Update to redwoods v solar panels case

[Ns1]

Solar panels win

Text

SUNNYVALE, California (AP) -- In an environmental dispute seemingly scripted for eco-friendly California, a man asked prosecutors to file charges against his neighbors because their towering redwoods blocked sunlight to his backyard solar panels.
art.solar.trees.ap.jpg

Mark Vargas shows the solar panels on his home that get blocked by his neighbors trees in Santa Clara, California.

But the couple next door insisted they should not have to chop down the trees to accommodate Mark Vargas' energy demands because they planted the redwoods before he installed the solar panels in 2001.

Experts say such clashes could become more common as California promotes renewable energy and solar systems become more popular.

"Five or ten years ago, you wouldn't have seen this case because there weren't that many systems around," said Frank Schiavo, a retired environmental-studies professor at San Jose State University. "I can almost guarantee there are going to be more conflicts."

After more than six years of legal wrangling, a judge recently ordered Richard Treanor and his wife, Carolyn Bissett, to cut down two of their eight redwoods, citing an obscure state law that protects a homeowner's right to sunlight.

The couple does not plan to appeal the ruling because they can no longer afford the legal expenses, but they plan to lobby state lawmakers to change or scrap the law.

The Solar Shade Control Act means that homeowners can "suddenly become a criminal the day a tree grows big enough to shade a solar panel," Treanor said.

The case marks the first time a homeowner has been convicted of violating the law, which was enacted three decades ago, when few homeowners had solar systems.

The law requires homeowners to keep their trees or shrubs from shading more than 10 percent of a neighbor's solar panels between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., when the sun is strongest. Existing trees that cast shadows when the panels are installed are exempt, but new growth is subject to the law.

Residents can be fined up to $1,000 a day for violations, though the judge did not impose any fines against the Treanors.

Vargas says the law protects his $70,000 investment in solar power, and he believes it should be strengthened.

"I think it's unfair that a neighbor can take away this source of energy from another neighbor," he said.

Treanor, a retired engineer, said he and his wife are not against solar power, "but we think there's a rational way to implement it."

Solar power is growing rapidly in California, which is by far the nation's biggest generator of solar energy. In 2007, more than 30,000 California homes and businesses had rooftop solar panels, with the capacity to generate 400 megawatts of electricity.

That's as much as eight power plants, according to the nonprofit Environment California.

The boom is being fueled by the California Solar Initiative, which offers homeowners and businesses more than $3 billion in rebates over the next decade to install solar-electric systems.

Both sides say they want to do what's best for the environment.

Treanor and Bissett, who drive a hybrid Toyota Prius, argue that trees absorb carbon dioxide, cool the surrounding air and provide a habitat for wildlife.

Vargas, who recently bought a plug-in electric car, counters it would take two or three acres of trees to reduce carbon dioxide emissions as much as the solar panels that cover his roof and backyard trellis.

Bernadette Del Chiaro, clean energy advocate for Environment California, says the solar shade law might need to be revised to prevent similar disputes.

"We want to make sure we are protecting individuals who have invested a lot of money in solar power, which is an important resource for the state," she said. But lawmakers might want to "take a look at the policy and make sure it's written in a way that's fair to everybody." E-mail to a friend E-mail to a friend

 

[BoomerD]

We were talking about this exact ruling Tuesday in my law class...

While I support the idea that you can't plant new trees that would shade my solar panels, requiring trees that were there before you built your solar panels to be cut is fucked up..."new growth is not exempt"...sounds like the new neighbors didn't take growth into account when they planned their solar system....they should be required to move them, NOT requiring the neighbors to cut "pre-existing" trees.

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
We were talking about this exact ruling Tuesday in my law class...

While I support the idea that you can't plant new trees that would shade my solar panels, requiring trees that were there before you built your solar panels to be cut is fucked up..."new growth is not exempt"...sounds like the new neighbors didn't take growth into account when they planned their solar system....they should be required to move them, NOT requiring the neighbors to cut "pre-existing" trees.

very true. i have a radio system that requires line of sight to communicate, and 10 yrs ago when we put it in the trees in the middle (on someones property) were fairly short. we got a call a couple years ago to help get their system running, the comms just quit for no reason. we tested hardware, software, everything until we went outside to check the antenna direction... saw trees in the way. pointed it about 10 deg to the left and it started working again. this was a govt radio system and they couldnt get the trees cut. i dont think this guy has much chance.

edit: reading comprehension for the win! i read it and forgot that they didnt fight the trees getting cut... the law was on the books before solar i bet, and related to stealing someones natural light or something...

