Not being neighborly
Not being neighborly
Some people must find joy and pleasure in destroying the success and livelihood of others. I find it hard to understand the disgruntled people of Ligonier Township who must have nothing better to do than hassle P.J. and Maggie Nied and their Foxley Farm (“Ligonier Township farm owner says parties did not violate judge's consent order,” April 16 and TribLIVE.com).
The fabulous “Farm to Table” events and the amazing wedding venue that the Nieds offer to future brides and grooms not only maintain the beauty and livelihood of the farm, but also promote growth, provide employment and bring money into the beautiful town of Ligonier. Their opponents' petitions, sanctions, consent orders, interpretations of local zoning laws and the fines they hope to impose on the Nieds are un-neighborly and contemptuous!
It is difficult to understand that as adults, opponents cannot sit down and come up with a solution that would allow the Nieds to make a living on their beautiful farm and allow the grouchy neighbors to live in peace. Isn't that what we teach our children? This inability to compromise is a very bad example to our children.
In a world already full of bullying and ugliness, I find this situation unbelievable. Opponents should check for upcoming volunteer opportunities to try to do some good in the world instead of hassling hardworking people.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Corbett is the honest choice
- Corbett over Wolf I
- Corbett over Wolf II
- Watson in 33rd
- Barbour sentence shameful
- Gross in 45th
- Positive promise
- Inconsistent Wolf
- Gun questions for mayor I
- Ebola: No worries, right?