to find a solution WITHOUT harassing anybody, looking for a way to NOT upset his neighbors.   Thus the title.

The title of "going nuclear option on neighbors"  suggests non harrassment to you? Going nuclear is calm?

Again, if he goes this route, I hope his vehicles are legal, his shed is legal, etc. He wants to put his house up for sale, Don't be surprised if the guy across the street hassles potential buyers when they show up, just to screw with him, I've seen it happen.

mtn said:

bobzilla said:

ProDarwin said:

bobzilla said:

dculberson said:

It's not a dick move to move in next to a race track and expect them to operate legally.

No that's pretty much the definition of a dick move. 

This is a joke, right?

To move in next to a racetrack and then complain about the noise? No, that is very much the definition of a dick move. Only thing that really tops that is parking in a handicapped spot blocking two spaces without a tag. 

Now you're changing it. 

We're not saying move next to a racetrack and complain about the noise. We're saying "expect them to operate legally". It is a dick move to expect people to operate legally? Then where is the line after illegal but before dick move? After noise violations? After theft? After murder? 

 

What if I were to go up and down your street between 3 and 5 AM with an uncorked rotary at WOT? Perfectly legal, assuming I'm under the noise limits. Is that not a dick move? I fail to see the difference. 

Actually, you moved the goalposts long before that. But you go on with your bad self. I'm done here. Some of you are just wanting to argue for the sake of arguing. Creating strawmen and moving goalposts to suit your needs is idiotic. 

Secondly no one is calling Pheller a dick. We're saying that moving in to a questionable neighborhood then fighting to change the rules AFTER is a dick move. I'm sure he had the best intentions, but to those it affects it's very much a dick move. 

bobzilla said:

mtn said:

bobzilla said:

ProDarwin said:

bobzilla said:

dculberson said:

It's not a dick move to move in next to a race track and expect them to operate legally.

No that's pretty much the definition of a dick move. 

This is a joke, right?

To move in next to a racetrack and then complain about the noise? No, that is very much the definition of a dick move. Only thing that really tops that is parking in a handicapped spot blocking two spaces without a tag. 

Now you're changing it. 

We're not saying move next to a racetrack and complain about the noise. We're saying "expect them to operate legally". It is a dick move to expect people to operate legally? Then where is the line after illegal but before dick move? After noise violations? After theft? After murder? 

 

What if I were to go up and down your street between 3 and 5 AM with an uncorked rotary at WOT? Perfectly legal, assuming I'm under the noise limits. Is that not a dick move? I fail to see the difference. 

Actually, you moved the goalposts long before that. But you go on with your bad self. I'm done here. Some of you are just wanting to argue for the sake of arguing. Creating strawmen and moving goalposts to suit your needs is idiotic. 

Secondly no one is calling Pheller a dick. We're saying that moving in to a questionable neighborhood then fighting to change the rules AFTER is a dick move. I'm sure he had the best intentions, but to those it affects it's very much a dick move. 

I won't say what I'm thinking here. 

I never moved a goalpost, except for a hypothetical. Which is the exact same thing you did.

In reply to mtn :

the original comment was "moved in next to a racetrack and then complaining that it does racetrack things". It was changed to fit a strawman argument by dculberson (suprise) to "move to a racetrack and expect them to operate legally". Goalpost moved. I stayed with the ORIGINAL comment and that is what I commented to reflect. Plenty of cases of racetracks operating legally and people moving in bitching about them. THIS is what is equivalent in this case. The neighborhood was not pretty to start with. They moved in, then changed the rules because they didn't like it. 

Anything past that is outside of the comment I'm trying to make. Changing the wording of an original comment to suit your argument is moving the goalposts. Making it an idiotic statement like "make them operate legally" is a strawman. 

Done with this. Don't like a neighborhood, don't move there. Live and let live and move on. The country is large enough for all of us. 

In reply to bobzilla :

Don't paraphrase me and make it sound like I said what you imagine I said. What I actually said: "the race track continually exceeds the legal noise limit that is in place." You put your spin on it, making it sound worse - imagine that. Please do be done if you can't keep it reasonable.

Don't like following the laws, live where there aren't any. I hear Somalia is a nice place.

Pheller did not change the laws, and only a willfully ignorant person would act like he did.

In reply to dculberson :

the same spin you did. Surprise. 

From the opening post: "We recently inacted a Property Maintenance Ordinance ". Now, I know english isn't everyone's first language but I have always been taught that "We" includes the person using is. No? So, one would be correct in assuming that if someone uses "we" they also mean themselves. So this wasn't some outside boogie man. But I'm sure you'll spin your way out of that one too. Then tell me to live in Somalia again. 

I think this thread amply illustrates how sensitive this subject is, as well as the likelyhood of feuds developing and ruining everyone's happiness.

bobzilla said:

In reply to dculberson :

the same spin you did. Surprise. 

