Dispute Between Neighbors

[PoliticalChic]

A city councilman in Utah, Mark Easton, had a beautiful view of the east mountains, until a new neighbor purchased the lot below his house and built a new home.

The new home was 18 inches higher than the ordinances would allow, so Mark Easton, mad about his lost view, went to the city to make sure they enforced the lower roof line ordinance.

The new neighbor had to drop the roof line, at great expense.

Recently, Mark Easton called the city, and informed them that his new neighbor had installed some vents on the side of his home. Mark didn't like the look of these vents and asked the city to investigate. When they went to Mark's home to see what the vents looked like, this is what they found...

The City Council said the vents can stay since there is no ordinances referring to shutter design.

 

[hjmick]

Sadly, the neighbor, one Darren Wood, has since removed what he called "abstract art."

The dispute stemmed from more than just the roof line:

snopes.com: Middle Finger Cactus Vent Cover

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sadly, the neighbor, one Darren Wood, has since removed what he called "abstract art."

The dispute stemmed from more than just the roof line:

snopes.com: Middle Finger Cactus Vent Cover

Too bad! I think people would have paid to see that IRL! Thanks for the update.

 

[hjmick]

Sadly, the neighbor, one Darren Wood, has since removed what he called "abstract art."

The dispute stemmed from more than just the roof line:

snopes.com: Middle Finger Cactus Vent Cover

Too bad! I think people would have paid to see that IRL! Thanks for the update.

It was one of my favorite stories of the last few years. When you posted it I remembered I had Snopes-ed it a while back and saw the mention that he had removed.

I agree with you, he should have left it up. Neighbors suck.

 

[AllieBaba]

My sister lives in a beautiful home, with a wonderful view, an in-ground Olympic sized heated pool, cabana, lovely landscaping, dog kennel, 2 car garage and a car port.

So here a while back she had hired some kids from church to help with some chores around the place. She has a regular landscaper and cleaning lady but when she has projects she hires these kids and they help out. So she wanted things cleaned up around the back of the place....and these good baptist kids come into the house all kinda red faced.

My sister asked them what on earth was wrong, and they said "someone stuck something bad to your fence...we dont' want to say it...."

so completely mystified she walks back there, and there's this heavy laminated sign on the off side of the fence where some crap has sort of accumulated....some extra tires, mainly (4 maybe, not a junk pile...this is the very back of her property) and the sign says
"YOU MIGHT LIKE LOOKING AT THIS SHIT BUT WE DON'T."

Her neighbor, who had bought the crappy little house in the shadow of her big expensive house, was pissed off because his view was the back of her yard, where she stored things. He apparently thought she should maintain a view for his ass, too.

Anyway, my sister went to his house with the kids and very politely asked him if it was his sign and he was absolutely MORTIFIED. She asked why he didn't come to speak to her, that she would have certainly have done something previously if she had known it was a problem...

He wrote her a letter of apology..and she's building a better fence and not even asking that he pay half, as he should have to. She doesn't even have to do that, but because she's a good person...

Anyway. This thread brought it all back.

 

[Blondie]

I understand how people get passionate about bad neighbors and how there could be more to this dispute. However, a roofline obstructing a view like that, against ordinances, is simply wrong. First of all, it is not fair and what if another person moved in and obstructed the view of the neighbor in question? He would not like it and you could bet the farm on it. The ordinances are put in place to protect the residents. You saw that view and a pretty penny had to be paid for that view. If he simply ignored the situation, then his property view would have diminished as well as his happiness. He bought the home for the view.

When my husband and I were looking to build a home we went to great lengths to make sure common ground behind us (woods) was not private property because as educated consumers we realize that private property can be sold and then our view would be gone. We had two properties that we let go because they were owned by private citizens. since then, one of those properties now overlooks a new subdivision! Mark Easton had every right to do this, regardless of other issues. I cannot believe that the neighbor was allowed to start building that roof and Easton stood by and waited for it to be finished. That is probably not the case and we all know it. The neighbor simply disregarded the ordinance and he had a price to pay. isn't it nice that he could afford that nice of a home in this economy? He must be an educated man - or woman. He was wrong. Period. Easton should not have to pay the price for either his ignorance or trying to get away with it. The builders are probably the ones at fault anyway. they should have had permits, etc. I am sure the neighbor did not foot that entire bill!

Also, the finger was inappropriate and petty. In a way, it was an intrusive because it has universal meaning and its message cannot be construed as anything but what it meant. Freedom of speech applies, though. i am glad he did the right thing but you can bet it was partly due to the fact that property value would diminish as a result. Who would buy that home with that tasteless expression of speech? i would not. That was part of the reason, I am sure. He had to take it down before the brick work was done. He was simply making a point - but he was the one in the wrong. Not Easton. The moral of this story is to get good contractors who know the ordinances.