Only In California....

[second_pancake]

Frank Lloyd Wright is credited as saying, "They turned the country on it's side and everything loose fell in California."  I think this article proves that...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/02/29/redwoods.vs.solar.ap/index.html#cnnSTCText?iref=werecommend

SUNNYVALE, California (AP) -- 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.


Mark Vargas shows the solar panels on his home that get blocked by his neighbors trees in Santa Clara, California.

But the couple next door insisted they should not have to chop down the trees to accommodate Mark Vargas' energy demands because they planted the redwoods before he installed the solar panels in 2001.

Experts say such clashes could become more common as California promotes renewable energy and solar systems become more popular.

"Five or ten years ago, you wouldn't have seen this case because there weren't that many systems around," said Frank Schiavo, a retired environmental-studies professor at San Jose State University. "I can almost guarantee there are going to be more conflicts."

After more than six years of legal wrangling, a judge recently ordered Richard Treanor and his wife, Carolyn Bissett, to cut down two of their eight redwoods, citing an obscure state law that protects a homeowner's right to sunlight.

The couple does not plan to appeal the ruling because they can no longer afford the legal expenses, but they plan to lobby state lawmakers to change or scrap the law.

The Solar Shade Control Act means that homeowners can "suddenly become a criminal the day a tree grows big enough to shade a solar panel," Treanor said.

The case marks the first time a homeowner has been convicted of violating the law, which was enacted three decades ago, when few homeowners had solar systems.

The law requires homeowners to keep their trees or shrubs from shading more than 10 percent of a neighbor's solar panels between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., when the sun is strongest. Existing trees that cast shadows when the panels are installed are exempt, but new growth is subject to the law.

Residents can be fined up to $1,000 a day for violations, though the judge did not impose any fines against the Treanors.

Vargas says the law protects his $70,000 investment in solar power, and he believes it should be strengthened.

"I think it's unfair that a neighbor can take away this source of energy from another neighbor," he said.

Treanor, a retired engineer, said he and his wife are not against solar power, "but we think there's a rational way to implement it."

Solar power is growing rapidly in California, which is by far the nation's biggest generator of solar energy. In 2007, more than 30,000 California homes and businesses had rooftop solar panels, with the capacity to generate 400 megawatts of electricity.

That's as much as eight power plants, according to the nonprofit Environment California.

The boom is being fueled by the California Solar Initiative, which offers homeowners and businesses more than $3 billion in rebates over the next decade to install solar-electric systems.

Both sides say they want to do what's best for the environment.

Treanor and Bissett, who drive a hybrid Toyota Prius, argue that trees absorb carbon dioxide, cool the surrounding air and provide a habitat for wildlife.

Vargas, who recently bought a plug-in electric car, counters it would take two or three acres of trees to reduce carbon dioxide emissions as much as the solar panels that cover his roof and backyard trellis.

Bernadette Del Chiaro, clean energy advocate for Environment California, says the solar shade law might need to be revised to prevent similar disputes.

"We want to make sure we are protecting individuals who have invested a lot of money in solar power, which is an important resource for the state," she said. But lawmakers might want to "take a look at the policy and make sure it's written in a way that's fair to everybody."

[Steve]

This is great

Treanor and Bissett, who drive a hybrid Toyota Prius, argue that trees absorb carbon dioxide, cool the surrounding air and provide a habitat for wildlife.

Vargas, who recently bought a plug-in electric car, counters it would take two or three acres of trees to reduce carbon dioxide emissions as much as the solar panels that cover his roof and backyard trellis.

The couple plants trees and drives a hybrid, and they have to chop trees down.

[Lunican]

Mount the solar panels on the trees.

[second_pancake]

The couple plants trees and drives a hybrid, and they have to chop trees down.

Ridiculous isn't it?  And they planted the trees BEFORE Mr. Solar Invader installed his solar panels. 

Mount the solar panels on the trees.

No kidding!  Seems like a logical solution to me, but again, we're talking about CA so logic, like trees, doesn't usually win.

[JeffreyS]

Who invests $70,000 in solar panels before settling this issue. I bet he did not even think about the sun light on his property first.  Next someone will own property with a mountain on it that needs to come down for the environment.

[Jason]

TARD!!!!

[gatorback]

TARD!!!!

   

Adjective used to describe one so retarded, they do not deserve the 're'.

