PRINT ADS

In the beginning, there was one house at 224 N. Van Ness St. in West Salem that occupied all the block east of the alley, but the village board apparently thought the property would look nicer with accompanying smaller lots, all of different sizes and small houses — or was that about generating more tax money? No, this about aesthetics, so let’s look at what started the dissension between my property and the surrounding aesthetically minded neighbors.

I moved in 1998 with no greeting from anyone, and upon my inquiry regarding property boundaries, no one knew where the lines existed, so I had the property surveyed and it must be only coincidence or irony that the three neighbors whose property was affected are the ones who have since complained about anything and everything they can dream up. My other adjacent neighbors like the many variety and number of plantings, plus it screens me from seeing the others’ lawn junk they call aesthetic decoration.

First, the Phillipses on 334 E. Franklin St. can hardly say anything since they gained about six feet of property (or “land” as they put it) and since they have no landscaping are hardly in a position to comment, but everyone’s a landscape architect aren’t they? However, they regularly use poison on their grass and it may interest the proposed “minimum property standards” enthusiasts that lawn chemicals are the second leading cause of ground water pollution, second to farming. Any of you board members contribute to water pollution or are a member of Sierra Club, Wilderness Society or anything environmental?

Next, the farmer Wehrs on 234 N. Van Ness St. Their comment was, “oh, that (poison) all just goes away.” It may interest them to know that the Gulf states are considering class action suits against the polluting Midwest farmers, as all the chemicals are washed into the river systems and are affecting the water quality and fishing industries at the mouth of the Mississippi — so, yes it goes away, but it’s not gone. Time to get your heads out of the dirt. But this is about aesthetics and what a wonderful array of lawn junk and white plastic fence to accent the black gravel they have instead of grass — oh ya, you blend. By the way, they lost about 10 feet of property in the survey.

Next, the Emmonses on 325 E. Garland St. who were assured by the Realtor that their property line was a certain distance from their garage. I pointed out that property lines aren’t located from buildings but actually the reverse. They were the reason I put up a brown wood fence, which they connected to the Wehrs’ plastic fence with a section of white lattice panel — nice try.

Also, their lattice covered dog kennel along the alley is not what I’d call attractive, but the “minimum property standards” backers must think otherwise — go figure. Their property was once a stand of 100-year-old white pines planted by the original owners of the now historic Prairie Style house on 224 N. Van Ness St. I’m sure I was the only one who was sick over that rape of the land and the “minimum property standards” would have preserved them, right? So whose property is affecting whose negatively?

And lastly, there’s our enthusiastic village administrator, Teresa Schnitzler, who has put her foot so far in her mouth that I need not comment on her efforts against me. The article also mentioned the neighbors who “attempted to speak with Warnke.” I’m not sure when that happened, I only recall the lawn-mowing police, the boulevard-planting police, the dog-leash police and alley-planting police contacting me or escorting Teresa with the neighbors’ harassments, intimidations and then the follow-up discrimination on the board’s part.

To this date, no other boulevard plantings have been removed, so I’m not sure what “letters went out to all affected property owners” she was referring to. I guess that’s why we need two attorneys on staff and a third full-time office employee since she started as administrator — all you taxpayers know that, right?