From the opening post: "We recently inacted a Property Maintenance Ordinance ". Now, I know english isn't everyone's first language but I have always been taught that "We" includes the person using is. No? So, one would be correct in assuming that if someone uses "we" they also mean themselves. So this wasn't some outside boogie man. But I'm sure you'll spin your way out of that one too. Then tell me to live in Somalia again. 

Seriously, just drop it. You're obviously worked up and are not making the good points you think you are.

Tell me again how "the race track continually exceeds the legal noise limit that is in place" is equivalent to "moved in next to a racetrack and then complaining that it does racetrack things."  Ignore the things you say wrong and deflect. A continual pattern when you're upset.

"We" can include all the citizenry when discussing a law. If I am talking about something that happened in my community, I will use "we" to refer to the whole community, yes including me, even if I was not actively involved in it. Again only a willfully ignorant person would "misunderstand" it as otherwise.

Thank you, Mr. Culberson. 

I break laws pretty often,  so now it sounds like I need to move to Somalia.  

I think a big part of this comes from the probability that a lot of us, in effort to persue "grassroots motorsports" and the $2k Challenge have junk cars, car parts, wheels, tires, etc on our property, and have been the guy with the junk.  Ive been in but one Challenge so far and at one point had 7 cars, only 4 of which met the legal standard of registered, insured and operational.  So i see both sides, but when someone comes to us for advice  BEFORE he "makes a dick move" i think people should help or shove off.  I like yall, we share an interest in cars, but i disagree on politics and religion with a lot of you, but i dont go and tell people "not wanting me to have my guns is a dick move"

If you dont have constructive advice (i got caught up in the arguing too, my mistake) i think you should refrain from comment.  Try  "If it was junky when you moved in, leave them alone" or "if the law is on your side and you dont mind risking the relationship with your neighbor, file the complaint " Or maybe "team up with the folks that feel like you and go to code enforcement as a group"

Again, Pheller, i am glad to file a complaint as a potential buyer.  

dculberson said:

bobzilla said:

In reply to dculberson :

the same spin you did. Surprise. 

From the opening post: "We recently inacted a Property Maintenance Ordinance ". Now, I know english isn't everyone's first language but I have always been taught that "We" includes the person using is. No? So, one would be correct in assuming that if someone uses "we" they also mean themselves. So this wasn't some outside boogie man. But I'm sure you'll spin your way out of that one too. Then tell me to live in Somalia again. 

Seriously, just drop it. You're obviously worked up and are not making the good points you think you are.

Tell me again how "the race track continually exceeds the legal noise limit that is in place" is equivalent to "moved in next to a racetrack and then complaining that it does racetrack things."  Ignore the things you say wrong and deflect. A continual pattern when you're upset.

"We" can include all the citizenry when discussing a law. If I am talking about something that happened in my community, I will use "we" to refer to the whole community, yes including me, even if I was not actively involved in it. Again only a willfully ignorant person would "misunderstand" it as otherwise.

If you move next to a racetrack that has no noise ordinance when you moved in, then push (or even just support) passing one, then use said ordinance to say the racetrack is not being a good neighbor, that is a dick move.

If the ordinance was already in place and you just expect it to be enforced, that is different. From the original posters own words, that is not what happened.  He (and others) moved to a rough neighborhood, changed the zoning, and now complain the neighborhood is rough, based on that change. That is pretty lousy.

RevRico has chickens (as do I) and they are legally allowed.  If a neighbor moves in, gets zoning changed to not allow chickens, then complains about them, is he not a dick?

In reply to Justjim75 :

A lot of us were saying "it was junky when you moved in, leave it alone" but some people wanted to make up a scenario where it was fine until some "elderly neighbor" died after he moved in and the new guy went nuts.

That is the difference, it was already a E36 M3 neighborhood, it's not one house on the street

If that is the case, I believe almost every ordinance is the result of a 'dick move'. 

ProDarwin said:

If that is the case, I believe almost every ordinance is the result of a 'dick move'. 

This I would agree with. 

Toyman01 said:

ProDarwin said:

If that is the case, I believe almost every ordinance is the result of a 'dick move'. 

This I would agree with. 

 

I don't agree.  I think many are necessary.  I see no issue with wanting people to abide by existing ones that were in place when they moved in. If you want a racetrack to obey the hours/noise rules that were then when you moved in, that makes sense.  Changing the acceptable hours/noise rules afterwards with the intent of "improving the neighborhood" is the issue.

In reply to Steve_Jones :

At some point, all ordinances were passed and enforced on a lot of people that didn't want them. Just because the majority wanted them passed doesn't mean it wasn't a dick move. 

