The Situation of Noisy Neighbors

On The Situationist, we regularly examine the ways in which people under-appreciate, or altogether miss, the extent to which the situation around and within them influences their thoughts, beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors.

Sometimes, though, the situation is more obvious than subtle. Take, for instance, the situation of noise and disruption emanating from your neighbors. Mickey West of the Canada West News Service discusses a new real estate survey which reveals how people associate the age, marital status, and presence of children with “good neighbors” and “bad neighbors.” Below we excerpt a portion of the story.

* * *

A new real estate survey finds more than half of homeowners – fully 58 per cent – see twosomes without tots as ideal next-door denizens, followed closely by retirees at 54 per cent (survey respondents weren’t limited to one answer). Also popular among the suburban set are singles, with 38 per cent support, and pet owners at 28 per cent.

Students are listed among the worst neighbours (46 per cent), with most respondents saying their presence devalues bordering properties by as much as 10 per cent. Others on the laundry list of undesirables include unrelated people in shared housing (37 per cent), families with teenagers (37 per cent), and families with young children (20 per cent).

A Canadian real estate expert with nearly 30 years experience in the business says the results of the Australian survey of 1,579 people ring true.

“(Neighbours) not only impact the value of the subject property, they can also negatively impact your lifestyle,” says Les Phillips, past president of the Alberta Real Estate Association. “Think noisy, unruly neighbours who party around the firepit until all hours, with a few wrecked cars on the street for good measure.”

In the business, he says the effect is known as “locational obsolescence.” It describes something that influences property value but cannot be controlled or cured by the homeowner. Excessive street noise is an example.

* * *

For the rest of the story, click here. For other Situationist posts on housing, click here.

Judy Norman’s Situation – Abstract

Marina Angel posted her important article, “Why Judy Norman Acted in Reasonable Self-Defense: An Abused Woman and a Sleeping Man” (forthcoming in Buffalo Women’s Law Journal) on SSRN. Here is the abstract.

* * *

The reasonable man has been replaced by the reasonable person, but that person still functions within legal doctrines conceived by men and interpreted to fit the facts of men’s lives. To understand why it is sometimes reasonable for an abused woman to kill her abuser while he is asleep or otherwise incapacitated, basic criminal law doctrines do not have to be changed. They do, however, have to be applied to the facts of abused women’s lives.

The issue of exit – why didn’t she leave – must be explained. Concepts of time – immediate, imminent, and cyclical – must be reassessed. Discredited theories that label abused women who kill their abusers as suffering from insanity, a syndrome, or learned-helplessness, must be rejected. Only then can reasonableness under either the common law or the Model Penal Code be applied to the case of an abused woman who kills her sleeping abuser.

North Carolina v. Judy Ann Laws Norman provides the facts of one abused woman who killed a sleeping man. The overwhelming number of abused women who kill their abusers do so in normal confrontation cases. The abused woman who kills a sleeping or otherwise incapacitated abuser presents the most dramatic and challenging situation. Norman is the case which is included in most basic first year criminal law books. I hope this short essay will assist both teachers and students in their examination of woman abuse, and specifically Judy Norman’s case.