Sunnyvale couple first in state convicted under Solar Shade Control Act

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.insidebayarea.com/dailyreview/ci_8098809

Sunnyvale couple first in state convicted under Solar Shade Control Act

By Paul Rogers, MEDIANEWS STAFF
Article Last Updated: 01/28/2008 08:15:18 AM PST

Talk about a clash of cherished green values.

In a case with statewide significance, the Santa Clara County District Attorney's office cited a Sunnyvale couple under a little-known California law because redwood trees in their backyard cast a shadow over their neighbor's solar panels.

Richard Treanor and Carolynn Bissett own a Toyota Prius hybrid vehicle and consider themselves environmentalists. But they refuse to cut down any of the trees behind their house on Benton Street, saying they've done nothing wrong.

"We're just living here in peace. We want to be left alone," said Bissett, who with her husband has spent $25,000 defending themselves against criminal charges. "We support solar power, but we thought common sense would prevail."

...

[gateley]

1. Wow - what a conundrum. You want the solar panels unobstructed, but

as the result of cutting down redwood trees?

[BearSquirrel2]

4. balance

That law needs tweaking. There should be a standard that allows for certain heights given the distance of the solar panels to the edge of their property.

The existence of a good shade tree means that the neighbors house is probably getting a lot less solar heating (which requires air cooling). So things likely balance out.

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. To make it worse,

The trees were planted before the solar panels were installed.

[all.of.me]

18. That, to me, says that the solar panel people are at fault. n/t

[baldguy]

2. Trees grow. The neighbor should have had a site survey done before the panels were installed.

[Quakerfriend]

3. Unbelievable! So, now the conventional wisdom is that

shade trees should be cut down so that solar panels errected 'nearby' can be useful.

Who on earth would make such a law???

[Systematic Chaos]

5. This has to be the most fucking retarded thing I've read in a LONG time.

FUCK TEH TREEZ GIMME TEH SOLAR POOL HEETERZ!!!

<a href="http://icanhascheezburger.com/2008/01/25/funny-pictures-stop-hammah-time/"><img src="" alt="funny pictures" /></a><br />moar <a href="http://icanhascheezburger.com">funny pictures</a>

[DCKit]

10. Just to be clear, it is solar electric and not a solar pool heater...

Therefore, not a vanity issue. The law's been on the books for a decade. Somebody should have had a clue. Additionally, redwood trees as a privacy fence? What are they intending to prevent, helicopter traffic/spying? There are many and far more appropriate shrubs and small trees to plant for privacy and localized shading.

None of us knows all the issues and most of us want to see a good balance between the two - shade trees cut AC costs dramatically and there are NO drawbacks to on-site solar installations - but shading your neighbors in a CA suburb is illegal (and kind of stupid).

If the only part of the neighbors roof available for a solar installation is directly in-line with the trees, they lost the argument when they decided to plant redwoods instead of a privet hedge or a fence.

[Systematic Chaos]

12. I'm sorry. I was being intentionally flip and sarcastic...

...but for a number of reasons having to do with the endless "renewables will save us" (tm) debates in this forum.

My thinking is very much in line with that of Gormy Cuss who posted below.

[DCKit]

14. And I wasn't trying to be a dick.

I went to the article 'cause what you wrote had my blood pressure up, but I was also not going to jump on THEM before I'd found out for sure.

I just didn't want other hotheads to get the wrong idea.

[mike_c]

7. hmmm, they planted the trees 10 yrs ago as a privacy fence...

...not, as they imply, as a redwood conservation measure, although the one certainly doesn't rule out the other. Still, their personal motives appear to be asthetic rather than environmental, and as the article points out, the neighbor's solar panels offset as much carbon every few days as those trees sequester in a year. From an environmental standpoint it's hard to argue with that solar array.

I think the law would make more sense if the shader were required to offset the loss to the solar generator, however. In this case, rather than being fined by the county, the owner of the trees should pay the neighbor for his lost generating capacity, either in cash so he could buy the additional electricity or by paying any increase in his energy bills as his generating capacity is shaded out. That way, they could decide what those trees were really worth to them and pay for the effects their asthetic has on their neighbors directly. As long as they're willing to pay the costs, everyone should be happy.

[Gormy Cuss]

8. It's an idiotic law if existing trees must be topped or removed.

I'm all for it precluding the planting of new trees and shrubs that will inhibit the solar generation but in this case the trees were there first and the neighbor installed his solar generation system fully aware that the trees would shade it eventually. The homeowner with the solar panels is not someone that I'd want as a neighbor. He sounds pretty damn self-centered in his environmentalism. That said, your solution would be a practical compromise to add to the law.

[FREEWILL56]

9. Normally I'd say the property owners can do as they please

and if such a law was enacted it was to head off a surge of complaints from those trying to utilize solar and are being inhibited from it from other property owners. It reminds me of the old old days (no I wasn't around for it) when they had troubles with rivers and streams. Joe was there first and diverted 50% of the water from a stream going through his property, but the new owner of the property down stream was ok with it at first until Joe used more and more of the water for his vegetation every year and the guy downstream wanted to use the water too. The trees growing is equivalent in theory to Joe using more water from the stream leaving less for his neighbor downstream. I'm not taking sides on this, but surprised it got bad enough as to that law being enacted.

[losthills]

11. I'll take sides...

The redwood guys have a right to grow whatever they want in their yard. If their neighbor doesn't like it-- tough shit.

[NNadir]

13. This is the great thing about deforestation.

It's a wonderful opportunity to build big concrete solar stations, wind farms and the like.

I always cheer for forest fires when I think of this, thinking about all the "world's largest" solar installations that can go on each burned acre.

Welcome to Governor Hydrogen Hummer's brave new world.

In general, "solar will save us" people are dumbells, gutless mystics really with a very, very, very, very poor understanding of numbers, but this is really, really, really a good one.

How many brazillion years into the brazillion solar roofs program will it take for the dumbass solar cell to recover the carbon contained in that tree.

[skids]

15. The law is a blunt instrument...

...someday we will learn this, maybe.

This one is so badly conceived one almost suspects that it was made that way just to cause a scene.

But one should "never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained through stupidity."

[Javaman]

19. Just what I was thinking. When the law looks at everything as if it was a nail...nt

[tinrobot]

16. Put the panels in the redwood trees.

That way, everyone's happy. :silly:

[Kolesar]

17. There is a compound that can be used to slow the growth of trees 40% - 60% / year

Called Premier or Cambistat
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Cambistat&spell=1