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

They're not natural in CA or CO, at least in the major metro areas. They're like lawns. They do a lot of good, but I think it is an interesting lemma. Generally speaking, in CO if you do a roof mount system it's pretty unlikely that the issue would come up in most places on the front range. There are exceptions, but by and large it's not an issue.

BTW, if you kill the roots on your property and it kills the tree, what happens? Just a thought that popped into me heed. Trees can be used to great effect here to save water and reduce cooling costs. I wish we had better shade trees in our front yard. We have 4 good sized trees in the backyard to make it a great refuge in the summer. They provide no shade to the house, sadly. 30 year old tract housing never seems to win design awards, that's for sure.

As for the "greater good", however. It seems like a functioning solar array does more for air quality and emissions than a tree. So perhaps that's the view that this law takes. Tricky issue.

 

Not at all..the law only states that homeowners have some expectation/right to sunshine. I don't necessarily agree with that premise but the judge was only interpreting the law. It was the first time the law was used and I think it will get a lot more attention in the future because of this. The solar panels benefit due to the geometry of the land and trees -- not from the law itself. The original article and corresponding picture are pretty interesting.

 

Yeah, well. So is dog crap. And CO2. And all kinds of other things that I'd like to have less of. "Owning" property in the first place isn't "natural" so where does that leave us? Or let's leave everything to nature, and not artificially water these trees when they're planted and see how they do. If I have my dog leave his "nature" all over my upwind property line, am I going to be doing the right thing?

A blanket "natural" statement doesn't make it for me. A huge solar array is going to benefit a lot more living things than a landscaping tree.

We're all in agreement that there is no easy answer here.

 

Anything on your side of the property line is fair game, so it's tough luck if it kills the tree. On the other hand, you can't poison the roots or anything like that.

Trees grow so well here that any piece of open land turns into a forest in a few years, unless it is kept mowed. Even gutters on roofs turn into a maple forest in a few weeks unless you keep them cleaned out. We don't bother with gutters on our place just for that reason.

These issues involving the collision of rights and freedoms become more common as we cram people closer together. When your nearest neighbor was over the horizon, it didn't much matter what you did with your trees.

Your question about roots made me think of the power company. They can prune trees in their right-of-way even on private property, but they are not allowed to cut down trees. A few years ago they pruned ALL of the branches off one in our back yard. When we asked them why they didn't just go ahead and take it down, they said: "We aren't allowed to cut them down." As if it makes any difference after you kill the tree by removing all of the branches.

Tom

 

I'm viewing this law in the context that precedence may be set and in that context, your statement isn't based on anything factual. There are a lot of locations, and numerous purposes, in which trees can serve a much greater good for living things than can solar arrays.

 

It is a complicated issue that calls for some civility and more than that, some common sense. (and perhaps some selflessness on the part of all concerned.

Those of us who put panels on our houses usually do it for selfish reasons, we want to save money (and perhaps the planet) Those of us that grow trees want to shade our houses, reduce our cooling costs or make our places look good.

In the event a compromise can't be reached, perhaps the PV people can always invest in solar panels in some other, perhaps a public utility district, where the benefits accrue to them as well as the public. Probably get more bang for the buck as well, since the economy of scale would be much better. There are a lot of reasons that bigger systems get cheaper per KW/HR.

There are times when the self centered nature of people bothers me. There are some things that are bigger than each of us.

Icarus

 

The key part was the word "landscaping" in his sentence. In that context I agree with him.

 

Define "landscaping". I restored my entire yard. I removed non native trees and installed native Chinquapin Oak, Red Oak and Hackberry to serve as vital winter food sources for hundreds of native animals. These trees also serve as butterfly host plants for dozens of butterflies. One of these trees serves as a wind break for my house and will serve to retain the soil placement on a hill in my back yard that's severly eroding. Someone else may deem these to be landscaping trees while clearly they are of signficant value to me for the reasons mentioned. These trees are, in my opinion, of no less significant value for the environment than are a neighbor's solar panels. It's all what one person deems as a priority in their view of caring the environment. I take issue when someone is going to tell me how to manage my land because their land/priorities are of more importance.

I think we're opening ourselves up for a lot of trouble if we start compartmentalizing our environment as it relates to renewable energy by focusing on one component of the environment. We need to look at the big picture and ensure that our use of renewable energy isn't at the extreme expense of other environmentally beneficial applications and trees are exactly that. In many cases, they are much more so because they serve many useful, necessary functions on which we greatly rely.

