The greenies are at it again!

gunnut · 02-21-2008, 19:58 PM

This time, the victim is one of their own!

http://www.siliconvalley.com/news/ci...nclick_check=1

Redwoods vs Solar Panels - Bioneers Community

Quote:

Sunnyvale homeowners told to cut redwoods that block solar panels
LAW: TREES BLOCKING NEIGHBOR'S SOLAR PANELS MUST BE CUT
By Paul Rogers
Mercury News
Article Launched: 01/24/2008 03:33:12 AM PST

Talk about a clash of cherished green values.

In a case with statewide significance, the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office is pursuing a Sunnyvale couple under a little-known California law because redwood trees in their backyard cast a shadow over their neighbor's solar panels.

Richard Treanor and Carolynn Bissett own a Prius and consider themselves environmentalists. But they refuse to cut down any of the trees behind their house on Benton Street, saying they've done nothing wrong.

"We're just living here in peace. We want to be left alone," said Bissett, who with her husband has spent $25,000 defending themselves against criminal charges. "We support solar power, but we thought common sense would prevail."

Their neighbor Mark Vargas considers himself an environmentalist, too. His 10-kilowatt solar system, which he installed in 2001, is so big he pays only about $60 a year in electrical bills. He drives an electric car.

Vargas said he first asked Treanor and Bissett to chop down the eight redwoods, which the couple had planted from 1997 to 1999 along the fence separating their yards. Later, he asked them to trim the trees to about 15 feet.

"I offered to pay for the removal of the trees. I said let's try to work something out," Vargas said. "They said no to everything."

He installed the panels.

After several years of squabbling and failed mediation, Vargas filed a complaint with the Santa Clara County district attorney arguing that the trees reduce the amount of electricity he can generate. In 2005, prosecutors agreed.
They sent Treanor and Bissett a letter informing them that they were in violation of California's Solar Shade Control Act and that if they didn't "abate the violation" within 30 days, they would face fines of up to $1,000 a day.

Obscure law

The law, signed by former Gov. Jerry Brown in 1978, is rarely used. But county prosecutors say Treanor and Bissett are breaking it.

"It's not that we think trees are more or less important than solar collectors. It's that our state's leaders have said under the following circumstances, solar takes precedence," said Ken Rosenblatt, supervising Santa Clara County deputy district attorney for environmental protection.

The law was written by former Assemblyman Chuck Imbrecht, a Ventura Republican, as a way to guarantee, amid the energy crises of the 1970s, that people who installed solar panels wouldn't see a drop in their investment from nearby trees.

It affects only trees planted after 1979, and bans trees or shrubs from shading more than 10 percent of a neighbor's solar panels between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m.
It does not apply to trees or shrubs that were there before the solar panels were installed. But - and here's the key distinction - it does apply to existing trees and shrubs that later grew big enough to shade the solar panels. A violation is an infraction, like a parking ticket, but with fines of up to $1,000 a day.

The redwoods, which Treanor and Bissett say they planted for privacy, are now between 20 and 40 feet tall.

In December, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Kurt Kumli found the couple guilty of one count of violating the Solar Shade Control Act. In a partial victory for each side, he ruled that six of the trees can remain and that the two generating the most shade must be removed. He also waived any fines.

Order appealed

But the couple appealed. Why?

They are worried that their case sets a precedent.

Their lawyer can find no other conviction under the shade law.

"We could be done with this and walk away," Bissett said. "But then this could start happening in every city in the state."

Rosenblatt said prosecutors in Sonoma County are watching the case because they have a potential violator.

Meanwhile, Vargas says he can't move the solar panels on his trellis being shaded by the trees because his roof doesn't have enough room.

Kurt Newick, who sells solar systems for a San Jose company, says he loves trees as much as anyone, but he falls on the side of solar energy.

"I'm a big tree fan. They increase property values and provide shade and cooling. But it's actually better for the environment to put solar on your roof than to plant a tree," said Newick, who is also chairman of the global warming committee of the Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club.

"On average, a tree only sequesters 14 pounds of carbon dioxide a year and a solar electric system offsets that every two or three days," he said.

