According to some people, tree shadows can be beautiful as long as they don’t cast shadows on solar panels!
“Your redwood trees are casting shade on my solar panels!” exclaims one neighbor
“Your solar panels cast an ugly view in our yard!” responds the other neighbor.Â
Is this another “tree hugger” versus conspicuous consumer argument? Not. The drama being played out in Sunnyvale, California is actually between neighbors who both claim to be “environmental- advocates!” I’m calling this the “War of the Redwoods,” and unfortunately, arguments like this between neighbors are likely to become more common as more homeowners adapt solar-energy harvesting systems for their homes.
So what’s the beef? Homeowner, Mark Vargas installed solar panels on his second story roof to harvest solar energy. His neighbors, Richard Treanor and his wife, Carolyn Bissett, planted eight redwood trees on their property line to provide a natural screen for privacy and to shade their house in an eco-friendly way. This sounds reasonable to me, but the problem is that the redwood trees cast shade on the solar panels, rendering them less effective.
The neighbors had been at odds about resolution to the conflict until Vargas filed a complaint with the Santa Clara County district attorney arguing that the trees reduce the amount of electricity he can generate- and won! Treanor and Bissett received a letter from the prosecutors informing them that they were in violation of the “California Solar Shade Control Act” and were ordered to “abate the violation” within 30 days or face fines up to $1000. per day.
So now Treanor and Bissett have to cut down their trees so that their neighbors’ solar panels will work. Congratulations to Mr. Vargas, but what about his neighbor’s rights to eco-friendly solutions for privacy screening, climate control and for all around beautification of their yard? I guess they better start lobbying for some “strong arm” support for themselves. (Is it a coincidence that their area is home to some major solar panel manufacturers?)
I have mixed feelings about the whole conflict. Solar panels- yes, they are a smart option for generating electricity, but they are unattractive looking and I wouldn’t like to be  forced to look at them.   Trees- I love them, I’m an “Eden-maker” for crying out loud and employ “living solutions” everyday to create microclimates and privacy for my clients. How do I feel about laws and regulations like these that govern the quiet and private use of our plots? Stay out of my yard! I’m a big girl and can make prudent decisions without Big Brother twisting my arm!
Unfortunately as more homeowners opt for solar panels, this will not be the only conflict we hear about. “Solar panels versus trees,” who will win? I’m not sure, but this I know, the more legislation we have governing the use of our private property, the more we all lose!
[…] at Edenmakers’ Shirley has a post about a couple of neighbors who each feel they are environmentalist, yet felt it […]
I hear you Trey. If the move toward more environmentally sensitive living is to be adopted by the masses, this kind of infighting will only do harm. Canabalism is not apetizing, expecially to those who are on the sidelines watching and are not even “hungry for change.”
The reality is that most people are willing to make small modifications in their lives as to how much water they use, buying more energy efficient appliances, recycling, etc.) Its up to the wise environmentalist to influence others by lifestyle example not by being a spectacle. It will take patience and tolerance to win people over not self rightiousness about who’s way is best.
I also think we are going to see more and more of this. Especially in suburban neighborhoods where neighbors are often right next to each other. Out here in rural country its less of a problem, which is why I live here. Yes, solar is great but not everyone can afford solar, but most can afford trees. I am for the trees, yet they could have and maybe should have planted trees that would have provided privacy, but didn’t grow so tall. A row of Carolina Cherry Laurels for the sun, or Podocarpus for shady areas.
It was only a matter of time before environmentalist start tearing each other up as to who is more environmental. This will increase as more and more people try to do the right thing, but are met with resistance by those who say their way is the best way.
Hey Anna, Sad story about your friend. You make some good points. If everything is going in the direction of environmentally friendly, there will be a lot of factors to consider, including esthetics and function. It may be phased in with the upcoming generations because there will be so many changes that it will be difficult to retrofit what is in place now and there are too many people set in their ways.
Sean, I agree that there are many messages being communicated about the best way to go green. The dilemna is that there ARE different ways to go about it but there exists an almost dogmatic approach to them. There has to be a balance, not a “do or die” approach. This will only confuse the masses and inspire rebellion against the message. Thanks for your opinion.
Cinj- You are right. The redwood trees were on the property before the conflict was flamed. I think the homeowners were allowed to keep 3 of the trees but the other ones had to go bye bye. Thanks for dropping in.
Good post! I’d also like to add, I think that the redwoods were on the property BEFORE the solar panels were added. Could they have tried a little better planning maybe? I mean, c’mon! Seriously? Let’s be energy wise AND environmentally friendly, shall we?
Shirley,
Great post – here is the irony, electric companies advocate efficiency before going solar because the dollar to benefit investment is much greater. Not that they don’t encourage solar, just that it makes sense that energy efficiency retrofits happen before you go solar. Usually part of that is using the electric companies shade tree program (which most have and often give out shade trees for free). The irony here is apparent – contradictory messaging coming from the local electric company, state law and neighbors seeing and implementing energy efficiency in different ways.
Sean
I got to comment on this so you’ll know how lots of NCers see this California conflict. I didn’t say all NCers, just the rednecks I hang out with. In my opinion, it’s funny. I have a friend who owns a logging company in Washington state. They went bankrupt cause of some kind of owl. Her take on it was madness of course. The forest needed to be thinned or there would be big fires! There was a big fire and it burned her house down. Now she is left with nothing. The owls flew off to safety and lived to have more babies.
Where is the common sense? Give and take? Cut some trees and leave some trees? I think trees of the redwood variety have more energy than solar panels. If you think of the process of photosynthesis and cleansing of the air–you have to weigh and measure the pros and cons. The trees win in this case. It takes a lot less time to move a solar panel than grow a tree. Why wasn’t there a compromise? We all wonder if there was another spot for the solar panels—like in the middle of the front yard or something??
Our farmers in NC want to grow lots of corn for an alternative fuel source but of course big oil doesn’t want this to happen so suddenly there are hybrid cars. This battle for who has the best solution for staying green is just a tip of the iceberg. Do we eat cloned food? Like, where is the beef and his other brother beef? Hey I just made that up–pretty funny huh? It was a take off on the Old Bob Newhart show–with Darryl and his other bother Darryl–had to explain to the youngsters.
Shirley if you have a tv that still receives its information over the air waves–you need to upgrade. They will be dinosaurs soon. The landfills are going to fill up with TV’s and they aren’t biodegradable. Are the sun panel people going to do something about it? Or do they just care about their sun waves?