And if, for example, you feel disturbed, although the neighbor is not playing loud music, whose problem is it?
Katis! BECAUSE it is HER problem, consideration from the OTHER party would be appropriate. What else?
I don’t understand the whole approach of “not legally prohibited,” sorry. If everyone does whatever they want as long as it’s not legally prohibited, the community falls apart. That’s a no-brainer. And because it’s a no-brainer, the legislator doesn’t see the point in regulating THAT as well. Consideration is a matter of manners, not law.
I don’t even understand the idea of compromise. I wouldn’t even think of playing music without headphones in a garden adjacent to neighbor’s gardens if I’m not hosting a party. Why? Because it’s a no-brainer that this music disturbs others. You just don’t do it! That I have to explain this is incomprehensible to me.
Also the example with the fence: If you have agreed and something is there, that’s settled. Music keeps being turned on and off. That’s not even a lame comparison, it’s legless.
I don’t understand the sympathy for such neighbors.