But Frank Schiavo, a retired San Jose State University environmental studies lecturer, said the law needs fixing.

"If you have trees, you should be left alone," said Schiavo, who also has solar panels on his roof. "This is going to turn into a nightmare for some homeowners. It doesn't seem fair."

Bissett and Treanor plan to ask state politicians to modify the law. Until then, they believe, they are groundbreakers.

"We are the first citizens in the state of California to be convicted of a crime for growing redwood trees," Bissett said, forcing a smile.

dalem · 02-21-2008, 21:35 PM

My favorite parts:

Quote:

"We support solar power, but we thought common sense would prevail."

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Common sense. With greeniacs. What a pair of idiots.

Quote:

Their neighbor Mark Vargas considers himself an environmentalist, too. His 10-kilowatt solar system, which he installed in 2001, is so big he pays only about $60 a year in electrical bills. He drives an electric car.

Vargas said he first asked Treanor and Bissett to chop down the eight redwoods, which the couple had planted from 1997 to 1999 along the fence separating their yards. Later, he asked them to trim the trees to about 15 feet.

"I offered to pay for the removal of the trees. I said let's try to work something out," Vargas said. "They said no to everything.""

Translation: "I tried to get them to alter their lives for no gain to themselves, for reasons completely selfish to me. They told me to stick it."

Quote:

He installed the panels.

Translation: He committed a willful act of stupidity.

Quote:

"It's not that we think trees are more or less important than solar collectors. It's that our state's leaders have said under the following circumstances, solar takes precedence," said Ken Rosenblatt, supervising Santa Clara County deputy district attorney for environmental protection."

Translation: "It's not that we think trees are more or less important than solar collectors. It's that our state's leaders have said that solar collectors are more important."

Quote:

"If you have trees, you should be left alone," said Schiavo, who also has solar panels on his roof. "This is going to turn into a nightmare for some homeowners. It doesn't seem fair."

Translation: "Holy crap, the State is an oppressive, larcenous disease that instinctively seeks to concentrate all power over its citizens' lives and futures in its slime-covered tentacles. I never knew that."

Remind me never to move to California.

-dale

gunnut · 02-21-2008, 21:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalem

Remind me never to move to California.

-dale

Hey Dale, don't move to California.

The funniest part, I think, which was not in this article but I read it in my local newspaper, is that the Treanors (tree people) have a hybrid. But wait, Vargas (solar guy) drives a plug-in hybrid (electric car in this article).

I can almost see them fart in their own wine glass and then savor the taste.

The Chap · 02-21-2008, 21:56 PM

Good God!

The claim that solar panels are "better" for the "environment" seems quirky at best. What of the mining, refining, processing, manufacturing and installation costs of say Gallium-arsenide cells? I doubt the life time of such (not forgetting the cost of safely disposing of/with them) rivals the life tme and aesthetic joy of a tree. Apart from those wierd Upside Down trees in the Kalahari. They're just bloody ugly.

Does the ruling affect either of these two points:

Given that solar boy pays only $60 a year for electrcal power, it would seem that the removal or destruction of the trees would be of direct and ongoing financial benifit to him, whilst simultaneously reducing the potential and material value of tree peoples property. Should solar boy (see next) sell his property having increased the sunlight to his garden for dollar profit, the financial loss to tree people remains. The injury is potentially worse should the new neigbours want the garden back.

If this does set precedent, anyone wishing to increase the amount of sunlight to their garden may only have to lease some solar panels in order to have the state play arboreal assassin. They can then put a pool in.

This is what happens when people drive a Prius. A Hummer will last a life time, more so as it is already a design classic. A Prius not only makes the driver a mincing-hippy-holier-than-thou **** but its life time of lentil and granola ferrying is roughly little over a decade. I would suppose less given the mileage Yanks clock compared to the UK, Europe, and Japan. Already long story cut short, it turns out that the carbon footprint of the Prius is perversely larger than the Hummer.