 

[BoomerD]

Unfortunately, the homeowner with the trees has lost the suit...and is being required to cut his redwoods.

 

[hanoverphist]

2 of 8 is all. theres still 6 redwoods there.

 

[JulesMaximus]

I don't know why the hell they didn't just cut the damned trees down the first time he requested it. I believe he even offered to pay for it.

Whatever happened to being a good neighbor?

 

[BoomerD]

I think I'd be finding a good gardening service and having ALL my landscaping cut like this:
http://www.whodah.com/albums/A...s-and-Graphics/afz.jpg

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
We were talking about this exact ruling Tuesday in my law class...

While I support the idea that you can't plant new trees that would shade my solar panels, requiring trees that were there before you built your solar panels to be cut is fucked up..."new growth is not exempt"...sounds like the new neighbors didn't take growth into account when they planned their solar system....they should be required to move them, NOT requiring the neighbors to cut "pre-existing" trees.

The problem I have with this whole thing is that I recall in Business Law that your property rights extend upward infinitely (with the exception of easement rights). That's how Texas was able to arrest Ozzy Osbourne in an airplane in the 80s as he flew over the state. So, now you're telling me that the guy with the solar panel has property rights that extend over another person's property?

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: BoomerD
We were talking about this exact ruling Tuesday in my law class...

While I support the idea that you can't plant new trees that would shade my solar panels, requiring trees that were there before you built your solar panels to be cut is fucked up..."new growth is not exempt"...sounds like the new neighbors didn't take growth into account when they planned their solar system....they should be required to move them, NOT requiring the neighbors to cut "pre-existing" trees.

The problem I have with this whole thing is that I recall in Business Law that your property rights extend upward infinitely (with the exception of easement rights). That's how Texas was able to arrest Ozzy Osbourne in an airplane in the 80s as he flew over the state. So, now you're telling me that the guy with the solar panel has property rights that extend over another person's property?

The law requires homeowners to keep their trees or shrubs from shading more than 10 percent of a neighbor's solar panels between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., when the sun is strongest. Existing trees that cast shadows when the panels are installed are exempt, but new growth is subject to the law.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: BoomerD
We were talking about this exact ruling Tuesday in my law class...

While I support the idea that you can't plant new trees that would shade my solar panels, requiring trees that were there before you built your solar panels to be cut is fucked up..."new growth is not exempt"...sounds like the new neighbors didn't take growth into account when they planned their solar system....they should be required to move them, NOT requiring the neighbors to cut "pre-existing" trees.

The problem I have with this whole thing is that I recall in Business Law that your property rights extend upward infinitely (with the exception of easement rights). That's how Texas was able to arrest Ozzy Osbourne in an airplane in the 80s as he flew over the state. So, now you're telling me that the guy with the solar panel has property rights that extend over another person's property?

The law requires homeowners to keep their trees or shrubs from shading more than 10 percent of a neighbor's solar panels between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., when the sun is strongest. Existing trees that cast shadows when the panels are installed are exempt, but new growth is subject to the law.

I understand that, I just think it's a stupid law. It's another case of property rights being taken away from citizens.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

The law requires homeowners to keep their trees or shrubs from shading more than 10 percent of a neighbor's solar panels between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., when the sun is strongest. Existing trees that cast shadows when the panels are installed are exempt, but new growth is subject to the law.

10 am and 2 pm on what day?


and i think this law is ridiculous.



and no, refusing to cut down trees to accommodate your neighbor, unless they are leaning well into his/her property or in danger of falling onto his/her property, isn't being a bad neighbor.

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I don't know why the hell they didn't just cut the damned trees down the first time he requested it. I believe he even offered to pay for it.

Whatever happened to being a good neighbor?

Agreed.

There is no precedent for that in The New Amerika INC. /snarky-ness.
The new National Motto is 'Every Man for Himself' not E Pluribus Unum.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: BoomerD
We were talking about this exact ruling Tuesday in my law class...

While I support the idea that you can't plant new trees that would shade my solar panels, requiring trees that were there before you built your solar panels to be cut is fucked up..."new growth is not exempt"...sounds like the new neighbors didn't take growth into account when they planned their solar system....they should be required to move them, NOT requiring the neighbors to cut "pre-existing" trees.

