Amendola's Neighbors Are Mad at Him

[XLIX]

OK, I'll stop. Believe it or not, I was actually trying to help people.

No you weren't. You were trying to control people by telling them they can't willingly enter contractual agreements with their neighbors involving things that don't concern you in the slightest.

What business is it of yours if my neighbor and I sign a deal where we each agree not to paint our houses yellow polka dots?

 

[IllegalContact]

 

[IllegalContact]

@IllegalContact is killing me in this thread. I'm dying here.

I've started to basically type what i really want to say into google images, and take the best one I see

 

[fourhour]

And you are intimately acquainted with them all? ZBAs are guided by state and municipal codes.

You forgot the part about permit fees!

 

[DaBruinz]

That's funny, I didn't know he lived there. I lived one block up from there on Pratt St from 2011-2012. Loved it. Best place to live in RI, in my opinion. I tell people that when my kids are done H.S. I'm moving to Benefit St.

And yes, it's petty but it's an historic neighborhood and nothing is supposed to be done to the outside of homes without permission. You want a carport, move to Barrington.

Sorry, but nothing was physically done to the outside of the structure. What was done was a temporary structure was put on the backside of the property. The claims that it's a "highly visible location" is laughable. It's behind the house.. If he'd put up an attached garage, I'd agree there was an issue. but this is just ridiculous..

 

[dales804]

I've started to basically type what i really want to say into google images, and take the best one I see

I do the exact same thing. Love it.

 

[SLGDEV]

First of all, it was YOU championing the "spirit" of the law when condemning the beautiful, legal "loophole" "exploited" by Evil Amendola, Trasher of Neighborhoods. Your own argument completely invalidates your last entire last paragraph. I also didn't say he should break the rules of said group, rather that such rules completely violate the spirit (your words) of our entire system of laws. That said, I did support the legal, circumvention through perceived "loopholes".

In a democratic, capitalist society, I should not be allowed to physically damage your property in any way, nor should I be allowed on it without your permission. It is also reasonable that I be made to adhere to noise, or ordinances so as not to interfere with socially accepted sleep time frames as regular, good sleep is vital to our well-being. That said, my sovereignty over my land should be independent of the value of your land. I understand peoples annoyances with neighbors I was forced to put in a huge stockade fence and long row of arborvitaes because of a slob neighbor. It came at great expense at a time when I could barely afford it, but such is the price of freedom.

It doesn't look like I'll be able to get through to you either.

...and you didn't answer my question in your long "response". Here it is again in a way that maybe can get through to YOU:

Should you be allowed to do whatever you want to your property if the result is a [major] drop in value to my property (and of the other neighbors) if the bylaws of the organization to which both our properties belong say otherwise?

All that is required here is a simple YES or a NO.

 

[Galeb]

...and you didn't answer my question in your long "response". Here it is again in a way that maybe can get through to YOU:

Should you be allowed to do whatever you want to your property if the result is a [major] drop in value to my property (and of the other neighbors) if the bylaws of the organization to which both our properties belong say otherwise?

All that is required here is a simple YES or a NO.

"That said, my sovereignty over my land should be independent of the value of your land." Translation YES.

 

[XLIX]

"That said, my sovereignty over my land should be independent of the value of your land." Translation YES.

I noticed you still haven't answered my question, though. Why is that? Here it is again (rephrased):

Should you have any say in forbidding lawful agreements between me and my neighbors when you live 1,000 miles away and nothing my neighbors and I agree to impacts you in the slightest? What the hell right do you have to tell me and my neighbors that we can't all sign a binding contract agreeing not to paint our houses yellow polka dots?

 

[PatsDeb]

Ok - I've had it.

 

[SLGDEV]

"That said, my sovereignty over my land should be independent of the value of your land." Translation YES.

OK, let's turn it around. Let me be you and you be me. You have your house nicely painted, with a well manicured lawn, et al. You do this because you want to sell your house and retire down south.

I decide I want to stand out from the crowd, so I paint my house a bright purple and have all the trim painted orange. I also want to start a car restoration hobby so I place four rusted out antiques that I just purchased on my lawn, along with a few engines and transmissions I have gathered.

What do you think that does to your having prospective buyers come to your house? Oh, so you invest about 20 or 25 thousand dollars to build a green fence around your property along with a tall wooden one. However, buyers coming up the street see it and tell the realtor "no thanks". So the realtor brings then the other way. When they walk around the property, though, they see my mess and still go away. So after investing all that, you wind up selling it months and months later for 50-75 thousand less that it would have fetched had I not exercised my "property rights".

The point is that sovereignty over your land can (and may not) greatly affect the value of my land. Also, notice that I had in my question the proviso "if the bylaws of the organization to which both our properties belong say otherwise".

If you still maintain your answer is "YES", then I will bid this discussion adieu and give ultimate thanks that you are NOT my neighbor.

 

[Galeb]

I noticed you still haven't answered my question, though. Why is that? Here it is again (rephrased):

Should you have any say in forbidding lawful agreements between me and my neighbors when you live 1,000 miles away and nothing my neighbors and I agree to impacts you in the slightest? What the hell right do you have to tell me and my neighbors that we can't all sign a binding contract agreeing not to paint our houses yellow polka dots?

I shouldn't respond, but I will answer your last question.

I proposed a solution a few posts ago on how you can enter such agreements with neighbors without violating a fundamental tenant of a capitalist society. You could own a "stake" in land that would give you right to live there, but not actually own the land itself. Said stake would be nontransferable with a monetary value due when you either move on or pass. It's a rough, simple solution that is easily implemented that would achieve your goals without stomping on anyone's rights.

After completely dismissing such an elegant, simple solution that protects the rights of all, you continue to scream that I am the one who wants to infringe upon the rights of others. My typical appreciation of such extreme irony is severely tempered in this case by the damage done by such developed attachment.