 

I now appoint you enforcer of this law.

 

No thanks,,,,

My point is that many (most) things have unintended consiquences. I don't advocate a 'big brother" approach to solving these issues, but rather a more consensus view. Neighbors working with neighbors for example.

Your case of native plantings in your yard serve as a great example. You are adding trees to act as a carbon sink, you are shading your house to reduce your cooling carbon output, you are cutting down on soil erosion that helps stream temps for fish etc. all "good things"

If I live next door, and I "plant" solar panels to reduce my carbon foot print that is also a good thing. (Better???Certainly a debatable point) But if your trees shade my panels we have a problem.

The solution may not be in requiring you to cut your trees, or me not to put panels up, but perhaps (in my ideal world) that we find a location that works for both of us. Perhaps your south lot line has an unobstructed view of the sun because you have no neighboring trees. Maybe then you will allow me to build a solar array on a easement on your lot. You have to look at my panels, you don't have to cut your trees, I don't have to forego my project. The winner here is all of us, not just you and I.

The trees continue to do their job, as do my panels. Taken on a larger scale, (neighborhood, city, county even state) perhaps there could be set aside solar preserves much as we preserve farmland, woodland and wetlands.

I'm not suggesting that any of this would be easy, but my point is that it is much easier to deal with these issues, the closer to home we are. We collectively are the only ones that can get it done. Grass roots policy change is the easiest to effect. Expecting our "leaders" to act rationally about this is hope over logic. Change most often comes from the bottom up, not from the top down. Leaders are most often loathe to challenge the status quo.

On a similar note, any building code, homeowners assc. CCR's or any such thing that bans solar or RE on aesthetic grounds have to be fought until they are overturned. These are truly selfish restrictions that "benefit" the few at the expense of the many. Some neighborhood assc. ban the use of clothslines to dry laundry! So sue me if I hang out my wash!

Keep thinking, perhaps we are not to far over the precipice (yet).

 

Think tract housing. If your landscaping activities have a measurable impact on my yard then I think I have a say in what you can do. A lot of people are gonna take that view. Hell, HOAs are all about that sort of thing, for better or for worse.

I appreciate what you're doing with your property, you've obviously put a lot of thought into it and your efforts are contributing to a better environment. That said, in tract house suburbia, where people are mashed up next to each other (as I recall, you're on a decent chunk of land) there's a lot of opportunity for conflict and laws have to be written to resolve that conflict. Obnoxious... yes. Sadly, it's also necessary, particularly when neighbors don't see eye to eye. The real solution is to reduce the number of people on the planet, but there's no ethical and expedient way to accomplish that (that I can think of anyways).

 

Many states are actually being proactive about building codes and HOAs. For Instance, Virginia Senate Bill 320 would void HOA covenants and and other agreement contrary to the public policy of the Commonwealth. In other words, homeowners could put up solar panels despite existing covenants. However, I think that the new laws will also reach for balance between the two. For example, you might still have to put the solar panel design through the design review committee to make sure you put the panels in up to code or to make sure you don't put the panels in your front yard to piss the HOA off when you could just as easily put them in back...

 

Yeah, California has something like that. HOAs and municipalities can't block the installation of a solar array and they can't place demands on the installation that degrade the efficiency of the system by x% or increase the cost by more than a certain amount. It came about as the result of a suit I believe and is pretty new. Less than 2 year, IIRC.

Good for them for being proactive and trying to strike a balance. The more people cooperate with each other the better.

 

Say what you wish about Arnold, but he has been on the right side on many environmental issues. Unlike his bretheran in the GOP who not only don't get it, they don't want to get it!

Icarus

 

If you want people paying $30,000 for solar panels, you want to ensure that someone can't make them worthless my shading them.

I'd be similarly upset if I bought a home for the view, then someone erected a billboard in front of my window.

 

Makes home Solar a little less attractive, dun'nt.

 

Misfire.

 

Honestly, this is what it all comes down to. We can say that landscaping is more important than PV. Or the other way around. But the bottom line is that the answer is somewhere in the middle. And we will make things better if only we can strike a middle ground that benefits everybody.

Chances of that happening? Not so great. Not in this world of "if you aren't with me you are against me."

Well said, Tripp.

 

Excellent. Yes, that's what we're talking about icarus! This shouldn't be a "one or the other" thing. It should be - and really NEEDs to be both. The less we think "what's in it for me" and the more we think "what's in it for us" the better off we'll be.

 

No! For me to win, you must lose.

Tom