The problem I have with this whole thing is that I recall in Business Law that your property rights extend upward infinitely (with the exception of easement rights). That's how Texas was able to arrest Ozzy Osbourne in an airplane in the 80s as he flew over the state. So, now you're telling me that the guy with the solar panel has property rights that extend over another person's property?

The law requires homeowners to keep their trees or shrubs from shading more than 10 percent of a neighbor's solar panels between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., when the sun is strongest. Existing trees that cast shadows when the panels are installed are exempt, but new growth is subject to the law.

I understand that, I just think it's a stupid law. It's another case of property rights being taken away from citizens.

Yeah, I definitely don't agree with it either.

Originally posted by: AlienCraft

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I don't know why the hell they didn't just cut the damned trees down the first time he requested it. I believe he even offered to pay for it.

Whatever happened to being a good neighbor?

Agreed.

There is no precedent for that in The New Amerika INC. /snarky-ness.
The new National Motto is 'Every Man for Himself' not E Pluribus Unum.

If I put a swimming pool in my back yard, you'd be ok with cutting down your trees so the leaves don't get in my pool? THANKS!

 

[Bootprint]

I wonder if the trees help cool the house of the tree's owners? And if so, could they counter-sue and ask for the monthly cost of the difference with and without the trees?

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Bootprint
I wonder if the trees help cool the house of the tree's owners? And if so, could they counter-sue and ask for the monthly cost of the difference with and without the trees?

Seems like they were casting shadows on the neighbor's yard, not the property owner's.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: BoomerD
We were talking about this exact ruling Tuesday in my law class...

While I support the idea that you can't plant new trees that would shade my solar panels, requiring trees that were there before you built your solar panels to be cut is fucked up..."new growth is not exempt"...sounds like the new neighbors didn't take growth into account when they planned their solar system....they should be required to move them, NOT requiring the neighbors to cut "pre-existing" trees.

The problem I have with this whole thing is that I recall in Business Law that your property rights extend upward infinitely (with the exception of easement rights). That's how Texas was able to arrest Ozzy Osbourne in an airplane in the 80s as he flew over the state. So, now you're telling me that the guy with the solar panel has property rights that extend over another person's property?

The law requires homeowners to keep their trees or shrubs from shading more than 10 percent of a neighbor's solar panels between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., when the sun is strongest. Existing trees that cast shadows when the panels are installed are exempt, but new growth is subject to the law.

I understand that, I just think it's a stupid law. It's another case of property rights being taken away from citizens.

Yeah, I definitely don't agree with it either.

Originally posted by: AlienCraft

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I don't know why the hell they didn't just cut the damned trees down the first time he requested it. I believe he even offered to pay for it.

Whatever happened to being a good neighbor?

Agreed.

There is no precedent for that in The New Amerika INC. /snarky-ness.
The new National Motto is 'Every Man for Himself' not E Pluribus Unum.

If I put a swimming pool in my back yard, you'd be ok with cutting down your trees so the leaves don't get in my pool? THANKS!

My trees don't drop leaves. I have palm trees in my yard.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I don't know why the hell they didn't just cut the damned trees down the first time he requested it. I believe he even offered to pay for it.

Whatever happened to being a good neighbor?

Did he offer to pay for the property value loss? That's more than the cost of cutting them down by far.

 

[theMan]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
I think I'd be finding a good gardening service and having ALL my landscaping cut like this:
http://www.whodah.com/albums/A...s-and-Graphics/afz.jpg

we can only wish

 

[beat mania]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
We were talking about this exact ruling Tuesday in my law class...

While I support the idea that you can't plant new trees that would shade my solar panels, requiring trees that were there before you built your solar panels to be cut is fucked up..."new growth is not exempt"...sounds like the new neighbors didn't take growth into account when they planned their solar system....they should be required to move them, NOT requiring the neighbors to cut "pre-existing" trees.

IIRC from the original article, the solar person didn't have anywhere to place the solar panels except where they are currently placed.

Also, solar panel or not, there comes a point where it become obnoxious when your ginormous redwood trees block so much sun that your neighbor doesn't get sunlight on his house. Who wants to be constantly living in the shades?

 

[BoomerD]

Don't move in to the house with trees next door?

 

[0roo0roo]

wheres this solar house.
we should egg it.

 

[zoiks]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
wheres this solar house.
we should egg it.

Why?