The definition of “neighbors” was shown recently in the uniting of our neighbors that were devastated by the recent floods, willing to reach out and help one another in their own time of need. Our thoughts and prayers go out to all of them.

With that, said I have to apologize for my reaction to action that doesn’t deserve one. I’m embarrassed to waste space in this publication to air my dirty laundry with my not-so-neighborly neighbor. But I felt a rebuttal necessary as I found Don Warnke’s statements to be untrue in his letter to the editor in the June 12 edition of The Coulee News.

A dispute cannot occur without a reaction to an action. We have tried not to react to Warnke’s unusual aesthetic style and behavior, but somehow he continually finds ways to show disrespect and disregard for his neighbors, village ordinances and officials. Our last resort was to ask the village board for assistance, and for this we and the board were publicly attacked. I disagree with Warnke that the “board is dying from the neck up,” and commend them for having the backbone to attempt to enforce our ordinances. My intent was to refer readers to public records to disprove Warnke’s claim; however, I find public records aren’t as public as one would think and come with a price.

The so-called “estate” Warnke describes refers to this property over 49 years ago — at least that is when my home was added to this cobbled-together neighborhood, as he describes it. I don’t understand his point, as he didn’t purchase the “entire block east of the alley.” His property lines and those of his neighbors haven’t changed since the day he purchased it. The 100-year-old pines he refers to didn’t exist when Warnke purchased the property.

How does one have a physical reaction and contend it affects the current property aesthetics to something that occurred years before he purchased the property? Was your reaction as imaginary as your large estate? Prior to 1998, property lines weren’t an issue; it wasn’t that we didn’t know where they were, it didn’t matter. We mowed lawns with no concern if the last pass crossed over the property line by a few inches.

Where did your facts come from that we gained 6 feet of property? Our property abstract from 1987 and a recent (May 2008) property title show the same legal descriptions. Then you attempt to make an aesthetic issue into an environmental issue. I know of no ordinance prohibiting lawn spraying. To single us out of a large percent of people who use some kind of weed control is unfair. Nice try. I will agree we can all do more to protect our environment; perhaps we could use fewer chemicals if your weeds didn’t grow onto our property. Does one find weeds more aesthetically pleasing than a green lawn? I didn’t know one required an architect degree to come to the conclusion that 4-foot tall weeds, stacks of dead brush and scrap iron mobile home rails are not aesthetically pleasing. If this is what you consider aesthetically pleasing, point proven. So what is the truth? I’m willing to share my property documents with anyone interested and invite them to come view the property line in question.

You mention the Wehrs’ lawn junk and white vinyl fence as being aesthetically unpleasing, yet just a few weeks ago a lady took the time to stop her car to comment on what a beautiful lawn the Wehrs have. The commercially constructed vinyl fence was erected to control your plants from growing onto their property and to block the view of the weeds that surround them. Building permits are public record and required to erect fences. Hmm, wonder if there’s a permit on record for Warnke’s fence? It is unfortunate for the Wehrs and the Emmons that the three parties involved in the property transfer of the 10 feet in question have all since passed on. My belief is that there was an error in the recording of that transfer.

I’m sure if one had a choice between the Emmons’, the Wehrs’ or Warnke’s fences, Warnke’s would not come in first. You attempt to hold Emmons responsible for something that occurred prior to them owning the property. The Emmons did not remove the 100-year-old white pines.

You’re correct in stating “this all started in 1998.” When greeted by your neighbors, you stated “I don’t socialize with my neighbors.” These fences didn’t exist in 1998. The prior owners invited our child to play in the once green space of your front yard — how ironic that the first block party, which is still going 13 years later, was held in your yard. Did you forget about your invite?

For many years as a neighborly gesture we used our snow blower and cleared the whole block of Van Ness Street and continued to do so after you moved until you repeatedly and intentionally blew grass on our vehicles. You admit you have been “policed,” and if you would have given the authorities the consideration to listen, you might understand this is all about ordinance violations, not something your neighbors “dreamed up.” I can refer to at least 21 reference points in the ordinances that generated these complaints. It is my understanding that the village did send notices regarding violations of ordinances of property standards, so how were you unfairly targeted?

I’ve seen several who respect village ordinances and cleaned up their properties as requested. We only ask you would do the same. Maybe planting in the day light would help you see what is aesthetically pleasing, or better yet, maybe a country setting would be more conducive to your life style? Simple solution: show your neighbors some respect by putting forth an effort to follow the ordinances.

I would like to thank the village board for listening and responding to our concerns and hope that our actions would help others with the same issues.

Let’s take pride in this village we all call home.