You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
-Signs, Portents, and the Weather-
Man wants neighbors' trees removed so sun hits his solar panels
2008-02-23
SUNNYVALE -- 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 solar panels. 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.

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 plaintiff] says the law protects his $70,000 investment in solar power, and he thinks it should be strengthened. "I think it's unfair that a neighbor can take away this source of energy from another neighbor," he said.
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 thinks 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 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 2 or 3 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."
Posted by:Seafarious

#14  Too bad Good thing the trees aren't a protected/endangered species - that would double the entertainment value to us present quite a conundrum.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2008-02-23 22:51  

#13  I agree with Frank. "Redwoods" and "Neighborhoods" are two words that have no business in the same sentence. In the suburbs, trees that big are a true menace. Heck, here in Atlanta 75 foot Oak trees cause tons of mischief when they fall over ... I can't even imagine the drama 200' redwoods would cause.
Posted by: Beau   2008-02-23 22:43  

#12  mixed feelings. Redwoods are beautiful, but not usually suitable for a suburban neighborhood. Also, sounds like the next door neighbor didn't plan well on the solar siting, huh? Perhaps a real feud is necessary to determine the outcome
Posted by: Frank G   2008-02-23 16:10  

#11  Now Mr. SolarPower grasps what farmers and ranchers feel about 'wolf' reintroduction. Tough Tiddlywatts.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2008-02-23 15:58  

#10  On the bright side, Mr. Treanor is gonna end up with one heck of a set of deck furniture.
Posted by: ed   2008-02-23 15:41  

#9  Redwoods are pretty special to those who live with them. Among other things, they add value to a house lot - ESPECIALLY in Sunnyvale and other towns along the southern Bay, where they're less often found anymore.

I have some sympathy for the guy with the solar, though. Two homes ago, I had a fence with lovely rambling roses I'd planted and carefully tended. The tiny lot next to us got sold to a couple who built a house that literally covered just about every square foot of the lot except for the small mandated setbacks. And .. the house was 3 stories tall.

I not only lost the rambling fence roses, I lost half of a very large walking garden with antique varieties of roses and other plants carefully procured and tended. And the house blocked every inch of view from our deck. grrrr
Posted by: lotp   2008-02-23 15:33  

#8  I don't see that it is that big of a deal. It is not that different from a noise ordinance, animal restrictions, height limits on buildings, parking restrictions etc. Space is limited in suburban cities and the city ordinance books are full of things that prevent the lifestyle of one person from impacting the quality of life of their neighbors.

I also agree that someone who lives in a suburban city should not have to worry about their property being denied sunlight from gigantic trees - Redwood or otherwise. You are responsible for cutting down branches that extend into your neighbors yard so they don't have to rake up leaves they didn't sign up for. And it makes sense to me that trees that can grow up and block out a neighbors ability to get sunlight (irregardless of solar panels) are a valid concern.
Posted by: Crease Poodle1618   2008-02-23 13:54  

#7  I agree, anyone too dumb to not realise "Trees shade Solar Panels" shouldn't be allowed to breed.

Sounds to me like poor planning, remedy? lawsuit.
(No, No, I couldn't be wrong.)
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2008-02-23 13:25  

#6  BP did you miss this? "... they planted the redwoods before he installed the solar panels.."

There is not material change anymore than the "yuppie scum" here in Massachusetts that bitched when the pig farm they moved next too got "too ugly" for their sensibilities.

If the trees were planted AFTER the solar panels were installed that would be one thing, but before?
Posted by: AlanC   2008-02-23 12:27  

#5  Although amusing, I come down on the side of the Solar Panel owner.

A material change to his conditions has come about because of his neighbours. If it were his swimming pool, or anything else I'd feel exactly the same.

P.S. That 70,000 USD on solar panels isn't an investment, it's a cost. Unless he's spending multi-thousands a year on fuel bills!
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2008-02-23 11:01  

#4  The comedy by the Bay Area wackos never ending.
Posted by: Woozle Elmeter 2907   2008-02-23 10:24  

#3  Maybe his solar panels will overheat, torching his house, which will burn down the trees which will then fall on and total their little electric cars.
Then they can save the world by living in tents and walking to work...
Posted by: tu3031   2008-02-23 09:25  

#2  Eegad! Trees or solar power? An eco-wacky conundrum of cosmic proportions.

My recommendation: they should fire the lawyers, fire up the bong and get mom to pay the electric bills.
Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy   2008-02-23 06:08  

#1  Green on green, you have to love it.
Like red on red, with all the irony but with less gunfire.
Posted by: N guard   2008-02-23 00:45  

00:00