London related bit now. Mayor "Red Ken" has just bumped the congestion charge to £25/day for cars over certain engine volumes and or emmision outputs. The justification being to encourage folk to use (the already at breaking stress) pubic transport network. Such vehicles include people movers, most classic cars, luxury saloons, SUVs, sports cars, work vans and lorries (think: one day y'in a lower bracket, next due to a heavier load ...) so on and so forth.
NO-ONE drives in central London for shits and giggles. The final bowel mover is that if you live inside the recently expanded zone and drive one of the afforementioned vehicles it wil cost you £25, yep $60, to turn the key. Or in the case of some top of the line jobs press a button.

All to reduce our carbon footprint. Has anyone told China or India?

On the bright side, and this is no joke, not only is the Yank Ambassador to the Court of St. James saying "f**k off pinko" but Porsche are taking the matter to court! Einfach klasse!

Capt Bluesman · 02-22-2008, 20:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalem

Remind me never to move to California.-dale

But...you'll visit California, right?

dalem · 02-22-2008, 20:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capt Bluesman

But...you'll visit California, right?

Heck yeah. Try and keep me away.

Hopefully I'll have my act together enough by summer to plan a trip out to see you guys and my friend who lives near Chico/Paradise. Is that close to you guys?

-dale

Old-Pro · 02-22-2008, 21:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Chap

Good God!

The claim that solar panels are "better" for the "environment" seems quirky at best. What of the mining, refining, processing, manufacturing and installation costs of say Gallium-arsenide cells? I doubt the life time of such (not forgetting the cost of safely disposing of/with them) rivals the life tme and aesthetic joy of a tree. Apart from those wierd Upside Down trees in the Kalahari. They're just bloody ugly.

Does the ruling affect either of these two points:

Given that solar boy pays only $60 a year for electrcal power, it would seem that the removal or destruction of the trees would be of direct and ongoing financial benifit to him, whilst simultaneously reducing the potential and material value of tree peoples property. Should solar boy (see next) sell his property having increased the sunlight to his garden for dollar profit, the financial loss to tree people remains. The injury is potentially worse should the new neigbours want the garden back.

If this does set precedent, anyone wishing to increase the amount of sunlight to their garden may only have to lease some solar panels in order to have the state play arboreal assassin. They can then put a pool in.

This is what happens when people drive a Prius. A Hummer will last a life time, more so as it is already a design classic. A Prius not only makes the driver a mincing-hippy-holier-than-thou **** but its life time of lentil and granola ferrying is roughly little over a decade. I would suppose less given the mileage Yanks clock compared to the UK, Europe, and Japan. Already long story cut short, it turns out that the carbon footprint of the Prius is perversely larger than the Hummer.

London related bit now. Mayor "Red Ken" has just bumped the congestion charge to £25/day for cars over certain engine volumes and or emmision outputs. The justification being to encourage folk to use (the already at breaking stress) pubic transport network. Such vehicles include people movers, most classic cars, luxury saloons, SUVs, sports cars, work vans and lorries (think: one day y'in a lower bracket, next due to a heavier load ...) so on and so forth.
NO-ONE drives in central London for shits and giggles. The final bowel mover is that if you live inside the recently expanded zone and drive one of the afforementioned vehicles it wil cost you £25, yep $60, to turn the key. Or in the case of some top of the line jobs press a button.

All to reduce our carbon footprint. Has anyone told China or India?

On the bright side, and this is no joke, not only is the Yank Ambassador to the Court of St. James saying "f**k off pinko" but Porsche are taking the matter to court! Einfach klasse!

I'm getting into the solar panel business first thing in the morning!!

Capt Bluesman · 02-22-2008, 21:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalem

Heck yeah. Try and keep me away.

Hopefully I'll have my act together enough by summer to plan a trip out to see you guys and my friend who lives near Chico/Paradise. Is that close to you guys?

-dale

Well, I'm quite happy to hear that! Maybe we'll have the hot tub in by then! Chico/Paradise is about 2 hours away, so not next door, but not too bad.

lwarmonger · 02-23-2008, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Chap

London related bit now. Mayor "Red Ken" has just bumped the congestion charge to £25/day for cars over certain engine volumes and or emmision outputs. The justification being to encourage folk to use (the already at breaking stress) pubic transport network. Such vehicles include people movers, most classic cars, luxury saloons, SUVs, sports cars, work vans and lorries (think: one day y'in a lower bracket, next due to a heavier load ...) so on and so forth.

