I hesitate to get involved in this discussion but in reading this protracted thread, I just have to weigh in. This thread has gone crazy from suing to taking it out on the dogs.
Happinow has described HER lot as sitting back and down from the golf course. Is it possible, because of the placement of HER lot, she is expecting HER neighbor who sits further out on the golf course to sacrifice what THEY bought for THEIR needs? Just posing the question. Sometimes we need to consider another person's point of view.
I am not saying that Happinow's view has not been compromised but perhaps the neighbor paid a premium for a property that was further out on the course than hers so that they could do precisely what they are doing and satisfy their needs.
Before we chose this lot, we knew we didn't want to see any houses out our back on the golf course and so we checked. We chose a lot that no matter how far out someone built, we would still be out further so our view would not be impacted in any meaningful way. We drove to the other side of the course to see what had and what hadn't been built on the other side of the hill to know exactly what we would be looking at. And, more important, what could still be built that could impact our view.
Happinow is wise in talking to those who have the real knowledge to decide whether she is in the position of right or the neighbor is within his/her right and letting them speak to the neighbor. A public forum is not the place this will be resolved and given what has been posted, if seen or heard about, will make the chance of "mending fences" more difficult if at all possible. If it were me, I would ask the admin to take this thing down immediately. My insignificant opinion.
|