Great point... disturbing the peaceful enjoyment of one's home shouldn't be so controversial, whether it is a dog barking or a child violating someone's property -- they're both disturbances that should be controlled.
bicker said:You missed my point. The issue raised by the earlier poster was how much she enjoys children playing. My point is that not everyone needs share her enjoyment, and so it isn't reasonable to expect the same level of tolerance for when such children's play "inadvertently" extends beyond their own yards.
Before you ask other people to lighten up, ask yourself if there is anything you object to that other people do, and are legally entitled to do. Perhaps you should lighten up about those things. Don't get me wrong: We all have our personal preferences, and are entitled to them, but our own personal preferences are indeed our own. They are never valid foundations for judging others.
bicker said:Great point... disturbing the peaceful enjoyment of one's home shouldn't be so controversial, whether it is a dog barking or a child violating someone's property -- they're both disturbances that should be controlled.
swilphil said:I really don't see the big deal if the ball goes into his yard every other day. It's not like you are leaving the ball there, and I imagine it's not there for more than a few seconds. From what I've read, we are talking about his land that is right next to your driveway, but his house is a distance away. It's not like your kids are playing in his yard. To be honest, it sounds like the guy just doesn't want to hear the noise your kids make when they play outside. Are your kids overly noisy? If they are, you might talk to them about being a little more quiet.
It makes sense to me that the kids play basketball in the driveway. You definitely shouldn't have to shell out money for a seperate basketball court or a new fence. If he has a problem, he should be the one to put up a fence.
Maybe your music is disturbing them!Honestly, there are some nice weather days when I have my windows open and there are so many kids out playing (we have LOTS of kids in our neighborhood) that I have to turn up my tv or my music to hear it. I guess I could be bothered my that...
Not surprising; I'm a pretty reasonable guy!I think that we actually agree more than we disagree.
Legally, no. The property owner is liable for anyone getting hurt on the property owner's property, regardless of the context. There is no equivocation. The law doesn't even allow for releasing the property owner from that liability -- not even in writing.There is a huge difference between playing in someone's yard and dashing in and out quickly to retrieve a ball that rolled 2 ft over the property line.
True, and that give needs to be on the part of the tresspasser. The law is how it is for good reason.When you share a property line with someone there has to be a little give.
bicker said:It is interesting seeing how people are split down the middle on this issue, and especially interesting in the context of the article I read yesterday on MSNBC about how boorish Americans feel that they've become. I wonder how many of the folks trying to make this old guy look like a weirdo would have done so back in the days America was more polite. Children used to be taught respect for elders, and would be contrite whenever they failed to take proper care of their balls and such and they ended up on a neighbor's property; surely the children's parents wouldn't become beligerant about how the old man responded to the children's transgression.
Regardless, I'm not sure that this change in attitude is necessarily as bad as the folks interviewed in the MSNBC article tried to make it sound. Clearly, practicality is more important than gentility, and that's basically one way of looking at how this situation is handled has changed over the years. However, I believe strongly in integrity -- it is a moral virtue AFAIC. That means, to me, that while it is okay to disagree with the old man about how much respect you feel the children should have for him and his property, it is important at least that both parents and children recognize that variance from the 1950s model is a measure of disrespect, conscious and justified, at least in one's own mind, which is good enough, as long as it is legal, since there is no universal Truth. It's just like the recently posted issue about public displays of affection. They would never have taken place in the 1950s, but they're not illegal, and in our busy world, there is a benefit to enjoying your partner whenever, wherever. Just another example of conscious and justified variance from what others would want you to do.
Planogirl said:Some people just plain don't care for children. They wouldn't want to hear them and they certainly wouldn't want them in their yard on a regular basis.
Do the man and his wife have a garden? Or pets that might get upset? You also probably have no idea what type of family lived there before you. The kids might have been candidates for Super Nanny for all you know. Have you ever spoken with the wife?
I would try to work with the fellow. You never know, sometimes kindness goes a long way with grouches.
Kitty 34 said:I haven't read this whole thread but it sure makes me glad that my neighbors are my sister on one side and my parents on the other.
Good luck.
bicker said:Maybe your music is disturbing them!![]()
There is much truth in that saying!Lisa F said:Isn't there a saying about how good fences make good neighbors?
Chattyaholic said:I've read most of the responses on this thread and it seems that most of those who are calling the man a curmugeon, or crochety, have young children so they are used to the noise. Wait until YOU are old. Maybe YOU won't tolerate it as well as you do now.
I think the OP should put up a fence so the balls stop going onto his property, and have the children play on the opposite side of the house to try and cut down on the noise.
Tigger&Belle said:dismom9761, did you look at the portable fence that I mentioned in an earlier post?