How in the hell do people drive SUV's on London streets?

glyn · 02-23-2008, 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

How in the hell do people drive SUV's on London streets?

With determination!

I saw a Hummer there recently.

lwarmonger · 02-23-2008, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glyn

With determination!

I saw a Hummer there recently.

So has it become a bit more interesting to walk on the sidewalks these days?

glyn · 02-23-2008, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

So has it become a bit more interesting to walk on the sidewalks these days?

The congestion charging has greatly reduced the number of vehicles in the centre of London. Public transport is good and as Red Ken the mayor introduces even more initiatives to punish/penalise motorists you will see even fewer vehicles on the roads. You may not be astonished to learn that Red Ken now has his own Global Warming Advisor!

The Chap · 02-23-2008, 22:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glyn

The congestion charging has greatly reduced the number of vehicles in the centre of London. Public transport is good and as Red Ken the mayor introduces even more initiatives to punish/penalise motorists you will see even fewer vehicles on the roads. You may not be astonished to learn that Red Ken now has his own Global Warming Advisor!

LOL! Dear Glyn, You really do live in Cornwall, don't you?

glyn · 02-24-2008, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Chap

LOL! Dear Glyn, You really do live in Cornwall, don't you?

Oh yes.

Born and bred. Now live in the deep sticks.

02-21-2008, 21:56 PM	#4 (permalink)
The Chap *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 08-18-04 Location: UK Posts: 1,181 Country:	Good God! The claim that solar panels are "better" for the "environment" seems quirky at best. What of the mining, refining, processing, manufacturing and installation costs of say Gallium-arsenide cells? I doubt the life time of such (not forgetting the cost of safely disposing of/with them) rivals the life tme and aesthetic joy of a tree. Apart from those wierd Upside Down trees in the Kalahari. They're just bloody ugly. Does the ruling affect either of these two points: Given that solar boy pays only $60 a year for electrcal power, it would seem that the removal or destruction of the trees would be of direct and ongoing financial benifit to him, whilst simultaneously reducing the potential and material value of tree peoples property. Should solar boy (see next) sell his property having increased the sunlight to his garden for dollar profit, the financial loss to tree people remains. The injury is potentially worse should the new neigbours want the garden back. If this does set precedent, anyone wishing to increase the amount of sunlight to their garden may only have to lease some solar panels in order to have the state play arboreal assassin. They can then put a pool in. This is what happens when people drive a Prius. A Hummer will last a life time, more so as it is already a design classic. A Prius not only makes the driver a mincing-hippy-holier-than-thou ** but its life time of lentil and granola ferrying is roughly little over a decade. I would suppose less given the mileage Yanks clock compared to the UK, Europe, and Japan. Already long story cut short, it turns out that the carbon footprint of the Prius is perversely larger than the Hummer. London related bit now. Mayor "Red Ken" has just bumped the congestion charge to £25/day for cars over certain engine volumes and or emmision outputs. The justification being to encourage folk to use (the already at breaking stress) pubic transport network. Such vehicles include people movers, most classic cars, luxury saloons, SUVs, sports cars, work vans and lorries (think: one day y'in a lower bracket, next due to a heavier load ...) so on and so forth. NO-ONE drives in central London for shits and giggles. The final bowel mover is that if you live inside the recently expanded zone and drive one of the afforementioned vehicles it wil cost you £25, yep $60, to turn the key. Or in the case of some top of the line jobs press a button. All to reduce our carbon footprint. Has anyone told China or India? On the bright side, and this is no joke, not only is the Yank Ambassador to the Court of St. James saying "fk off pinko" but Porsche are taking the matter to court! Einfach klasse! __________________ Where's the bloody gin? An army marches on its liver, not its ruddy stomach.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Global Warming, A Good Thing?	brokensickle	Science & Tech	388	06-30-2007 04:33 AM

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)