This is absolutely true; he has it there by choice. It's part of the landscaping.
I went to a BBQ at his house, and complimented the skeleton. "I love your horse out there." I was being sincere; it delights me. He looked mildly embarrassed.
"Oh, you do? My parents hate it." Rick has adult children himself, but I guess you always feel like a kid when your parent says, "What exactly were you thinking?"
Rick lives in a much pricier neighborhood than I do. It's not An Exclusive, Gated Community, but it's not home to many fast food workers or maids, either. There are lovely homes on spacious, well cared for lots. Rick's front yard has a pronounced slope. There's sloping lawn, a walkway to the front door and around the house to the back yard, where there is more really lovely landscaping, including a custom wrought iron, glass accented gate that's just breathtaking.
The remains of the horse are on the highest point of the front yard, an island of decomposed gravel, rocks, steel sunflowers and a mining cart. Given our area's mining history (and present), along with the surrounding desert, it's very place appropriate. It looks like a more artfully arranged version of a vignette that you might come across in the surrounding area, or as far afield as Death Valley (about 5 hours away). It almost has that, "abandon hope" look about it. I didn't ask where he got the skeleton - he may, indeed, have found it in the desert. It's still articulated, still in one piece. There's still scraps of skin and fur hanging on, but by and large, the soft tissue is all gone.
As I said, it delights me. It's imaginative, evocative, indigenous and well executed. It's unusual.
I was reminded, though, in a recent letter from the city (long story), that a legal "nuisance" is "any material, regardless of its market value, which, by reason of its location and/or character is unsightly or interferes with the reasonable use and enjoyment of adjacent properties." What that means is that if Rick's neighbors complain, his skeleton has to go - and I think that's a shame.
I think that I might be in the minority here. I know that most people view nuisance laws as away to protect their neighborhood, to keep it clean, keep it attractive, and that old standby, keep the property values up. I think that in order to be an actual nuisance, you should have to demonstrate incontrovertible evidence of clear and present danger.
You shouldn't be able to complain that something's a nuisance just because you don't like it. That's where that, "regardless of material value" thing comes in. You could buy a priceless antique, but be unable to display it in your yard because your neighbors hate it. Maybe you have one of those many armed, many breasted Hindu goddess statues. One neighbor could hate it because it's pagan, another because it scares their small child, another because the bare breasts offend them. I think that, barring an actual danger - sharp blades, snares - you should be able to have it out there if you like it.
Maybe one of Rick's neighbors is an animal rights activist, and the skeleton makes them angry. Maybe one's a vegan, and it makes them sad. They're totally entitled to their feelings, by the way, but so are those of us who love the unusual. I have never really understood how lawn came to be accepted as the perfect landscaping material, especially here in the desert. ( See "Of Lawns and Men.")
I say, embrace the eclectic! Recycle! Plant meadows, not lawns! The very fact that most new subdivisions in our area mandate a certain amount of lawn, outlaw front yard vegetable gardens and outlaw rainbarrels or gray water systems is ridiculous.
And yes, I have old, ratty, recycled things in my yard. Maybe the neighbors hate it.
I like it. Plus, it keeps things out of landfills. Win/win, yes?
I have to admit, if I find any kind of animal skeleton in the desert, I'm likely to want to take it home.
To each his own.
No comments:
Post a Comment