[second_pancake]

TARD!!!!

Adjective used to describe one so retarded, they do not deserve the 're'.

ROFLMAO!

[Jason]

That's why I love this site.  We really understand eachother!

[gatorback]

I figured out they put the solar cells on the sides of trees because it's against the law cut down a tree in CA...yet, they're for rolling blackouts and mega-giga electric bills.  They buy power from an old TX generation station that is not EPA compliant and is only allowed to run for 3 hours a day at a huge penalty.

[Charleston native]

And the insanity of the "eco-friendly" greenies grows. Destroy trees...for the environment. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic.

[Ocklawaha]

TARDandONEhalf...

Another point overlooked is ANYBODY that ever lived in the high Sierra's of California (see "old hippies") or the Andes of Colombia, could also tell you, most mountain ranges have a sunny side and a snow or cold side. Guess which one is darker? This isn't rocket science.



It did once play into railroad history, just for fun here: The Denver South Park and Pacific and the Rio Grande Railroad were in a race to Gunnison, Colorado, West, Southwest of Denver several hundred miles. The first to cross the line, won rights to Salt Lake City and Transcontinental status. The South Park route took a MUCH shorter line right over the roof of the continent, across the South Park Range, until just 60 miles or so from Gunnison they encountered a saddle between two mountains. The resulting Alpine Tunnel was cursed by the local Natives as the Railroad raced across their land. For some reason known only to God and the natives the South Park chose the Snowy Northface for their climb to the ill fated tunnel.

The Alpine Tunnel Today, that would be ICE on the floor, rails frozen in time...


Alpine Station today, too dang high to get anyone to work long enough to scrap the 100+ year old track!
You can see by the sunlight, that this too is a great place for solar power! NOT!

Then with O2 in rare supply they tried to bore through what turned out to be mud, rubble and ancient slides. While they toiled away, the RIO GRANDE went the long way around, up the Arkansas River Canyon, over Marshall Pass and entered Gunnison. Little know, was the backers of the South Park was the Mighty Union Pacific, and the error in sunny or shady mountain climb nearly bankrupted the entire railroad... The South Park did make it to Gunnison, but it was finished in more ways then one!


The RIO GRANDE ROUTE, many years after the South Park passed into history...

Ocklawaha

[second_pancake]

And the insanity of the "eco-friendly" greenies grows. Destroy trees...for the environment. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic.

Obviously, the guy isn't a "greenie".  If he were, he wouldn't be complaining about the trees.  He would've worked WITH the environment instead of against it.  That's like saying someone is selfish when you watch him/her sabotage their life to the point that he/she dies a horrible, painful, lonely death.  What exactly did that person do that was in his/her best interest?  Nothing.  Just like this wind-bag (or should I say, solar-bag) is claiming to be eco-friendly with his high-priced electric toy car and massive amounts of solar panels on his house.  The only thing he cares about is his electric bill.  He could care less if it were widely accepted to burn kittens for energy, he'd do it to save money, and in that instance, he IS a greenie....a green-back greenie.

I figured out they put the solar cells on the sides of trees because it's against the law cut down a tree in CA...

Hypocricy doesn't just exist in religion, folks.  What ever happened to the days of planning the layout of your house based on natural landmarks and your lifestyle? Why would you deny the tree the sunlight that it's been using to grow, to generate power your home?  If you try and force nature, it's just going to push back and results aren't pretty. 

[Charleston native]

Obviously, the guy isn't a "greenie".  If he were, he wouldn't be complaining about the trees.  He would've worked WITH the environment instead of against it.  That's like saying someone is selfish when you watch him/her sabotage their life to the point that he/she dies a horrible, painful, lonely death.  What exactly did that person do that was in his/her best interest?  Nothing.  Just like this wind-bag (or should I say, solar-bag) is claiming to be eco-friendly with his high-priced electric toy car and massive amounts of solar panels on his house.  The only thing he cares about is his electric bill.  He could care less if it were widely accepted to burn kittens for energy, he'd do it to save money, and in that instance, he IS a greenie....a green-back greenie.

Pancake, my point is that "green" legislation and "green" mentality in politics have created this kind of insanity. It's not just hypocrisy; it's just crazy. You're right, the solar panel owner is really trying to save money, but it's incidents like this that make me question the whole rush to be "green" or "eco-friendly".