Indiana Junk Car Laws?

[mom45]

Even in the country, junk cars and such can impact neighbors.

Let's say property owner #1 buys a beautiful piece of property on a road where there are one or two other homes. They spend their hard earned money to build a nice home for their family. They landscape and do all of the things they want to do on this dream property and make it beautiful. They take pride in it and maintain it. Property around them starts selling and people start dragging in trailers to live in or building houses that never get finished. The junk cars start collecting in the driveway. As long as there are junk cars, what will a little more junk hurt, right? So, they start dragging in all sorts of crap. Instead of paying for trash pickup, they just pile it in the back yard or let it blow all over into the woods (including onto neighboring properties). Coons, possums, stray cats, etc. all start to become a huge problem as they are attracted by all of this trash and have shelter in the junk cars.

So...does this junk impact the neighbors? I would have to say it does.

You still disagree? How about when neighbor #1 who has done everything right decides they have had enough of the "new" neighbors and tries to sell that dream property/home. Does it impact them then? Who is going to pay to live in a neighborhood filled with junk?

We live in a community where nice homes are not all that plentiful. It impacts us in a lot of ways. It is hard to attract business and industry to move into our area because when the people who come to see the area see the lack of adequate housing, they go elsewhere. The doctors here are the bottom of the bucket because the good ones don't want to come here. I have heard a couple say they could never live here because the homes they have seen are not what they would want to live in and when they do find a nice home, it is surrounded by junk. They could live in another town and commute but most of the nicer homes are too far away for a doctor who is "on call" since hospitals usually have a limit as to how far away you can reside.

I agree with Eldirector. Rules have their place. Without rules, our society would be a pretty big mess. I am not a fan of too many rules, but what we do on our property should not impact or harm the neighbors. I guess I just try to be a good neighbor, and get tired of picking up trash from all of the neighbors around me who think letting their junk blow all over is just fine.

 

[Clay]

Your definition of junk cars, and my definition of junk cars could be two very different things.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

I'm curious about the apparent zoning law that requires at least one pitbull for every two junk cars.

That requirement must be state-wide, but the number of pitbulls per junk car might vary by locale.

 

[mom45]

The definition of junk cars is usually in the ordinance. If you have a "junk" car that is going to be used for something or fixed up, most ordinances simply say it cannot be in view of the road. I don't see how that is a problem. When mine got t-boned and we couldn't get it fixed right away, it was parked out back behind a building and nobody could see it.

 

[eldirector]

In case anyone cares, here is the IC for an abandoned vehicle:
Indiana Code 2015 - Indiana General Assembly, 2015 Session

(7) A vehicle that is at least three (3) model years old, is mechanically inoperable, and is left on private property continuously in a location visible from public property for more than twenty (20) days. For purposes of this subdivision, a vehicle covered by a tarpaulin or other plastic, vinyl, rubber,cloth, or textile covering is considered to be visible

And what happens to an abandoned vehicle:
Indiana Code 2015 - Indiana General Assembly, 2015 Session

So, basically, if you can see the inop vehicle from a PUBLIC place, then the State considers it abandoned. The fix is to move the vehicle to a location where it CANNOT be seen from public property (inside a garage/barn, behind a fence, etc....). If it can still be seen from PRIVATE property (eg: the neighbor), it is not abandoned.

 

[steveh_131]

Buy his property. Then you can control what goes on there.

Nailed it. I wish I could rep this.

Alternatively, if your neighbor's vehicles have damaged you in some way, I would suggest that you seek monetary damages in civil court. If your drinking water is affected, get some evidence. If his rats are infesting your home, get some evidence.

If all of these damages are imaginary, then I would suggest that you mind your own business.

 

[femurphy77]

If I walk outside every day and look at a bunch of junk cars and the crap that goes with it it is effecting me. Believe it.

Would you just let that slide. In the country is one thing.....In town......no.

We're dealing with this right now, not junk cars, just JUNK! I'm waiting to catch the landlord and discuss it with him before we go all Nazi on him!

 

[IndyDave1776]

Even in the country, junk cars and such can impact neighbors.

Let's say property owner #1 buys a beautiful piece of property on a road where there are one or two other homes. They spend their hard earned money to build a nice home for their family. They landscape and do all of the things they want to do on this dream property and make it beautiful. They take pride in it and maintain it. Property around them starts selling and people start dragging in trailers to live in or building houses that never get finished. The junk cars start collecting in the driveway. As long as there are junk cars, what will a little more junk hurt, right? So, they start dragging in all sorts of crap. Instead of paying for trash pickup, they just pile it in the back yard or let it blow all over into the woods (including onto neighboring properties). Coons, possums, stray cats, etc. all start to become a huge problem as they are attracted by all of this trash and have shelter in the junk cars.

