GOOD FENCES MAKE GOOD NEIGHBORS?
I have been reading with interest the unfolding story concerning the homeowner mansion but not until I read Mr.LaCerva’s letter was I moved to weigh in. I am appalled by his smug and dispassionate tone and by his rational that somehow people who find themselves unable to pay their bills equates to their status as “law- abiding citizens”, and most importantly by his apparent willingness to ride rough shod over the rights of a property owner purely because he has fallen into financial difficulties. Most of us “own” our homes in conjunction with a financial institution. That the resident has been in this home since the seventies hardly indicates that his was a speculative venture. I recall seeing the children’s tricycles and later bicycles in the front yard and thinking they looked wonderfully incongruous amid the grandeur of the house. I have long admired the house and I would be very sorry to see the fence and the other outside amenities go (at the time of this writing it would appear that that will not happen). It seems that there is no specific law in place protecting these assets. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that Mr. Homeowner was current with his obligations or actually did not have a mortgage and simply wished to alter the property. Would this even be debatable?
It is my understanding that the auction that Mr. Homeowner was planning was to pay off his creditors, keep the property, and leave it to his children. Isn’t that what most parents want to do with any assets that they have at the end of their lives? I cannot imagine how his children’s current residences, in or out of the state, has anything at all to do with his wish for them to inherit the property; furthermore, as far as his living in a “stripped-down furniture- bare mansion” how, pray tell, did this argument find its way into the house?
Mr. LaCerva states that Mr. Homeowner isn’t seeking to protect any ideal. I strongly disagree; it is certainly part of the American Dream to own a home and I think most people facing the loss of that home would explore all avenues to keep possession. As for his neighbors, they cannot say with any reasonable degree of certainty that Mr. Homeowner would not have landscaped the property in a suitable way had he been successful in his auction.
Mr. LaCerva is worried that this business of selling “pieces and parts” of our homes may become a trend. How disturbing would it be if dictating to one’s neighbor what he may or may not do to his home became a trend? Shall we turn beautiful and diverse Lake Ave. into a condominium - surround it in wrought iron fencing, determine what color the houses shall be painted, what flowers and other plantings are suitable, and of course what lawn ornamentation is acceptable?
Mr.LaCerva suggests that Mr. Homeowner take the more “responsible” path by selling his “burden -- lock, stock and barrel” to a willing buyer. Now, what committee of neighbors should be chosen to interrogate this potential buyer concerning his attitude toward fences, lawn ornaments and the like? Of course they would be entitled to review the new owners credit and financial assets and let’s not forget to look into his habits concerning interior decorating, trash removal and grass cutting. I do agree we have a moral obligation not to damage our neighbor’s assets and I would never remove my neighbor’s fence, paint his house or change his landscape in any way.
To me, Mr.LaCerva’s letter smacks of an argument before a jury. I cannot help but speculate about his motives and his extra-ordinary interest in this matter. It is my humble opinion that this situation and its resolution is solely the business of Mr. Homeowner, his mortgage holder(s), and other creditors. Period.
There is a much larger and far more important question here. Where do we draw the line when it comes to individual rights? As a nation we have had to make many concessions regarding our privacy in the name of safety and security. Some would argue these concessions are warranted and in most cases I would agree, but when and under what circumstances do we make our neighbor’s business ours? As a member of the “larger community” I submit that we should tread very cautiously before we interject ourselves into the life and concerns of another member. If we are going to risk disturbing the delicate balance between the rights of one man versus “the greater good” we better have far, far graver concerns than these.
Amanda K. Winters
Lakewood, Ohio
It is my understanding that the auction that Mr. Homeowner was planning was to pay off his creditors, keep the property, and leave it to his children. Isn’t that what most parents want to do with any assets that they have at the end of their lives? I cannot imagine how his children’s current residences, in or out of the state, has anything at all to do with his wish for them to inherit the property; furthermore, as far as his living in a “stripped-down furniture- bare mansion” how, pray tell, did this argument find its way into the house?
Mr. LaCerva states that Mr. Homeowner isn’t seeking to protect any ideal. I strongly disagree; it is certainly part of the American Dream to own a home and I think most people facing the loss of that home would explore all avenues to keep possession. As for his neighbors, they cannot say with any reasonable degree of certainty that Mr. Homeowner would not have landscaped the property in a suitable way had he been successful in his auction.
Mr. LaCerva is worried that this business of selling “pieces and parts” of our homes may become a trend. How disturbing would it be if dictating to one’s neighbor what he may or may not do to his home became a trend? Shall we turn beautiful and diverse Lake Ave. into a condominium - surround it in wrought iron fencing, determine what color the houses shall be painted, what flowers and other plantings are suitable, and of course what lawn ornamentation is acceptable?
Mr.LaCerva suggests that Mr. Homeowner take the more “responsible” path by selling his “burden -- lock, stock and barrel” to a willing buyer. Now, what committee of neighbors should be chosen to interrogate this potential buyer concerning his attitude toward fences, lawn ornaments and the like? Of course they would be entitled to review the new owners credit and financial assets and let’s not forget to look into his habits concerning interior decorating, trash removal and grass cutting. I do agree we have a moral obligation not to damage our neighbor’s assets and I would never remove my neighbor’s fence, paint his house or change his landscape in any way.
To me, Mr.LaCerva’s letter smacks of an argument before a jury. I cannot help but speculate about his motives and his extra-ordinary interest in this matter. It is my humble opinion that this situation and its resolution is solely the business of Mr. Homeowner, his mortgage holder(s), and other creditors. Period.
There is a much larger and far more important question here. Where do we draw the line when it comes to individual rights? As a nation we have had to make many concessions regarding our privacy in the name of safety and security. Some would argue these concessions are warranted and in most cases I would agree, but when and under what circumstances do we make our neighbor’s business ours? As a member of the “larger community” I submit that we should tread very cautiously before we interject ourselves into the life and concerns of another member. If we are going to risk disturbing the delicate balance between the rights of one man versus “the greater good” we better have far, far graver concerns than these.
Amanda K. Winters
Lakewood, Ohio
Volume 1, Issue 6, Posted 10.15 AM / 16th November 2005.
