Thread: If You've Seen One Redwood...

Originally Posted by Shannon

In California, you apparently have a legal right to sunlight.

Thus, a man won a lawsuit against his neighbors that requires them to cut down their redwood trees. Why? The trees are blocking his solar panels.

Oh, the irony... :no:

The redwood was there first! Oh, that takes the cake!

Originally Posted by deafdave3

The redwood was there first! Oh, that takes the cake!

I agree whole heartedly. This is an example of the judicial system run amuck. I suppose if someone builds a home in the shadow of a mountain and wants to install solar panels he can get such judges to rule that those living on the mountain are just out of luck because the mountain has to be torn down to accommodate the idiot who wants to harness solar energy in a place where the sun don't shine. Arghh!!!

Don't get me wrong, I'm an environmentalist through and through and applaud folks who do what they can to reduce CO2 emissions, etc., but this was truly an idiotic judicial decision. The tree indeed "was there first" and those who own the tree should not have to cut it down because the neighbors decide they want to harnass solar rays. The neighbors should move somewhere where their desire to implement the use of solar panels is practical and doesn't impinge upon the rights and property of their neighbors. Just my humble (though perturbed) opinion.

JohnK

Originally Posted by JohnK

I agree whole heartedly. This is an example of the judicial system run amuck. I suppose if someone builds a home in the shadow of a mountain and wants to install solar panels he can get such judges to rule that those living on the mountain are just out of luck because the mountain has to be torn down to accommodate the idiot who wants to harness solar energy in a place where the sun don't shine. Arghh!!!

Don't get me wrong, I'm an environmentalist through and through and applaud folks who do what they can to reduce CO2 emissions, etc., but this was truly an idiotic judicial decision. The tree indeed "was there first" and those who own the tree should not have to cut it down because the neighbors decide they want to harnass solar rays. The neighbors should move somewhere where their desire to implement the use of solar panels is practical and doesn't impinge upon the rights and property of their neighbors. Just my humble (though perturbed) opinion.

JohnK

Okay, well... I guess I should have read the original article before hitting the reply button in my groggy state late last night. Perhaps I over-reacted just a tad not realizing the law apparently applies only to the impact of one homeowner's vegetation on his neighbor's access to solar rays, and it is likely that though the trees were planted before the solar panels went in, they have since grown enough to cast shadows on panels that were installed at a time when they were in clear sunlight.

Hmmm... If this is the situation, I guess I can see both points of view, but the expression "poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part" comes to mind. Mr. 70K solar panels should have surveyed the situation of surrounding trees and their future growth before plunking down that kind of dough on panels, and, IMHO, should have worked things out with his neighbor about the future of the trees vs. his access to sunlight in advance. It makes me suspect he was already aware of this obscure law and planned in advance to invoke it when necessary. I think I still side with the trees/tree-planter.

JohnK