Good fences — with apologies to poet Robert Frost — don’t always make good neighbors.

A group of residents with children and grandchildren in Lancaster’s Whispering Pines subdivision are up in arms over a neighbor’s new stockade fence.

They say that it is unsafe because it blocks some neighborhood views of a 15-foot-deep retention pond with steep, slippery banks that never completely freezes in winter.

The fence owner, Michael Winiewicz, says that the Town of Lancaster approved the permit to build the 6-foot stockade encircling his backyard and that he and his wife are entitled to their privacy.

For the rest of the article:

Dispute over fence divides neighbors in Lancaster subdivision : Eastern Suburbs : The Buffalo News

Since Skerlnik and certain others seem to think they should be allowed to dictate what someone else does on their own property (Are most people opposed to merit?), I thought I'd post this article to show the utter ridiculousness of their position!

The parents need to get off their lazy backsides and actually go outside to supervise their young children!

This kind of nonsense is one of the reasons I detest subdivisions.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

Not at all. Again, you take my basic position to an illogical extreme.

Seeing as this fence is within permit tolerances, I'm totally cool with it. In fact, 6-foot property-line fences are completely allowable here. (Anything over 6' is classified as a structure, and subject to some setbacks, but is still usually buildable.....)

The only thing I dislike is the idea that one can do whatever, with absolutely no restrictions at all.

__________________
"Oh, bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...

There's no problem with this.

__________________
"Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states...Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds."



~Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

I don't think it's a safety issue. It sounds like some residents are upset that it cuts off their view of an attractive water feature and they're citing safety as a more valid legal excuse to have the fence removed. But the owners have the right to a privacy fence. They did it by the books and it's a shame that their neighbors may cause them to incur legal costs. I hope the people who erected the fence win and the neighbors have to reimburse them for any legal costs incurred as a result of this dispute.

It's also not right that all of the neighbors whose property adjoins the pond are legally liable for any accidents involving the pond. I've never agreed with laws that allow a trespasser to sue a landowner if the trespasser gets hurt on someone else's land. This law was obviously designed by lawyers to give them more business, and it's not right.

__________________


"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty." Thomas Jefferson

Walter Mondale: "George Bush doesn't have the manhood to apologize." George Bush: "Well, on the manhood thing, I'll put mine up against his any time."

The family's neighbors are up in arms over it. Heaven forbid that the neighbors should have to actually go outside to supervise their children!

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

Of course it's not a safety issue! The neighbors are just using that as their excuse because they don't want to come right out and say "We're too lazy to actually go outside and supervise our children and we don't want someone's fence obstructing our view of the pond."

Welcome to America: the land of the trial lawyer. It seems to me that a particular landowner should be liable only if the accident occurred on or from his particular piece of land that touches the pond - and even then only if he or his family caused it.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

Well, the law deals with negligence, not just getting hurt for trespassing. Negligence on behalf of the owners of the property is irrelevant to the fact that someone was breaking the law, given anyone, even invited, could have suffered from the same negligence.

That's why there are negligence laws. Entirely separate thing.

A trespasser shouldn't be able to sue for getting hurt unless he got hurt through negligence of the owner. The suit result is a punishment for negligent behaviour. They both should be punished. Take money from A to give to B, and then take it from each in fines.

__________________

Tell that to the judges and juries that awarded damages to people who were injured on someone else's property while they were in the process of committing a crime (burglary) on that property.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

Which is entirely valid, given that the injury was the product of negligence on behalf of the owner. IT doesn't matter how the injury occurred outside of it being negligence.

But it ultimately ought to be taken away as a fine.

Negligence is negligence.

__________________

Sometimes people have **** to do. Obviously you have never had children. It isn't possible to keep an eye on us literally all the time.

__________________
"Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states...Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds."



~Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.