Matters of law, ethics and human rights should always be considered from a variety of perspectives outside of one's own. Failure to do so is negligent and always results in attachment and delusion.

I was being genuine when I said I was trying to help you, but unfortunately that is beyond my ability. Hopefully my comments have helped others see this issue with more clarity. I will derail this thread no longer, and if you have any more questions you need answered, you can send me a PM.

@SLGDEV The ultimate irony is that I am a respectful neighbor and keep an immaculate yard. I watch my neighbors kids and pets on a regular basis, and keep an eye on their properties when they're on vacation etc..

I'm sure my house's value is somewhat affected by the slob next door, but that is part of the price of freedom, and I'm willing to pay it.

 

[Tunescribe]

Neither of those guys is Amendola.

 

[Patjew]

Sorry, but nothing was physically done to the outside of the structure. What was done was a temporary structure was put on the backside of the property. The claims that it's a "highly visible location" is laughable. It's behind the house.. If he'd put up an attached garage, I'd agree there was an issue. but this is just ridiculous..

Understood. Believe me, I would not have said a word about it if I were still living there because I just don't really care what other people do.

 

[Ken Canin]

I shouldn't respond, but I will answer your last question.

I proposed a solution a few posts ago on how you can enter such agreements with neighbors without violating a fundamental tenant of a capitalist society. You could own a "stake" in land that would give you right to live there, but not actually own the land itself. Said stake would be nontransferable with a monetary value due when you either move on or pass.

This is called a "life estate" (most people who have houses own the land in what's called "fee simple", which is generally what we think of when we say someone "owns" land). Life estates were more widely used hundreds of years ago by the landed aristocracy in England, but they still exist over here.

 

[XLIX]

I shouldn't respond, but I will answer your last question.

You responded, but you didn't answer the question.

Matters of law, ethics and human rights should always be considered from a variety of perspectives outside of one's own. Failure to do so is negligent and always results in attachment and delusion.

Once again you overstate the situation to a ridiculous extreme. First you compare housing associations to slavery. Now you consider it a matter of ethics and human rights to be able to park a '73 Camaro up on blocks on your front lawn.

According to your own silliness, any contract people enter into is a violation of human rights. Any legal obligation someone freely enters into makes them a slave. Is my employer violating my human rights by telling me I have to be in the office tomorrow morning? Gee, isn't that wrongful imprisonment?

I'm sure my house's value is somewhat affected by the slob next door, but that is part of the price of freedom, and I'm willing to pay it.

You are well within your rights to do that, but you still didn't answer my question:

If my neighbor and I make a quid pro quo contract whereby we each agree not to paint our house yellow polka dots, and we each agree to sell only to people willing to adopt the contract, and you live 1,000 miles away, then who the hell are you to forbid such an agreement which is none of your damn business?

 

[SLGDEV]

I shouldn't respond, but I will answer your last question.

I proposed a solution a few posts ago on how you can enter such agreements with neighbors without violating a fundamental tenant of a capitalist society. You could own a "stake" in land that would give you right to live there, but not actually own the land itself. Said stake would be nontransferable with a monetary value due when you either move on or pass. It's a rough, simple solution that is easily implemented that would achieve your goals without stomping on anyone's rights.

After completely dismissing such an elegant, simple solution that protects the rights of all, you continue to scream that I am the one who wants to infringe upon the rights of others. My typical appreciation of such extreme irony is severely tempered in this case by the damage done by such developed attachment.

Matters of law, ethics and human rights should always be considered from a variety of perspectives outside of one's own. Failure to do so is negligent and always results in attachment and delusion.

I was being genuine when I said I was trying to help you, but unfortunately that is beyond my ability. Hopefully my comments have helped others see this issue with more clarity. I will derail this thread no longer, and if you have any more questions you need answered, you can send me a PM.

@SLGDEV The ultimate irony is that I am a respectful neighbor and keep an immaculate yard. I watch my neighbors kids and pets on a regular basis, and keep an eye on their properties when they're on vacation etc..

I'm sure my house's value is somewhat affected by the slob next door, but that is part of the price of freedom, and I'm willing to pay it.

I am sure you are a respectful neighbor because I take you at your word. However, you still have not answered my question. I was not asking for a "solution", whatever you might mean by a "stake". I was presenting a hypothetical where the rules of the association to which we both belong say you have to maintain your property and can't put junk on the lawn like sever rusted out cars that you want to restore.

Now starting with that ground rule, which you and I agreed to when we bought the property, do I then have the right to violate that agreement on my property which drastically diminishes your ability to sell your property simply because it is MY property and the agreement I signed when I bought the place be damned?

Start with the premise that the rules are in place and then go with the hypothetical. Do I have that right?

I say, absolutely not. I voluntarily entered into that contractual arrangement and so I am bound by it. You seem to be saying that enforcing the contract is a violation of one's rights. I call that nonsense.

 

[1960Pats]

The thing I love the most about the west is nobody giving you constant **** about what you do on your property.

Every ****ing person in my neighborhood in New England was an uppity ******* with nothing better to do than stick their nose in your business.

One of my sons has lived all over the USA and the world, and when he tells people he grew up near Boston he said two words come up often. Rude and ignorant. From my limited experiences travelling to Canada and down south, I have seen why. I blame the booze.

 

[Triumph]

One of my sons has lived all over the USA and the world, and when he tells people he grew up near Boston he said two words come up often. Rude and ignorant. From my limited experiences travelling to Canada and down south, I have seen why. I blame the booze.

RI used to be cool and unlike MA.

Looks like PC has spread and ruined that place too.

 

[Patjew]

RI used to be cool and unlike MA.

Looks like PC has spread and ruined that place too.

Nah, we've always sucked.