Man kills neighbor's huge old tree to let in more light on his solar panels

A man spends a lot of money installing rooftop solar panels, but then after the fact realizes the giant old tree on his neighbor's property blocked too much light. These old majestic trees are really important for maintaining the feel of old neigborhoods and give them their charm. But to this man, his rooftop solar panels were more important. Kill an old tree to make way for renewable energy.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.wftv...accused-of-poisoning-neighbors-tree/764993863

I wonder how greenies feel about this. I bet there are some of them that will support what this man did.

 

He should have thought about that before installing the solar panels.

 

This guy is an idiot who committed a crime. The tree did not belong to him and he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

As perdidochas already pointed out, he should have considered this before installing the panels

This seems irrelevant. Whether they were as you describe or an ugly tree that detracted from the charm of the neighborhood, the fact is that it didn't belong to him.

Clearly he thought that his interest was more important than his neighbors ... that's why he committed a crime. But, what makes you think that he did this for some "greenie" reason as opposed to just plain, old self-interest? Do you have any reason he did this out of concern for a "carbon footprint" ... or was it more that he just wanted a lower electric bill? I ask, because the linked article doesn't say.

I would suspect that "greenies" would also be against this. Killing a tree for financial gain seems like something they would object to ... They seem, on balance to be "pro-tree".

A more interesting question would be, How would your feelings about this change if instead of the neighbors tree, he cut down his own tree? Would you then support what he did? Would that make you a "greenie"?

 

Must be a democrat who doesn't believe in individual property rights.

 

A greenie would understand the value of a large shade tree for helping to cool the neighborhood. Just because someone disagrees with your world view doesn't make them vandals...or supporters of crimminal activities.

 

my local city bylaw says I can chop off branches that overhang into my yard but to proceed with caution because if the tree dies or breaks because of my extensive pruning I could be on the hook for replacing it or financial compensation...which if it's a large older tree could be expensive...

killing the neighbours tree was definitely a butt-hole move...i chop down trees with the greatest reluctance and only when necessary...

 

He should've moved his panels instead.

 

or just settled for less light...it's gotta be huge tree to block the sun all day, I doubt that's possible... so he should've just accepted he wasn't going to get as much power as he thought...and the tree will die sooner or later...

 

He prolly got a loan for the panels with the assumption of a certain amount of light so they would pay for themselves before their lifetime ran out. Less light and he's in the hole for em.

His fault. Fixable by moving them.

 

If your neighbors large tree falls in a storm, completely destroying your newly installed swimming pool,WHO IS LIBEL for the damages??

 

Or a republican who's too stupid to know trees make shade.

 

Republicans only care about themselves. So to kill a neighbors tree for ones self, is a republican act.

 

This reminds me of the neighborhoods in California that are oh so green but ban outdoor laundry hanging because it's unsightly.

 

Something sounds phony about this entire tale.If I put solar panels on my roof then subsequently realize my neighbors giant tree is destroying the suns ability to charge my solar panels.Assuming I decide that poisoning the tree is my only option for solar power. HOW MANY YEARS IS IT GOING TO TAKE BEFORE THAT TREE COMPLETELY DIES????I suspect quite a few before the tree would have to be felled.

 

Herbicide kills pretty quick applied systematically

 

Provided it does not violate local ordinance and done in a way not to kill the tree(s), he could have branches growing over his property line cut. But that's all.

What is disgusting about it is that TREES are the most efficient "green energy" of all, because they shield houses from the sun, radically reducing air conditioning costs, thought this more applies in the south.

The neighbor should sue, of course, and if I were on the jury I would REALLY slam him on damages - literally hundreds of thousands of dollars. Old trees are irreplaceable aesthetically and in shade value.

 

The reason housing is SO high in Democrat controlled cities, particularly on the West Coast, because they block low cost housing because it would harm their property values. To urban liberals, there is NO greater civil right than their property values. Housing is far less expensive in the South because they don't use zoning and building codes to make new construction outrageously expensive.

However, when you get to UPPER income areas, Democrats and Republicans are identical - property values are god-law to them. TWO lawsuits were filed against me many years ago claiming improvements I did hurt property values. Both cases were immediately thrown out of court. There is no inherent property values right. First, I painted my house a different color. EVERYONE else's was identical - sort of a burnt orange and ranch brown. I changed my to grey, plus put in cedar double pane windows and beautiful stained glass. Looked different - so they sued. Lost. I also put a big gold and cedar cross on the front corner - quite beautiful - and they sued claiming somehow that violated "church and state." The judge just looked at them and said "what does this have to do with government? Case dismissed."

Oh, they also put they didn't like my plants in their law suit. And I had planted trees they didn't like. Also a painted steel fence because we did archery for safety, and they all had old cedar wood fences. LOL.

Actually, as the flowers, plants and trees matured, people would stop to take pictures and compliment our house. But then I had really lit it up too. Flag pole (they hated), beautiful picture is a show box window behind heavy leaded glass... Everyone else's house had nothing in yard, burnt orange with ranch brown trim and old aluminum frame windows. I added a huge roof over the rear porch, with green plexiglass racing strips running down it, all on heavy 4 by 12 beams. And I just kept going. This was a house that caught people's eye, being on one of the main streets thru town. The more the griped, the more I beautified it in unique ways. It was a shining gems in an ocean of blah. The local newspaper even put a picture of it on the front page and the controversy. I'm one of those people if you shove me - I shove back. They more they tried to demand what I can't do and must do, the more I did the exact opposite.

Ironically, after I won both times, other neighbors finally felt free to do what they wanted to their homes too - and property values soared! The reason is to people who are property-values fanatics this also means everyone else's home has to look like their's. It became like a contest of who could be MORE creative and different. In fact, it was when everyone's home starting looking different in highly creative ways that property values literally more than doubled in a couple years - because now it looked like a great friendly place to live with a lot of personality rather than just an old tract homes housing tract.

 

Yes, as a "greenie" I say he should have moved the solar panels to a land-based support structure (and it would have given him the advantage of being able to track the sun as well) since it was his own stupid error to not adequately study the environment first.

 

You'd be wrong again.

 

Most of the South has building codes and zoning even in small towns.

 

No one. Unless the neighbor was cutting the tree then he is not responsible for it. Nor is a person responsible if their neighbor builds a pool and leaves keep falling into it.

 

Nobody is libel for such damages. (libel refers to maliciously writing about someone else in order to harm them.)

My insurance company would be the one liable for that, as it's considered to be an act of God. Now, if the tree has been rotting, etc., and was a known hazard or if the neighbor was cutting down the tree, then the neighbor could be liable for it.

 

There would ONLY be liability if the tree was clearly sick, dead, or the person did something to cause it to fall. For example, if someone cut all the branches on one side of the tree so leaves wouldn't fall in their own pool - making the tree so unbalanced it fell - then there would be liability. If a person trenched for a sprinkler system or plumbing, making the tree unstable and fall there would be liability. If the tree was dying and it known branches increasingly falling, there would be liability.

If a storm blew it over? No, no liability.

 

I just read that in Pennsylvania if you have solar panels, your neighbor cannot have trees, or plant trees that block your sunlight, they are called solar rights.

 

I don't look at this in a green light, I look at it in a property rights light. The solar panels are irrelevant, you can't just kill someone's tree on their property.