So...does this junk impact the neighbors? I would have to say it does.

You still disagree? How about when neighbor #1 who has done everything right decides they have had enough of the "new" neighbors and tries to sell that dream property/home. Does it impact them then? Who is going to pay to live in a neighborhood filled with junk?

We live in a community where nice homes are not all that plentiful. It impacts us in a lot of ways. It is hard to attract business and industry to move into our area because when the people who come to see the area see the lack of adequate housing, they go elsewhere. The doctors here are the bottom of the bucket because the good ones don't want to come here. I have heard a couple say they could never live here because the homes they have seen are not what they would want to live in and when they do find a nice home, it is surrounded by junk. They could live in another town and commute but most of the nicer homes are too far away for a doctor who is "on call" since hospitals usually have a limit as to how far away you can reside.

I agree with Eldirector. Rules have their place. Without rules, our society would be a pretty big mess. I am not a fan of too many rules, but what we do on our property should not impact or harm the neighbors. I guess I just try to be a good neighbor, and get tired of picking up trash from all of the neighbors around me who think letting their junk blow all over is just fine.

I have noticed that the story often runs the other way around. One thing worthy of mention is that if you farm, unless your last name is Corporation, there is a high probability that your operation isn't necessarily going to look like a park from the road. You use the equipment you can afford, you have the buildings you can afford, and you don't throw away much of anything because you may need it some time. I have seen farmers save over a thousand dollars in a day by simply not junking old equipment from which they might use parts later. That is just how it pencils out. Then you have some city jackass decide to buy nearby property and decide that since he has found his just right place to build his own paradise on earth, everyone else is going to conform to his dream whether they like it or not. Perhaps the most egregious example I recall was that of a doctor who bought his dream property right next to a HOG FARM. He then decided that he didn't like the smell and started a ****storm in court trying to get the hog farm shut down because it was unpleasant and consequently devalued his property and interfered with his happy little paradise.

All things considered, this reminds me much of those who will marry someone with the idea of insisting upon trying to change that person to be what they want rather than simply finding a compatible person. It doesn't work and it generally fuels resentment.

 

[Brandon]

Neighbors on both sides of me have junk cars. Nothing is ever said to anyone about those junk cars and no one says anything to us about our yard and whats in it. Not bad if you ask me.

 

[Tactically Fat]

Alternatively, if your neighbor's vehicles have damaged you in some way, I would suggest that you seek monetary damages in civil court. If your drinking water is affected, get some evidence. If his rats are infesting your home, get some evidence.

If all of these damages are imaginary, then I would suggest that you mind your own business.

That's kind of what I was getting at with my post up thread.

Not that there AREN'T issues/concerns with junk vehicles in a neighbor's yard, but that there CAN be.

Soil and water testing aren't terribly expensive

 

[mom45]

I have noticed that the story often runs the other way around. One thing worthy of mention is that if you farm, unless your last name is Corporation, there is a high probability that your operation isn't necessarily going to look like a park from the road. You use the equipment you can afford, you have the buildings you can afford, and you don't throw away much of anything because you may need it some time. I have seen farmers save over a thousand dollars in a day by simply not junking old equipment from which they might use parts later. That is just how it pencils out. Then you have some city jackass decide to buy nearby property and decide that since he has found his just right place to build his own paradise on earth, everyone else is going to conform to his dream whether they like it or not. Perhaps the most egregious example I recall was that of a doctor who bought his dream property right next to a HOG FARM. He then decided that he didn't like the smell and started a ****storm in court trying to get the hog farm shut down because it was unpleasant and consequently devalued his property and interfered with his happy little paradise.

All things considered, this reminds me much of those who will marry someone with the idea of insisting upon trying to change that person to be what they want rather than simply finding a compatible person. It doesn't work and it generally fuels resentment.

I think agricultural areas tend to be a bit more lax in enforcing the abandoned vehicle rules and most of the rules seem to apply mainly to vehicles that are required to have a license plate. Tractors and implements would not be in that category. I have absolutely no problem with farmers who have machinery around for parts. We have done that here on our property but they are not visible from the road and once we have stripped everything we can possibly use, the rest is hauled in for scrap when prices are up. We've done well on things we have bought at farm auctions...used many parts and junked the rest for more than the initial purchase price. Farmers tend to have big enough parcels that their "junk" doesn't impact neighbors as much as when there are a bunch of houses on one acre parcels in close proximity of one another.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I think agricultural areas tend to be a bit more lax in enforcing the abandoned vehicle rules and most of the rules seem to apply mainly to vehicles that are required to have a license plate. Tractors and implements would not be in that category. I have absolutely no problem with farmers who have machinery around for parts. We have done that here on our property but they are not visible from the road and once we have stripped everything we can possibly use, the rest is hauled in for scrap when prices are up. We've done well on things we have bought at farm auctions...used many parts and junked the rest for more than the initial purchase price. Farmers tend to have big enough parcels that their "junk" doesn't impact neighbors as much as when there are a bunch of houses on one acre parcels in close proximity of one another.

