Trespassing in neighbor's driveway

BTR1701 wrote:
> In article . com>,
> " > wrote:
>
>>> Which raises the following question: does a homeowner have a right
>>> not to
>> allow you to pull into their driveway with the purpose of turning
>> around?
>>
>> It's interesting how people seem to think they are somehow entitled
>> to other people's property. I recently had some issues with
>> neighbors thinking they could park in my driveway at will to make
>> access to their cars more convient, even if this made access to our
>> cars on our land next to impossible. The problem has since been
>> handled, but the responses I got during the episode were amazing.
>
> That is indeed pretty arrogant behavior.

As arrogant as aiding and abetting the drunken Bu$h Sluts
in willfully and habitually breaking Texas Criminal laws ?

On May 2, 12:17 pm, "_ Prof. Jonez _" > wrote:
> The usual wording has mandatory setbacks for structures, plants
> and bushes from sidewalks.
The usual wording where? Perhaps in a neighborhood that also dictates
what kinds of vehicles you can put in your driveway, but not in my
area.


> >Be warned in your planning, this
> > includes the plants or flowers.
>
> And in many locations the TYPE of plant. Poisonous,
> Thorny or Child Eating plants are often prohibited.
Perhaps. Where I grew up (suburb north of Boston) thorny plants
overrunning the sidewalk were common, so I must have missed the places
with such restrictions. Fortunately my flower box does not border the
street or any sidewalk, nor do my plants reach outside of the box.


> > The nice side to this is that anyone who wants to tell you to move it
> > needs to prove that it's impeding onto their property. This can only
> > be done with a full survey, costing $4-8K in my area.
>
> LOL! What area is that exactly?
Southeast NH.


> There are 1000s of surveyors who currently charge between
> $200 - $800 that would love to move to such an affluent area.
Something about it being basically downtown in a historic mill town,
there are no survey markers within any reasonable distance. Nothing
in my area was built less than 100 years ago, which apparently
complicates the process. They'll come out and measure from plot plans
(grabbed at town hall for a nominal fee) & existing driveways, but I
can (and did) do that myself. That won't hold up in court, they need
a survey marker. Not a big thing in a new development where markers
are everywhere, but an issue on my street.


> > My box is built a fair safety margin onto my side of the property
> > line, and built with the blessing of the BI & LEO - both of whom were
> > included in the ordeal. If you don't have a homeowners association, a
> > quick visit to the BI can be a good idea. He'll almost certainly tell
> > you no permit is required and give you a couple pointers and leads to
> > keep your project problem free, and it's nice to have checked and
> > established that relationship. Much like the police when you're
> > pulled over, the BI is something of a god in matters of your home.
> > Knowing him and having paid the proper respect beforehand is nice in
> > both instances.
>
> So did you swallow?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Spoken like some renting biter or spoiled brat who has no experience
on the matter. Being the son of a GC, I have picked up quite a bit.
I know that since I plan on doing tons of work to this house, I'll end
up needing him there from time to time. I know BI's tend to dislike
any structure they didn't approve, even if it didn't require their
approval. I'd rather he know about the box ahead of time than have
him interrogating me on my construction methods and measurements right
before I try to get him to sign off on a bunch of new electrical work
that I did myself. I suppose if you can get a survey that will hold
up in court for $200 you've got the money left over to pay my Dad to
take care of any work done to your house. In that case, he'll deal
with the BI. Since I do most of my own work, I need to deal with the
BI myself.

It's also faster in most cases to swing in and ask than it is to find
all of the relevant info you need (permits, size/color restrictions,
etc) on your own. For someone who's so knowledgeable about different
setbacks required for certain plants, I figured you'd know this
already.

On May 2, 11:03 am, "_ Prof. Jonez _" > wrote:
> TNKev wrote:
> > wrote:
> >> On May 1, 9:39 am, (Brent P)
> >> wrote:
> >>> In article
> >>> ews.net>, TNKev
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> it has been 5 years, but I don't care to battle with them so every
> >>>> year
> >>>> I put a little dirt in to fill the path and spread on some straw
> >>>> and stake it out
> >>>> so he doesn't run over it and as soon as the grass grows and the
> >>>> stakes are gone he goes right back to running it over. I figure he
> >>>> is the one being an asshole, I don't care to be an asshole. I will
> >>>> be the nice guy with the nice lawn!
>
> >>> I'm sure if you think long enough you can come with a hazard to his
> >>> tires
> >>> that seems like it was just dumb luck....
>
> >> Or build a flower box. Build with PT 4x4's. Predrill, then lash
> >> with 8" spikes and 20lb sledge. Placed on the corner (or edge, in
> >> my case) of the property, it's adds a nice touch while firmly
> >> enforcing the property line. Filled with soil, mine is solid enough
> >> to total a passenger car if push comes to shove. Given my location
> >> that day should never come, but the box is solid enough.
>
> >> Since flowers are such a nice addition to the neighborhood, it
> >> conveys a marvelously diplomatic "you'll no longer be putting your
> >> vehicle here". It leaves the normally confrontational and ignorant
> >> neighbors at a loss for a reply. (That, or it was the 20lb sledge
> >> in my hand).
>
> > The wife and I have thought of a rose garden made of RR cross ties
> > running the length of the front yard.
>
> Good idea, thorny bushes at the sidewalk so that children running past
> can get cut, bleed or scratch their eyes when they stumble ...

