The user describes an ongoing issue with their neighbors’ children who have been using the user’s driveway as a play area for about a year. Initially, the user was understanding because the neighbors have a limited yard space, despite having their own driveway.
When the children’s activities started threatening the user’s property, such as hitting windows with balls or Frisbees, the user calmly requested they stop. After the behavior escalated to breaking rocks with a hammer on the driveway and throwing pieces at the house walls, the user called the police and had the children trespassed, noting that the parents ignored the issue as long as the children were occupied. Now, the user is planning to install a large swingset/slide playhouse in their backyard for their own daughter, leading to a friend suggesting the user is wrong for potentially taking away the children’s play area only to flaunt their own new playground.
For buying my kid a “playground” after “denying” the neighbor kids a place to play
As renowned researcher Dr. Brené Brown explains, ‘Boundaries are the distance at which I can love you and me simultaneously.’ In this situation, the original poster (OP) initially failed to set firm boundaries, leading to escalating boundary violations by the neighbor’s children. The OP demonstrated patience, but when requests were ignored and property damage occurred, escalating the response to police intervention became a necessary, albeit difficult, measure to enforce those boundaries.
The friend’s reaction taps into social guilt, suggesting the OP is motivated by malice (‘flaunting wealth’) rather than legitimate self-protection. Psychologically, the OP has experienced a clear violation of their personal space and security. Installing a play structure for one’s own child is a reasonable decision related to their family’s needs, not inherently an act designed to spite the neighbors. The OP’s internal conflict—admitting they might have allowed the neighbor kids to use the new equipment if they hadn’t caused trouble—highlights an internal struggle between a natural desire for generosity and the need to protect oneself from those who have proven untrustworthy.
The OP’s actions to secure their property were appropriate given the level of damage and parental inaction. Moving forward, the OP should focus on clearly defining the use of their property. If they choose to offer access to the new play structure in the future, it must be done under clear, agreed-upon rules, with the understanding that access can be revoked immediately if those rules are broken, reinforcing that private property rights supersede informal neighborhood expectations.
REDDIT USERS WERE STUNNED – YOU WON’T BELIEVE SOME OF THESE REACTIONS.
The original poster feels they are justified in protecting their property after repeated, escalating trespass and property damage from the neighbor’s children, despite having shown initial empathy. The central conflict arises from the friend’s accusation that the user is now deliberately ‘flaunting wealth’ and taking away play space, ignoring the context of the neighbors’ previous behavior.
The core question is whether the user’s decision to secure their property and then purchase a play structure for their own child is an act of aggression or a necessary response to boundary violations. Should the user prioritize maintaining peace by limiting their own child’s new play area, or does their right to exclusive use of their property outweigh the neighbors’ implied expectation that their children should have access to the user’s driveway and potentially the new equipment?