I would say that our positions are pretty close. My concern is that I am generally careful to avoid handing government a club to hit those other people when that same club can be used to hit me.

 

[mom45]

I would say that our positions are pretty close. My concern is that I am generally careful to avoid handing government a club to hit those other people when that same club can be used to hit me.

Sometimes it hurts when the rules are applied to us, but I understand the need for them and don't want to be a bad neighbor so I do my best not to do things that would harm them in any way. I do my best to keep my pets at my house and to keep my trash properly stored, etc. It goes back to that do unto others thing that I learned when I was a kid. About the only thing we do that might annoy them is when we target shoot...that can get a bit noisy. However, we do that responsibly as well in that we make sure we have a proper backstop and don't do it super early in the morning when they may still be sleeping. Most of the neighbors shoot too so I'm not sure that our shooting bothers any of them.

 

[churchmouse]

So some arbitrary invisible line created maybe a hundred years ago determines your property rights?

So what if your in the "town" limits and the next property is not how does that work

Lets look at this from a financial standpoint regardless of an invisible line.

Property value. If your neighbor is letting his place go to hell then in a way it is his business. Now, if his lack of concern effects my property's value (and it does) then it does become an issue.

Hey, I love a good junk yard, seriously. Just not within view of my porch.

 

[churchmouse]

I have noticed that the story often runs the other way around. One thing worthy of mention is that if you farm, unless your last name is Corporation, there is a high probability that your operation isn't necessarily going to look like a park from the road. You use the equipment you can afford, you have the buildings you can afford, and you don't throw away much of anything because you may need it some time. I have seen farmers save over a thousand dollars in a day by simply not junking old equipment from which they might use parts later. That is just how it pencils out. Then you have some city jackass decide to buy nearby property and decide that since he has found his just right place to build his own paradise on earth, everyone else is going to conform to his dream whether they like it or not. Perhaps the most egregious example I recall was that of a doctor who bought his dream property right next to a HOG FARM. He then decided that he didn't like the smell and started a ****storm in court trying to get the hog farm shut down because it was unpleasant and consequently devalued his property and interfered with his happy little paradise.

All things considered, this reminds me much of those who will marry someone with the idea of insisting upon trying to change that person to be what they want rather than simply finding a compatible person. It doesn't work and it generally fuels resentment.

Our Family Farm (sold off) had a great junk yard on it. It was far back and away from view. I mean way far back. It was a great place to run "Non-Scientific" tests on firearms and we used to have a ball back there as kids.

I am all for a really good junk yard but again, not in my "Neighborhood"

 

[JettaKnight]

Our Family Farm (sold off) had a great junk yard on it. It was far back and away from view. I mean way far back. It was a great place to run "Non-Scientific" teats on firearms and we used to have a ball back there as kids.

I am all for a really good junk yard but again, not in my "Neighborhood"

Does milk from glocks taste like plastic?

 

[churchmouse]

Does milk from glocks taste like plastic?

Good point.....

Next non-scientific test I guess.....

 

[dirtybird]

I try not to pay attention to my neighbors... I figured it'd be hypocritical if they were anti gun but never bothered me about my guns but I did about their junk. I'm sure if you try hard enough you could find something about everybody to complain about, best to ignore them imo.

Edit*

But I do agree with the property value aspect of it... if it's effecting the value of my home then yes it is a problem, I just tend to make my best efforts at ignoring what others are doing, I think a lot of what is wrong with America today is everybody is so busy worrying about everybody elses households. Again, just my opinion.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Sometimes it hurts when the rules are applied to us, but I understand the need for them and don't want to be a bad neighbor so I do my best not to do things that would harm them in any way. I do my best to keep my pets at my house and to keep my trash properly stored, etc. It goes back to that do unto others thing that I learned when I was a kid. About the only thing we do that might annoy them is when we target shoot...that can get a bit noisy. However, we do that responsibly as well in that we make sure we have a proper backstop and don't do it super early in the morning when they may still be sleeping. Most of the neighbors shoot too so I'm not sure that our shooting bothers any of them.