If their running past, they won't be running through. It's not the
obligation of others to compensate for your children.

proffsl wrote:
> On May 2, 11:03 am, "_ Prof. Jonez _" > wrote:
>> TNKev wrote:
>>> wrote:
>>>> On May 1, 9:39 am, (Brent P)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> In article
>>>>> ews.net>, TNKev
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> it has been 5 years, but I don't care to battle with them so
>>>>>> every year
>>>>>> I put a little dirt in to fill the path and spread on some straw
>>>>>> and stake it out
>>>>>> so he doesn't run over it and as soon as the grass grows and the
>>>>>> stakes are gone he goes right back to running it over. I figure
>>>>>> he is the one being an asshole, I don't care to be an asshole. I
>>>>>> will be the nice guy with the nice lawn!
>>
>>>>> I'm sure if you think long enough you can come with a hazard to
>>>>> his tires
>>>>> that seems like it was just dumb luck....
>>
>>>> Or build a flower box. Build with PT 4x4's. Predrill, then lash
>>>> with 8" spikes and 20lb sledge. Placed on the corner (or edge, in
>>>> my case) of the property, it's adds a nice touch while firmly
>>>> enforcing the property line. Filled with soil, mine is solid
>>>> enough to total a passenger car if push comes to shove. Given my
>>>> location that day should never come, but the box is solid enough.
>>
>>>> Since flowers are such a nice addition to the neighborhood, it
>>>> conveys a marvelously diplomatic "you'll no longer be putting your
>>>> vehicle here". It leaves the normally confrontational and ignorant
>>>> neighbors at a loss for a reply. (That, or it was the 20lb sledge
>>>> in my hand).
>>
>>> The wife and I have thought of a rose garden made of RR cross ties
>>> running the length of the front yard.
>>
>> Good idea, thorny bushes at the sidewalk so that children running
>> past can get cut, bleed or scratch their eyes when they stumble ...
>
> If their running past, they won't be running through. It's not the
> obligation of others to compensate for children.

Wanna bet?

> wrote in
.net:


> Just beware that "dumb luck" is not a reliable defense if it turns out
> you weren't legally allowed to build an obstruction there. Check
> local codes for required clear space near roadways and driveway cuts
> just in case.
>

That's why I advocated an ornamental boulder,painted white,with his house
number painted on it. It's not considered an "obstruction" or any permanent
construction.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Larry Bud > wrote in
oups.com:

>> >If you think pulling your front wheels on someone's driveway is
>> >equivalent to parking your car there without their permission, you've
>> >lost your mind.
>>
>> If you think pulling your front wheels onto someone else's property is
>> not tresspassing, you've lost yours.
>
> Never said it might not be trespassing. But to get your undies in a
> bunch borders on insanity.

For it to be "trespassing",it has to be fenced in,gated,or posted "no
trespassing" or "private drive".
IOW,some *reasonable* expectation of private.
A front driveway does not have this.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article .com>,
says...

> Perhaps. Where I grew up (suburb north of Boston) thorny plants
> overrunning the sidewalk were common, so I must have missed the places
> with such restrictions.

The restrictions exist far more often than vigorous enforcement of them,
but non-enforcement does not remove your liability if your rosebush wins
the lottery and becomes the one-in-a-million bush that does skewer an
eyeball.

Whenever you're putting something next to a public right-of-way, go
beyond asking yourself what's reasonable, ask yourself, "what could a
good lawyer convince a jury to make me pay a little old lady or an
injured child?" If you don't like the answers that gives, live further
from the public right-of-way ;-)

--
is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Updated Infrared Photography Gallery:
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/ir.html>

"_ Prof. Jonez _" > wrote:
> proffsl wrote:
> > "_ Prof. Jonez _" > wrote:
> >
> >> Good idea, thorny bushes at the sidewalk so that children running
> >> past can get cut, bleed or scratch their eyes when they stumble ...
>
> > If their running past, they won't be running through. It's not the
> > obligation of others to compensate for children.
>
> Wanna bet?

If their running past, they aren't running through. It's not the
Inherent Obligation of one to compensate for the children of others.

In article >,
> wrote:
>
>Whenever you're putting something next to a public right-of-way, go
>beyond asking yourself what's reasonable, ask yourself, "what could a
>good lawyer convince a jury to make me pay a little old lady or an
>injured child?"

If you live your life by that standard, you are going to be paralyzed.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> In article >,
> > wrote:
>>
>> Whenever you're putting something next to a public right-of-way, go
>> beyond asking yourself what's reasonable, ask yourself, "what could a
>> good lawyer convince a jury to make me pay a little old lady or an
>> injured child?"
>
> If you live your life by that standard, you are going to be paralyzed.

So go kill some children then ...