Comments on: The Right to Sunlight: Solar vs. Redwood Trees http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2008/02/07/the-right-to-sunlight-solar-vs-redwood-trees/ Science, Environment, and Nature in the SF Bay Area Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:23:31 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: David Kusk http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2008/02/07/the-right-to-sunlight-solar-vs-redwood-trees/comment-page-1/#comment-62114 David Kusk Sat, 27 Dec 2008 07:13:53 +0000 http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2008/02/07/the-right-to-sunlight-solar-vs-redwood-trees/#comment-62114 Okay, both neighbors clearly care about the environment. So why not come up with a way to attach the currently shaded solar panels to the tree without irreprably harming the tree, and therefore serve the interests of both neighbors? The trees continue to live, the solar panels get their sunlight, the neighbor with the solar panels still benefits from the power that is produced, and the neighbor with the trees still gets to enjoy these trees that will continue to outlive everyone that's alive today. Just thought I'd put in my two bits worth. Thanks. Okay, both neighbors clearly care about the environment. So why not come up with a way to attach the currently shaded solar panels to the tree without irreprably harming the tree, and therefore serve the interests of both neighbors?

The trees continue to live, the solar panels get their sunlight, the neighbor with the solar panels still benefits from the power that is produced, and the neighbor with the trees still gets to enjoy these trees that will continue to outlive everyone that's alive today.

Just thought I'd put in my two bits worth. Thanks.

]]> By: admin http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2008/02/07/the-right-to-sunlight-solar-vs-redwood-trees/comment-page-1/#comment-58822 admin Thu, 24 Jul 2008 02:01:04 +0000 http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2008/02/07/the-right-to-sunlight-solar-vs-redwood-trees/#comment-58822 <strong>7/23/08 UPDATE</strong>: The contentious battle between solar energy and redwood trees has come to an end. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed a bill into law that guarantees if California property owners plant a tree before a neighbor installs solar panels the neighbor can't require the tree to be chopped down, or trimmed, if it is shading their solar panels. Check out this <a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_9968160" rel="nofollow">article in the San Jose Mercury News</a>. 7/23/08 UPDATE: The contentious battle between solar energy and redwood trees has come to an end. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed a bill into law that guarantees if California property owners plant a tree before a neighbor installs solar panels the neighbor can't require the tree to be chopped down, or trimmed, if it is shading their solar panels. Check out this article in the San Jose Mercury News.

]]> By: Tekla Perry http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2008/02/07/the-right-to-sunlight-solar-vs-redwood-trees/comment-page-1/#comment-56667 Tekla Perry Thu, 03 Apr 2008 16:34:40 +0000 http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2008/02/07/the-right-to-sunlight-solar-vs-redwood-trees/#comment-56667 Just looking at global warming, the solar panels win, see the calculations at http://blogs.spectrum.ieee.org/tech_talk/2008/04/solar_energy_or_growing_trees.html Just looking at global warming, the solar panels win, see the calculations at http://blogs.spectrum.ieee.org/tech_talk/2008/04/solar_energy_or_growing_trees.html

]]> By: M. D. Vaden of Oregon http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2008/02/07/the-right-to-sunlight-solar-vs-redwood-trees/comment-page-1/#comment-56349 M. D. Vaden of Oregon Thu, 13 Mar 2008 01:24:42 +0000 http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2008/02/07/the-right-to-sunlight-solar-vs-redwood-trees/#comment-56349 I read about this on some arborist forums too. Seems that the issue is just picking up steam. Maybe this is why I enjoy taking a break in the forest so often to get out of the city. Redwoods... http://www.mdvaden.com/grove_of_titans.shtml We expect to move back to Portland area again, to the more populated area. Now I can brace myself for more of this kind of haggling - even if about other tree issues. Seems odd how one property can control another property. I read about this on some arborist forums too. Seems that the issue is just picking up steam.

Maybe this is why I enjoy taking a break in the forest so often to get out of the city.

Redwoods…

http://www.mdvaden.com/grove_of_titans.shtml

We expect to move back to Portland area again, to the more populated area. Now I can brace myself for more of this kind of haggling – even if about other tree issues.

Seems odd how one property can control another property.

]]> By: Den De Waard http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2008/02/07/the-right-to-sunlight-solar-vs-redwood-trees/comment-page-1/#comment-56298 Den De Waard Sun, 09 Mar 2008 17:58:39 +0000 http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2008/02/07/the-right-to-sunlight-solar-vs-redwood-trees/#comment-56298 people need trees, people do not need electricity. I agree wholeheartedly that the judge should have thrown it out and set a precedent. people need trees, people do not need electricity. I agree wholeheartedly that the judge should have thrown it out and set a precedent.

