Comments | peak_oil: Just a little bit of levity, and something to think about....

yfdp in peak_oil

Just a little bit of levity, and something to think about....

Jan 26, 2008 10:33

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_8063034?nclick_check=1

Sunnyvale homeowners told to cut redwoods that block solar panels

( Read more... )

Comments 8

mrpc January 26 2008, 20:41:13 UTC

I sure hope this sets a precedent - if you go to all the expense of installing solar, your neighbours damned well better be prevented from growing trees that would specifically block that solar setup from working.

ungulatedefund January 26 2008, 22:06:37 UTC

this has got to be the most obscene thing I've ever heard - talk about conflicting values.

I'd have to agree with hammerinmyhead regarding this one. If you want to go offgrid, you have to look at the enviro around you and take into consideration growth patterns, run-off, shady spots and other various elements before dumping several thousand dollars on a system that might be impacted by any one of these elements. That IS just prudent planning.

I wouldn't install solar panels unless I was absolutely sure that something like this wouldn't arise in the future.

(The comment has been removed)

goodluckfox January 26 2008, 23:37:53 UTC

Trees planted first: "which the couple had planted from 1997 to 1999 along the fence separating their yards ( ... )

(The comment has been removed)

goodluckfox January 27 2008, 01:22:39 UTC

Arguably. But there's a rational basis for the statute, and ANY kind of zoning or land-use control can be characterized as a taking. Zoning and land use statutes have held up under constitutional due process analysis. The "due process" argument will very rarely carry the day in a case like this. In fact, you usually get summary judgment in favor of the government.

The "equal protection" issues, on the other hand, provide better ammo to fight City Hall with. Even if there's a rational basis that the government can point to, if what they're doing is arbitrary and applied to a so called "class of one" but nobody else, it will at least survive a motion for summary judgment and the fight can enter the discovery phase. I don't think the homeowners can really make an Equal Protection argument though.

Thread 6

weemadharold January 27 2008, 14:05:49 UTC

His 10-kilowatt solar system, which he installed in 2001, is so big he pays only about $60 a year in electrical bills.

Is that now? If so then it would seem that the shade isn't causing him too many problems. Still, cutting down two of the trees seems like a pretty reasonable compromise for everyone.

albionwood January 28 2008, 17:48:32 UTC

Situation like this always make me wonder what else is going on between the parties. Redwoods are extremely resilient and live quite happily after being topped - they then grow like enormous hedge-trees and can be maintained at any height. So why exactly don't the tree-owners want to do that to a few trees, thereby preserving the privacy (stated reason for trees in the first place) and yet allowing the neighbor his sunshine (and complying with the law)? I suspect there is more to this dispute ( ... )