Opinions on this Story?

[Twi]

This old man buried his wife in his front yard a few years ago per her own final wishes. You can see from the photo that the grave is being well maintained and everything.

tl;dr people are going all "wah property values!" and the city is suing this guy unless he disinters his wife and buries her somewhere else.

Personally I think he should be allowed to just leave her there. He is an old man after all and he's not harming anybody. Not only that but she is in fact buried and not out and about like some people do with corpses.

Discuss.

[MetalHeroOfTime]

The guy isn't harming anybody. It is his property. I say, let his wife rest in peace.

[Guitar]

^This in spades.

[Dan]

It's his property, he can do what he wants.

[Snagprophet]

Isn't this the same state which claimed ownership over rainwater and suing those collecting it?

Bare in mind I don't know the legal status of burying people in gardens in the UK. I think the main problem is how anyone would go about selling the property in the future? It's really hard to judge the the morals here. Putting a grave on the property would be like a permanent, personal feature to the property and if anyone buys it what do they do? The thing with graveyards is that they're legally expected to be maintained as final resting places. There is that assurance whereas if someone does this to a property then it potentially becomes unsellable. So unless he's somehow keeping it in the family forever, it's impossible to respect the guy's wishes.

[Twi]

Sounds like his grand kids are gonna take over it for him when he passes. If anything when he eventually does they could then remove his wife and place them together in a cemetery.

[The Professional Griefer]

Originally Posted by MetalHeroOfTime

The guy isn't harming anybody. It is his property. I say, let his wife rest in peace.

this right here

[Snagprophet]

Originally Posted by TwilightVestige

Sounds like his grand kids are gonna take over it for him when he passes. If anything when he eventually does they could then remove his wife and place them together in a cemetery.

I suppose it's plausible for him to move the body if he moves but a lot of people think graves should be static and seeing as he's not going to be living there forever and neither his kids will it just seems inconvenient to put a grave there.

[GoldenJiggies]

Their case won't hold up.

[dragon_kazoooie]

They should just let him keep his wife there, if anything they don't have to keep any kind of tombstone there or anything when he dies, her tombstone could be placed in a cemetery along with her husband. It's not like anybody would know that there was a body underneath them if there wasn't a sign. That way everybody's happy. Of course if it went my way I'd have the old man and his wife both have tombstones and graves on that property and then find a family that wouldn't mind having it there, or something like that...Idk, it's complicated.

[Korra]

Honestly, the people who worry about their "property values" are complete nutters.

[Hey, I'm Grump]

Unless she is stinking up the place, nobody really has a leg to stand on if they're against this. He owns the land, so he can do whatever the **** he likes with it.

[Spudfish93]

Not only should this man be allowed to keep his wife buried beside the house, I feel it is a personal insult to her husband and all family members that this is a problem at all. This was a dying woman's final wishes.

I just dread to think what'll happen when he passes away.

[firealpha]

Complicated issues here. Many complicated issues.

Certainly the article covered the eminent domain side of things. If they really wanted to, they could force the man to accept payment for that parcel of land, exhume the body, and move her somewhere else, presuming they can somehow justify its purpose for "public use." Which, to me, means that the body being there would have to be an actual problem, but to the government is probably sufficient to show it is a nuisance.

But I think the most important issue to this is indeed about whether he has the right to add such a feature to his property. First instincts say yes, obviously, it's his land. Second instincts tell me no one wants to live on an Indian burial ground, so why would this one be any different? I'm really not sure what to think. It's probably in the overall interest of the neighborhood to force him to move the body. But I don't know if I believe the government should have the power to compel him to do such a thing.

We'll see what happens.

[Gruntling]

If there's nothing written in the law and he owns the property, I don't see what the problem is.