Extreme American Neighborhood Law Robert F. Blomquist* Abstract This Article explores extreme narratives of Americans acting badly—to their neighbors and to the police. Starting with a philosophical-religious-psychological assessment of the neighbor as tragic construct, the Article quantifies and analyzes American neighbor jurisprudence in the opening years of the twenty-first century. The cautionary tales reveal ongoing, serious, and destructive meltdowns involving neighbors throughout the United States. The Article notes that, while state and federal judges have done a fair job in resolving these vexing disputes under traditional criminal law, tort, and property principles, it is high time for some new approaches. In formulating an epistemic theory of extreme neighborhood conflict, the Article closes with an overarching gestalt, suggests a mapping of American neighborhood law, and concludes with a few ideas for potential pragmatic policy responses. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 336 II. THE NEIGHBOR AS TRAGIC CONSTRUCT ...................................................... 340 A. Overview ................................................................................................ 340 B. Kenneth Reinhard’s Political Theology of the Neighbor .................... 342 C. Eric L. Santer’s Musings on Creatureliness ........................................ 343 D. Slavoj Zizek’s Neighborly Monsters ..................................................... 343 III. AMERICAN NEIGHBOR JURISPRUDENCE, 2000–2006 .................................. 345 A. Methodology .......................................................................................... 345 B. 2000 ........................................................................................................ 346 1. The Case of the Confiscated Driveway ......................................... 347 2. The Case of the Angry Citizen Who Protesteth Too Much ......... 350 3. The Case of the Frustrated ―Artist‖ ............................................... 353 4. Synoptic Comments ....................................................................... 355 C. 2001 ........................................................................................................ 356 1. The Case of Rabbit Droppings, Water Spraying, and Wrongful Deaths ............................................................................. 358 2. The Case of the Mississippi Houseboat ........................................ 361 * Professor of Law, Valparaiso University School of Law. J.D., Cornell Law School (1977); B.S., University of Pennsylvania (Wharton School) (1973). My thanks go to Ian Koven for excellent services as my research assistant. 335 336 GONZAGA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 45:2 3. The Case of the Unethical Lawyer ................................................ 363 4. Synoptic Comments ....................................................................... 364 D. 2002 ........................................................................................................ 365 1. California Dreaming #1: The Case of the Psycho Boundary Dispute ............................................................................................ 369 2. California Dreaming #2: The Case of the Obsessive Lover ........ 372 3. California Dreaming #3: The Case of the Harassed Inter- Racial Couple .................................................................................. 376 4. Synoptic Comments ....................................................................... 378 E. 2003 ........................................................................................................ 380 1. The Case of the ―FA-Q‖ Serial Condemner.................................. 385 2. The Case of the Post-Traumatic Stressed-Out Neighbor ............. 386 3. The Case of the Incarcerated Farm Stand Lady ........................... 388 4. Synoptic Comments ....................................................................... 390 F. 2004 ........................................................................................................ 391 1. The Case of the Serial Shooter Who Always Claimed Self- Defense ............................................................................................ 396 2. The Case of the Bullying Neighbors ............................................. 399 3. The Case of the Chainsaw Harrasser ............................................. 405 4. Synoptical Comments .................................................................... 407 G. 2005 ........................................................................................................ 408 1. The Case of the Free-Roaming Children and Dogs in the Road ................................................................................................. 411 2. The Case of the Officious Homeowners Association Director.... 415 3. The Case of the Armed Home Invaders ........................................ 417 4. Synoptical Comments .................................................................... 419 H. 2006 ........................................................................................................ 420 1. The Case of the Corrupt Shrink and the Abusive Deputy Sheriff .............................................................................................. 424 2. The Case of the Annoying ―Junk Artists‖ ..................................... 426 3. The Case of the Cut Down Spite Gate .......................................... 427 4. Synoptical Comments .................................................................... 429 IV. AN EPISTEMIC THEORY OF EXTREME NEIGHBORHOOD CONFLICT AND A CALL FOR PRAGMATIC LEGAL RESPONSES ............................................... 430 A. An Overarching Gestalt ........................................................................ 430 B. Mapping American Neighborhood Law .............................................. 431 C. Potential Pragmatic Responses ............................................................ 432 V. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 434 I. INTRODUCTION When I was in law school a wise professor once told the class that, when we graduated and went out in the world to practice law, we would be practicing a lot of 2009/10] NEIGHBORHOOD LAW 337 ―friends and neighbors law.‖ The allusion, I think, was to the multiplicity of questions we could expect on issues like fences and trees and boundaries and noise—problems that come about just from being a human and living in a neighborhood. My professor was right. During the course of three decades of practicing and teaching law, I have encountered a miscellaneous array of questions from people who experience flooding from the landscaping of a neighbor‘s yard to folks who have a beef with a common driveway between properties; from persons who don‘t like the all night parties of their fellow citizens to individuals aggrieved by barking dogs. By way of illustration of the crazy world of neighbor disputes, consider the following accounts described in a recent Chicago-area newspaper article: Building inspector Diana LaCalimita has witnessed the same [recurring] neighbor rivalry on occasion . .The feud starts when one person parks in front of the neighbor‘s house instead of in their own driveway. The other responds by doing the same thing. The dispute escalates with each trying to do something to aggravate the other, perhaps shining a spotlight into their neighbor‘s yard, calling the village for some minor complaint or partially blocking the neighbor‘s driveway with their car. It‘s tit for tat. If you‘re going to do it, I‘m going to do it too . .1 One of the more infamous tree-cutting incidents on the North Shore involved the former actor known as Mr. T, who cut down hundreds of mature trees on his property in Lake Forest in the 1980s, setting off a firestorm of protests from neighbors and the community . Some good may have come out of the Mr. T incident, though. As a result, Lake Forest and many other suburban communities adopted tree ordinances, requiring residents to seek permits when cutting down trees on their property.2 Liz Karns, an Evanston attorney . said she heard about one case in Connecticut where a dispute between two neighbors over a clump of birch trees lasted for 10 years and cost the parties $500,000 in litigation. Karns said she has also heard of neighbors who have raked all of the leaves that have fallen from another person‘s tree back onto the other‘s property. This spring she received a telephone inquiry from a Wilmette family who had just returned from vacation 1. John Roszkowski, Love Thy Neighbor?, OAK PARK OAK LEAVES, June 21, 2006, at 72 (internal quotation marks omitted). 2. Id. 338 GONZAGA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 45:2 to find that all of their neighbor‘s trees, and some of their own, had been cut down by the contractor who was working for the neighbor.3 In the Chicago area, it seems different communities have both common and unique problems that ―most irks neighbors.‖4 Within the Chicago city limits, for instance, major beefs by one neighbor against another entail ―[n]oise complaints, children running in neighbor‘s yards, barking dogs, parking issues, [and] smoke from outdoor barbeques traveling into neighbor‘s windows or property.‖5 In Harwood Heights, near Chicago, the most frequent neighborhood peeves involve ―[g]arbage complaints; parking