You have raised two separate issues. First, treating others with the respect you would like to receive in return is an excellent virtue. Having it enforced by the force of government not so much. The problem with allowing such laws and ordinances is that they are cumulative--in other words, anything that disturbed a vocal minority at any time in the past is on the books and virtually impossible to get rid of and eventually you reach the point at which your property is virtually unusable aside from the grace of your neighbors turning a blind eye to most anything you do. Eventually this will reach the point that almost no one can make sense out of the collection of laws, almost everything is illegal or controlled, and it is virtually impossible to live within the law--a condition we are well on our way to reaching.

It is easy to look at the obvious motivations for such laws, like that neighbor who starts his own home salvage yard, particularly in town. The problem is that it will devolve fairly quickly into things like the infamous INGO 'grass is a weapon' argument, categorically denying yo the right to operate any type of home business, telling you what colors you may paint your house, dictating what plants you may plant in your yard, and overall reaching the point of having local government serve as a de facto homeowners' association with rules of equal or greater pettiness, and even more pettiness depending on who your friends are or are not.

At the end of the day, the result of this is having to deal with the entire historical total of every time someone said, "There ought to be a law..." and managed to get action out of their wish, which becomes a club with which any one disgruntled neighbor can hold everyone else hostage, especially with arguments which are accepted today which would not have been in the past.

Speaking of those type of arguments which would not have been accepted in the past, the justification for most any of these laws in the context that affecting others is now held leaves few if any limitations. To borrow a phrase out of an unrelated Thomas Jefferson quote, in his day, if the offending action 'neither picks your pockets nor breaks your limbs' you did not have grounds for a complaint. Today, accepted arguments are much more vague and general. I can understand laws which prohibit the contamination of drinking water for example, especially given that this will cause direct physical harm. On the other hand, painting my house loud colors is not harming anyone in any direct way other than offending their sense of aesthetic value. Conversely, I could argue that their choice of white, white, or white is painfully boring and offensive. Whichever side has 51% of the vote wins and imposes its will on the 49%--a condition I find grossly incompatible with a free society.

Given the trend toward using this type of law for first the elimination of things that would distress most people and then becoming more and more petty until it is dictated to you what flowers you are allowed to plant in your yard, I see problems which greatly outweigh the perceived benefits.

 

[mom45]

You have raised two separate issues. First, treating others with the respect you would like to receive in return is an excellent virtue. Having it enforced by the force of government not so much. The problem with allowing such laws and ordinances is that they are cumulative--in other words, anything that disturbed a vocal minority at any time in the past is on the books and virtually impossible to get rid of and eventually you reach the point at which your property is virtually unusable aside from the grace of your neighbors turning a blind eye to most anything you do. Eventually this will reach the point that almost no one can make sense out of the collection of laws, almost everything is illegal or controlled, and it is virtually impossible to live within the law--a condition we are well on our way to reaching.

It is easy to look at the obvious motivations for such laws, like that neighbor who starts his own home salvage yard, particularly in town. The problem is that it will devolve fairly quickly into things like the infamous INGO 'grass is a weapon' argument, categorically denying yo the right to operate any type of home business, telling you what colors you may paint your house, dictating what plants you may plant in your yard, and overall reaching the point of having local government serve as a de facto homeowners' association with rules of equal or greater pettiness, and even more pettiness depending on who your friends are or are not.

At the end of the day, the result of this is having to deal with the entire historical total of every time someone said, "There ought to be a law..." and managed to get action out of their wish, which becomes a club with which any one disgruntled neighbor can hold everyone else hostage, especially with arguments which are accepted today which would not have been in the past.

Speaking of those type of arguments which would not have been accepted in the past, the justification for most any of these laws in the context that affecting others is now held leaves few if any limitations. To borrow a phrase out of an unrelated Thomas Jefferson quote, in his day, if the offending action 'neither picks your pockets nor breaks your limbs' you did not have grounds for a complaint. Today, accepted arguments are much more vague and general. I can understand laws which prohibit the contamination of drinking water for example, especially given that this will cause direct physical harm. On the other hand, painting my house loud colors is not harming anyone in any direct way other than offending their sense of aesthetic value. Conversely, I could argue that their choice of white, white, or white is painfully boring and offensive. Whichever side has 51% of the vote wins and imposes its will on the 49%--a condition I find grossly incompatible with a free society.

Given the trend toward using this type of law for first the elimination of things that would distress most people and then becoming more and more petty until it is dictated to you what flowers you are allowed to plant in your yard, I see problems which greatly outweigh the perceived benefits.

You make some excellent points. There needs to be balance. From what I have seen of local government and how rules are applied, a lot depends on who you are and who you know...