Living so close to the elementary school, every day the quiet rhythm of children’s footsteps passing by became a part of their lives. What started as a simple project—a small brick retaining wall—soon turned into a silent battleground between preserving their new creation and protecting the innocent energy of the kids who unknowingly challenged it with every climb.
Faced with the dilemma of how to safeguard their handiwork without causing harm, the couple wrestled with a choice that felt heavier than bricks and mortar. Would planting prickly bushes to deter the children be a necessary shield or a cruel barrier? The question lingered, stirring a mix of concern, responsibility, and the fragile balance between community and property.
WIBTA If I plant thorny bushes around the edge of my property to keep children away
As renowned psychologist Carl Rogers explains, “The only person who is educated is the one who has learned how to learn, the one who has learned how to adapt and change, the one who has realized that knowledge is something that must be continually updated.” While this quote speaks to learning, the underlying principle applies to adaptation in interpersonal situations: effective solutions require considering all perspectives and adapting communication.
The OP’s motivation stems from a legitimate need to protect a new investment (the wall) and mitigate potential liability from falls. However, the proposed solution—planting deterrents like wild rose or lantana—is an active, potentially hostile measure aimed at physically discouraging behavior, rather than addressing the core issue through communication or environmental design changes accessible to the public.
The core issue here is the management of boundaries in a shared, semi-public space. While the OP has property rights, the presence of an elementary school suggests a high volume of pedestrian traffic where slight encroachments are often tolerated by neighbors. Planting thorny deterrents, even if intended only as a minor inconvenience, can be perceived as punitive or unnecessarily hostile, especially toward children. A more constructive approach would have involved direct, polite communication with the school administration or local parents about the wall’s purpose and the safety concerns regarding climbing, or installing a low, aesthetically pleasing barrier that clearly defines the property line without posing an injury risk.
The OP’s choice of wild rose and lantana suggests a desire for a moderate deterrent, acknowledging that extreme measures like cacti were excessive. While the action itself is not definitively ‘wrong’ as they are on private property, it escalates the situation from a passive nuisance to an active defense mechanism. Future attempts to manage shared space boundaries should prioritize clear, non-injurious physical markers (like a slight change in paving material or a very low, soft planting) combined with proactive, community-oriented communication.
THIS STORY SHOOK THE INTERNET – AND REDDITORS DIDN’T HOLD BACK.
The original poster (OP) is feeling frustrated because children are using their newly built retaining wall as a pathway, creating a risk of damage and potential liability. The conflict centers on the OP’s desire to protect their property and prevent trespassing versus the perceived right of the children to walk along the public sidewalk area.
Is it acceptable to install thorny or prickly deterrent plants along the top of a low retaining wall bordering a public sidewalk to prevent children from climbing, or does this action prioritize property protection over community safety and goodwill?