I can tell you that the local speedway was put out of business by the neighborhoods that were built around it. The cows and corn never complained about the noise. Over the last 50 years, the fields were filled with houses and the people that bought them didn't like the noise. They passed sound ordnances that pretty much shut down the Saturday night race events and the track closed, just like they wanted it to. It's a common story across the country. Any way you look at it, it's a dick move. 

Expecting laws to stay the same forever is not reasonable. Laws change, and sometimes those changed laws affect people that are already living somewhere. I could come up with dozens of examples from mundane to enormous. It doesn't make it unreasonable. Nice of you to know what "the issue" is. To me, "the issue" is people that seem to want to live like animals.

RevRico has a problem with a neighbor with roosters, and rails against him and threatens to kill the roosters. Then also says, people should be able to do whatever the hell they want on their own property. Which is it? Because the two are not compatible.

In reply to Toyman01 :

You used the same example I gave, back to me.  Like I said, changing the rules after you move in, is where I have an issue. We both used the example of shutting down a racetrack with new noise ordinances, we are on the same side here.....

I don't get too worked up because I don't expect my neighbors do do anything they don't want to. I will ask, I will work with, I will help, but at some point it's their house and property and they can do what they want.

When they try to force something on me, it usually bites them in the ass. The last one was a call about SanFord stating it had to be removed from the property because it wasn't operational and it was a commercial vehicle. At the time it was in the backyard on the driveway and out of sight, unless you were looking for something to complain about. Unfortunately for them, it was registered as a RV and operational, just 4 shades of primer. It was also insured and plated. So I moved it from the back driveway to the front driveway and left it there for a couple of weeks. When code enforcement stopped by, all the papers were in order and he couldn't do a thing. He did have a bit of a E36 M3 eating grin on his face as he climbed back in the car. Just because I don't agree with the laws doesn't mean I don't follow them. I will use them to punish the ass holes though. The busybodies don't berkeley with me too much anymore. 

My last house was getting into the ridiculous realm of control, which is why I moved. When this area turns into the same, I'll move again. The good news is most people will pay extra to buy a house somewhere people will tell them how to live. They eat that crap up. I made a killing on the last house, over $200K. This one has already appreciated about $65K in the last 8 years. 

The next stop will be in the middle of 400 acres. At that point, everyone can kiss my ass. 

hey guys, check it out.   people are arguing on the internet and no one is changing their position.

dculberson said:

Expecting laws to stay the same forever is not reasonable. Laws change, and sometimes those changed laws affect people that are already living somewhere. I could come up with dozens of examples from mundane to enormous. It doesn't make it unreasonable. Nice of you to know what "the issue" is. To me, "the issue" is people that seem to want to live like animals.

RevRico has a problem with a neighbor with roosters, and rails against him and threatens to kill the roosters. Then also says, people should be able to do whatever the hell they want on their own property. Which is it? Because the two are not compatible.

In the case of the roosters there's a noise issue that actually affects RevRico.  In the case of a junk car unless it is actually leaking something that affects the neighborhood it is only affecting people who choose to look at it and get offended. 

I personally think that a yard full of faded plastic child toys is way worse to look at than a car, but I am clearly in the minority there. Would anyone argue that trying to ban playschool stuff wasn't a dick move?

Changing the law to put a personal aesthetic ahead of someone else's property right is the dick move here.  Functionally it's the same as deciding you like blue houses and then making everyone else paint their houses. 

In the OPs case the damage is done and the rules have been changed already regardless of which side of the change he was on. The question now is to push enforcement or not, and in my opinion if you are going to push you have to jump in with both feet or not at all.  Square away yourself, maybe making sure everyone sees you doing it, then push hard against the whole neighborhood. It's a hard line to walk, but the only way to do it and survive is to be transparent and consistent because any slip will destroy the credibility you will need. 

Justjim75 said:

I think a big part of this comes from the probability that a lot of us, in effort to persue "grassroots motorsports" and the $2k Challenge have junk cars, car parts, wheels, tires, etc on our property, and have been the guy with the junk.  Ive been in but one Challenge so far and at one point had 7 cars, only 4 of which met the legal standard of registered, insured and operational.  So i see both sides, but when someone comes to us for advice  BEFORE he "makes a dick move" i think people should help or shove off.  I like yall, we share an interest in cars, but i disagree on politics and religion with a lot of you, but i dont go and tell people "not wanting me to have my guns is a dick move"

If you dont have constructive advice (i got caught up in the arguing too, my mistake) i think you should refrain from comment.  Try  "If it was junky when you moved in, leave them alone" or "if the law is on your side and you dont mind risking the relationship with your neighbor, file the complaint " Or maybe "team up with the folks that feel like you and go to code enforcement as a group"

Again, Pheller, i am glad to file a complaint as a potential buyer.  

Lots of us pursue car habits without making our property look like a salvage.

All my extra junk was always in the garage, the shed behind a privacy fence, or behind said privacy fence so no one else had to see it.

I always thought I was just being considerate of my neighbors.