apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

TREES!

I heard this story on NPR last week and it sounds like the neighbor with the panels might try to force the other neighbor to cut down more trees in the future. Which kind of makes this whole situation seem more like a personal thing.

This depresses me to no end. If mister solar is so environmental he should let the trees stay, and should have noticed their presence before he installed panels there. You can't "trim" a redwood to not shade your panels. You can top it, and watch it die. Or you can rip it out. Don't most cities have ordinances preventing people from removing mature, healthy trees? My parents have multiple redwood trees in their yard in the Bay Area and they have been badly cut and had roots hacked out to the point where we think they are unhealthy and unsafe, but there is no way the city will let them be removed. I can't believe that they would allow tree removal over something as petty as this.

Basically, I think the solar guy should suck it up. It's not their fault he put panels there, and I don't think they should be punished for what, in most areas, would be a huge benefit (nice big shady trees for the neighborhood). What I want to know is how much $$$ he is losing from the shading of his panels. I am guessing that's his motivation. Because why else would an environmentalist want to rip out healthy, mature trees?

Pardon my rant, I've been waiting to hear the resolution on this one as I am pissed off. I mean, solar panels = good, but that's no excuse for cutting down healthy trees!

Interesting... read the story; it seems kind of bizarre when you read this blurb on AT, but if you go through the article, it makes more sense than it seems.

In the end, I think the tree-owners got more than a fair deal: judge waived their fines, which would have been incredibly stiff, and they would only be required to cut down two trees (or could even cut them back, which is another very reasonable option) and keep 6...

I think they were unreasonable in their initial refusal to negotiate a compromise, and then in appealing this law... I mean, what is the good-faith basis for appeal here? They violated a strict liability regulation which doesn't require criminal intent; are they trying to argue it's unconstitutional?

It just doesn't fly with me.

I heard the story on NPR too, and the way the the report ended, it definitely sounded like the solar panel guy was being vengeful - the way the story ended with a quote of him saying something to the effect of "I might have him rip out two more trees next year". I don't know enough to say whether it was the journalism or the heart of the matter, but it definitely sounded spiteful on the air.

I also find it difficult to believe that a true environmentalist would want to rip out healthy redwood trees. It seems like the solar panel guy was looking out for himself, economically or otherwise.

I lean towards having empathy for the tree guy.

There's an idea of solar rights -- the right to have a certain amount of sun on your property unobstructed by your neighbors, much in the same way as water rights downstream on a watershed. Fairly old idea seen in Roman and Anasazi city layouts, although I didn't realize it had been formalized in California. The redwoods weren't planted for any "environmental purpose", just privacy, and in that sprawling footprint neighborhood, 15-20 feet of height is more than enough to provide that. They and their neighbor would gain more benefit in passive solar (ignoring the electric solar benefit) by coordinating planting of deciduous trees that would provide shade in the summer and warm sunlight in the winter. Topping the trees won't kill them, although they might ask to trim them over a couple of years to reduce the system shock.

If the solar panels were installed before the trees were planted, I would be on the side of the side of the solar panels. But since the trees came before the solar panels, the trees take precedence.

It seems like common sense to me.

Do the trees shade his ENTIRE property? Is there not a single sunny spot he could relocate the panels to? Sure, they wouldn't be as pretty... But I wonder how much they're taking into account the amount of energy he's NOT using to cool his home on a hot summer day because of those trees. Where I live, that kind of shade in the summer could cut your electric bill in half. Seriously.

Parhelia, if you click the article, you can see an aerial view of the property. It's not like the trees shade the WHOLE thing, it looks like maybe 10% to me (but that may be the angle of the shot or my bad math). Still doesn't seem worth it to me.

Also, alinia, have you ever seen a topped redwood? It's kind of like a sick joke.

I haven't read the article but I would take the long-term view - if he decides to remove the solar panels next year can the redwoods be replaced the way they were? - the answer is, of course they can't, so the trees should stay and the solar panels should be relocated

solar panels are just inappropriate in some areas. they should try wind instead and they can have green power AND trees.

Anne (in Reno): I'm with you on the topped redwoods looking odd, but planting them in the first place on an exposed dry ridge is kind of silly too. There are all sorts of reasons to top, trim, or even remove and replant trees (I work with our city's tree commission). If you read the article I side with Newick rather than Schiavo: trees aren't a binary good much as we need them and in this case the solar cells should provide more good than the trees. Each type of tree and active/passive solar system has its own set of pros and cons -- but the law clearly states that the solar systems have precedence regardless of when they were installed. If the trees acted as a passive solar system then they might have a case, but they're just there for looks.