]]> By: Mary Ruhter http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2008/02/07/the-right-to-sunlight-solar-vs-redwood-trees/comment-page-1/#comment-56212 Mary Ruhter Fri, 22 Feb 2008 21:41:16 +0000 http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2008/02/07/the-right-to-sunlight-solar-vs-redwood-trees/#comment-56212 This is absolutely ridiculous. Vargus installed the solar panels AFTER Trainer planted the redwood trees. Shade producing trees should not be treated as a public nuisance. Trees provide more benefits than do solar panels to an overall community. Trees should be considered a common-pool resource, and the last thing we should be doing is cutting down trees-- especially since the trees were there before Vargus installed the solar panels. Even though the trees were only about 5ft tall when planted, I'm sure Vargus was aware that they would grow much taller. He should have had the foresight to install pole-mounted solar units rather than panels. This is absolutely ridiculous. Vargus installed the solar panels AFTER Trainer planted the redwood trees. Shade producing trees should not be treated as a public nuisance. Trees provide more benefits than do solar panels to an overall community. Trees should be considered a common-pool resource, and the last thing we should be doing is cutting down trees– especially since the trees were there before Vargus installed the solar panels. Even though the trees were only about 5ft tall when planted, I'm sure Vargus was aware that they would grow much taller. He should have had the foresight to install pole-mounted solar units rather than panels.

]]> By: Lloyd Arnold http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2008/02/07/the-right-to-sunlight-solar-vs-redwood-trees/comment-page-1/#comment-56088 Lloyd Arnold Wed, 13 Feb 2008 23:00:46 +0000 http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2008/02/07/the-right-to-sunlight-solar-vs-redwood-trees/#comment-56088 I hope that solar power will be a partial solution to the energy crisis. I am saddened that erecting photovoltaics may lead to clear-cutting trees. As Joni Mitchell said, "they've PV'd paradise." I hope that solar power will be a partial solution to the energy crisis. I am saddened that erecting photovoltaics may lead to clear-cutting trees. As Joni Mitchell said, "they've PV'd paradise."

]]> By: CTYankee http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2008/02/07/the-right-to-sunlight-solar-vs-redwood-trees/comment-page-1/#comment-56048 CTYankee Fri, 08 Feb 2008 15:55:15 +0000 http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2008/02/07/the-right-to-sunlight-solar-vs-redwood-trees/#comment-56048 A Crime?!? You've gotta be kidding. I can see filing a lawsuit for the purpose of recovering damages for the lost value of the sunlight... I can even understand that contracts may have been broken (electric supply, guaranteed delivery, 3rd parties etc.)... and even if it was foreseeable that the trees would block the panels... Settle it you morons! But a crime? And I make solar panels for a living! So what's up with you people (CA lawmakers)? BTW: Topping the trees is *always* an option! If the trees live, great! If not at least the attempt was made... Oh, oh-well, fell the tree is a _moronic_ first step approach, you twits! The guy with the panels has got to be a lawyer, or have access to "cheap" legal services. I would have liked to have sold him $100,000 of panels, but it the real world he's being an ass! Especially with the panels he erected after the trees were in. He should have known! The problem is no one wins here, except the lawyers. Top the trees or pay the neighbor the pro rated value of the portion of the electricity the trees are shading... Might be a whopping $50/month. Someone should write a friend of the court letter, advising the judge to exhibit a little wisdom... As him/her to throw the thing out, and set a precedent that nonsense like this will not be tolerated. Just my $0.02 -- 5 cents please! A Crime?!?

You've gotta be kidding. I can see filing a lawsuit for the purpose of recovering damages for the lost value of the sunlight…

I can even understand that contracts may have been broken (electric supply, guaranteed delivery, 3rd parties etc.)… and even if it was foreseeable that the trees would block the panels… Settle it you morons!

But a crime? And I make solar panels for a living! So what's up with you people (CA lawmakers)?

BTW: Topping the trees is *always* an option! If the trees live, great! If not at least the attempt was made… Oh, oh-well, fell the tree is a _moronic_ first step approach, you twits!

The guy with the panels has got to be a lawyer, or have access to "cheap" legal services. I would have liked to have sold him $100,000 of panels, but it the real world he's being an ass! Especially with the panels he erected after the trees were in. He should have known!

The problem is no one wins here, except the lawyers. Top the trees or pay the neighbor the pro rated value of the portion of the electricity the trees are shading…

Might be a whopping $50/month. Someone should write a friend of the court letter, advising the judge to exhibit a little wisdom… As him/her to throw the thing out, and set a precedent that nonsense like this will not be tolerated.

Just my $0.02 — 5 cents please!

]]>