It's illegal to block your neighbor's solar panels?

Yes. What's the point in spending tens of thousands of dollars on a solar system if your neighbor can plant a tree to shade the entire thing any time he wants. Get a neighbor who hates you and wants some payback and all that money is down the tubes. (Not the case in this article. These neighbors were on pretty good terms.)

There are no trees blocking my panels and none planted that will grow to block my panels.

BUT...if at any time in the future anyone plants a tree that grows to block my panels....I'm having it taken down.

I'm not against trees. But they can be placed so as not to infringe upon my solar panels.

 

The funny thing about this case is that the trees were there BEFORE the solar panels.

 

But they were small and didn't block anything. They were shorter than the fence between the two properties.

New growth.

How am I supposed to predict how tall my neighbor's trees are going to grow? It's his job to keep them trimmed.

They have the same laws to protect people's view of the ocean. People buying a property between them and the ocean can't decide to put a few stories on the house and block their view. The house was there first, but it can't "grow" to block the view of the other.

 

He can trim them if "someday" they grow tall enough to block your panels between 10 am and 2 pm.

 

It is also interesting that this was an unused and obscure law until this case. Supposedly, this was the first time it had been enforced. Also, the solar panels were not the reason the judge enforced the law -- it was the neighbors right to sunlight. It just happens that he wants the sunlight to fall on his $75K of solar panels. The judge would have been compelled to enforce the law even if the neighbor didn't have solar panels. The neighbor's case might have been helped by making it a green argument but I don't think so. BTW, the judge only made the tree owner chop down two trees in a line of many.

I think the sunshine law is inclusive of all trees -- these just happened to be Redwood (aren't they protected also?). It would really get interesting if the trees were the home of a Spotted Owl family.

 

I'm really curious of this law. I cannot open the link to peruse. I'm a little torn on my feelings of such a law. While I appreciate the value of solar panels, I also appreciate the value of trees. As solar panels become a more ubiquitous feature of our landscapes, what then for trees?

Is this a federal law or a law specific to California?

 

Specific to California and it was subtitled "Green vs Green" because it was nature's trees against neighbor's solar panels.

 

I liked your use of the the term "lobby" - I'm imagining a guy with a slick suit and a cigar!

I'm not a lawyer, but it is my understanding that a state law would trump a city (or county) ordinance. Get out the chainsaw!

 

I can see some real trouble brewing in the California Redwood communities!

 

I'd have to vote for the trees. You shouldn't be able to control the trees in your neighbors yard. How about the other way around. I like shade, so I want to force my neighbor to transplant big trees into his yard, or prevent him from trimming or cutting the ones he has now. If you want complete control over your sun and shade, you need to buy enough land to control the surrounding vegetation, not force someone else to do it on their property.

Tom

 

Ha! In CA? Yeah right. You can't even buy a townhouse that's actively burning to the ground there for less than $400K, let alone enough land to do as you please.

 

There are a lot of things about CA that are nuts; housing prices are one of them. It's what happens when you cram too many people into too small of a space. In high density settings, distributed services make less sense, which is why we use centralized utilities in cities and other high population density areas. Asking a neighbor to cut trees for sunlight makes about as much sense as me asking my neighbors to remove the top stories of their buildings so I can have a better view of the Bay. If you can't afford the land, it's just one of the compromises you should have to live with.

Tom

 

So if a neighbor's trees' roots trash my sewer pipes am I SOL? That seems a bit harsh. While the shadow isn't physically part of the tree, it can be construed as an extension of it. "If you can't afford to buy the land you shouldn't be planting massive trees on your property". It's obviously the opposite way of looking at the issue, and I'm not necessarily advocating it, but it's valid and shows that it's not necessarily a simple issue.

 

Hmm. I do not know. Placed correctly, trees (besides their CO2 uptake) can have their own pollution mitigating aspects by helping people reduce their reliance on supplemental heating a cooling energy use. Besides this, they're very effective at uptaking precipitation so that this rain doesn't wind up as storm water run off polluting water bodies. They also help mitigate soil erosion. Solar panels can't do all of this.

Both have their own intrinsic value and this law seems to value one at the expense of the other.

 

Yes, if roots end up in your pipes it's your problem. You are free to cut the roots on your property. Trees are natural, at least where we live. It takes a concerted effort to keep them from growing in this area. As for planting trees, you have it backwards from what I'm advocating. You should be able to grow massive trees on your own property. I believe our laws allow a neighbor to prune portions of a tree that extend over his property, but not force the owner to prune over the owner's property. Otherwise you get into crazy things like having to prune because you block someone's view or interfere with their satellite dish. There would also be an issue with trees on public property. All of our streets have huge trees.

Tom

 

If both are placed properly to take advantage of their advantages, one does not interfere with the other. Trees are great. I love them. Plant them on your own property where they will do some good, and SHADE your house and land as you see fit.

 

And if the shade from the neighbor's tree forces me to burn thousands of gallons of gasoline that I otherwise wouldn't have had to? Is that as petty as blocking a sat dish?

I'm mostly being devil's advocate here, since this is a tough one for me. Interestingly enough, I've read responses on *gardening* sites that were more pro PV than the responses here.

PV panels are installed to do exactly one thing: Make clean power that off-sets less clean power. This in turn gives us cleaner air, cleaner water, and a healthier planet. Trees are planted for a variety or reasons - mostly for aesthetics these days. They certainly have some environmental advantages, of course. And if they are planted for the owner's shade benefit, they will NOT be in a place that shades the neighbor's panels. I'm personally not going to plant a pretty tree if it prevents somebody from making green power. But then I also freely admit that I'm not your average citizen.

 

It's not petty, but it's your problem. What about a neighbor that won't plant trees to shade your house or block the wind? Then you have to spend more to cool or heat it. My point is that trees are natural, so they get a wave when it comes to human codes. We have zoning to control building heights, so we can do the same for trees, but it doesn't feel right to me. There is no one correct answer to this, since we are presenting a true dilemma. It comes down to philosophy, and my philosophy favors trees, unless they are blocking MY solar panels.

Tom