You've got to be kidding...

Gato_Solo

Gato_Solo

Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Stupid is as stupid does...

SUNNYVALE, Calif. — In an environmental dispute seemingly scripted for eco-friendly California, a man asked prosecutors to file charges against his neighbors because their towering redwoods blocked sunlight to his backyard solar panels.
Click to expand...

Now...tell me again why people like this are allowed to walk around unfettered? He belongs in a padded room somewhere, eating valiums. While I applaud the use of solar panels, you don't put them in the shade and then ask someone to cut down their trees because you were stupid. :lol2:
 
This guy spent 70k on these panels. Do you think you MIGHT want to take a look around you and evaluate what will happen to your sun in 5-10 years, when you are making that big of an investment?

Redwood has a very fast growth rate and they are not hard to identify in the landscape. Either this guy just did not have the foresight to look around, or he figured he would just force them to remove the trees if they became a problem. Either way, it's poor judgement. And being a bad neighbor. It's like putting up a fence or an extension on your house that will severely impact your neighbor and just not giving a shit.

I think this law could be written a little better. For people who cannot afford or who don't want solar panels, shade trees provide a much needed break on your utilities. In a place like California, that's extremely important and unless someone is going to come over and give you those panels for free, the law needs to be amended to allow everyone a choice.

This seems like more of a GOTTA HAVE IT NOW attitude, instead of being responsible and planning ahead.
 
redwoods were planted as something like "tall saplings" sebsequent to the installation of the solar shit. the guy has virtually no light whatsoever in his yard. which would seem to suck, regardless of his solar investment.

y'all can keep kneejerking but you might wanna dig deeper on this one.
 
2minkey said:
redwoods were planted as something like "tall saplings" sebsequent to the installation of the solar shit. the guy has virtually no light whatsoever in his yard. which would seem to suck, regardless of his solar investment.

y'all can keep kneejerking but you might wanna dig deeper on this one.
Click to expand...

Where did you get that information? The article says:

they planted the redwoods before he installed the solar panels in 2001.
Click to expand...
 
that's not what the radio story i heard said. or, rather, the trees that he's really upset about were subsequent. i guess there were some trees preexisting but there were others that were post-solar, and that's what his beef is about. he actually conceded that some trees were pre-solar and said while he'd prefer to have more light, he knew he'd have no leg to stand on with those particular trees.

maybe foxnews is pulling something a remark out of context to make our protagonist seem like a tree hugging weenie, in order to appeal to their audience of cheerleaders. nah, that would never happen.

ever spend time in that neck of the woods? it's quite creepy how little sunlight you can get in some places. like ben lomond just north of santa cruz. if there were vampires in CA, that's where they'd live...
 
2minkey said:
that's not what the radio story i heard said. or, rather, the trees that he's really upset about were subsequent. i guess there were some trees preexisting but there were others that were post-solar, and that's what his beef is about. he actually conceded that some trees were pre-solar and said while he'd prefer to have more light, he knew he'd have no leg to stand on with those particular trees.

maybe foxnews is pulling something a remark out of context to make our protagonist seem like a tree hugging weenie, in order to appeal to their audience of cheerleaders. nah, that would never happen.

ever spend time in that neck of the woods? it's quite creepy how little sunlight you can get in some places. like ben lomond just north of santa cruz. if there were vampires in CA, that's where they'd live...
Click to expand...

Listen to NPR much, do ya? :p

Cali vampires would live in Sanny Franny. Everybody there sucks somethin...
 
paul_valaru said:
Redwoods where there first, panel guy can fuck himself.
Click to expand...

The law preceded the trees. I think this is a pissing contest but the panel guy has won. The neighbors are giving up and cutting two -- COUNT 'EM -- two trees down.

Reminds me of my friends who bought a brand new house and one of the features was the spectacular view of the Rockies. The guy next door decided that a stand of Aspen would look just lovely and planted them where they would grow up into, and block, the view. They sold the house while there was still a view and got the hell out.
 
Fox news could be spinning the story just as much as the radio piece. I did a search for a more detailed article, none of them mention anything other than redwoods and all of them say the redwoods preceeded the panels.

I have a neighbor situation myself. There's only one neighbor that hasn't said hello since we moved in three months ago, just so happens to be the ones that share a fence with us. The longest section too - the one that borders my backyard. They're not very friendly either, I go out when they're in the back to try to catch them and introduce myself and they suddenly dissapear. :laugh: I'm starting to wonder if I smell.

Anyway, I caught the Grandmother outside one day and she said they're planning on replacing the fence this year. Typically, good neighbors will have a dialogue about it and share the cost of that expense. I'm torn on whether to approach them to say hello and see about that fence... What kind, height, and cost it would involve. On one hand, they've not been friendly. On the other hand, it's always a good idea to be on good terms.

I know I wouldn't put up a fence without talking to my neighbors. But, I tend to care about people around me. My mistake I guess.
 
2minkey said:
that's not what the radio story i heard said. or, rather, the trees that he's really upset about were subsequent. i guess there were some trees preexisting but there were others that were post-solar, and that's what his beef is about. he actually conceded that some trees were pre-solar and said while he'd prefer to have more light, he knew he'd have no leg to stand on with those particular trees.

maybe foxnews is pulling something a remark out of context to make our protagonist seem like a tree hugging weenie, in order to appeal to their audience of cheerleaders. nah, that would never happen.

ever spend time in that neck of the woods? it's quite creepy how little sunlight you can get in some places. like ben lomond just north of santa cruz. if there were vampires in CA, that's where they'd live...
Click to expand...

You might've had something if this was a Foxnews story. Unfortunately, it came from the AP wire...;)

Anywho...I only posted that because the neighbor who wanted the trees cut seemed like a shit-stirrer. If my opinion is in error, then please, by all means, tell me why his placement of the solar panels, in an area that was shaded, was optimum, rather than adding a few braces to his roof (admittedly more expensive in the short term) to install his system there was not possible? AFAIK, the roof of any building is a better place for a solar collection system than ground level because of the scenario in the news story.
 
jimpeel said:
In that case the one who wants the fence has the full cost, material selection, height, etc and they also get the good side facing in.
Click to expand...


So all the PC po-lice would be appeased when (not if...) I set that row of fast spreading cypress trees betwixt me and the neighbors who collect demolition derby cars and other, uglier stuff.

Not that I give a flying rat's ass what the PC po-po or much of anybody else thinks about a damn thing I do...just nice to know that all the tree huggin freedom hatin libs runnin amok around here won't have that to cry about at least. I ain't oppressin nobody, violatin their rights to uselessness, enslaving the trees in any intolerable manner, imposing my capitalistic greed over the good of the underpriviledged, manipulatin the environment for personal benefit...nothin like that. Groovy.
 
i don't think this has anything to do with "PC." keep diluting the term's impact, you're gonna lose a little bit of your own fun.

neighbors have been pulling this kind of shit since the marvelous innovation of private property. nothing to do with political correctness.

enslaving trees? imposing your capitalistic greed? sir, tryouts for the drama club are next door. and, in any case, i do believe you'd be better suited for the marching band.
 
jimpeel said:
In that case the one who wants the fence has the full cost, material selection, height, etc and they also get the good side facing in.
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, there is a law in my town that whoever puts the fence up has the crappy side facing IN. Which is stupid, right? They're paying for it, why should the cross slats be inside?

It was explained that it's due to safety. Because those cross sections can be used to scale the fence. It becomes especially important when there is a pool on the property.

The solution is to get one of those newfangled fences that has no cross slats. Although, right now, we have a plain old stockade fence with cross slats facing us because the people who owned my house were the ones who footed the bill 14 years ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top