Shop Products
Houzz Logo Print
gardengal55_gw

Neighbour forces homeowner to cut down trees

gardengal55
16 years ago

Get ready this eviro-nonsense is coming to a municipality near you!

Here is a link that might be useful: Read the story for yourself

Comments (36)

  • May To
    16 years ago

    Don't say it like they are doing that for fun. The solar system actually saves up a lot of energy. I know this is a gardening forum, but look at that map. Treanor planted all those trees far from their own house, and all the trees are right next to their neighborer's solar system. Those trees are 20 and 40 feet tall.

    Their neighbor asked them to trim the trees, and they say NO. Even when their neighbor offer to pay for it.

    Those solar system costs a lot, but they save tons of energy. I really wish more people would install solar system. Of course, a large part of Canada doesn't get enough sunlight(at least in the winter) for it to be cost effective.

  • gardengal55
    Original Author
    16 years ago

    This enviro-religion is going too far. If they continue to pull this kind of nonsense they will lose support. You've just lost my support.

    A neighbour is forcing, COURT ORDERING, a homeowner to cut down HEALTHY trees on his own property? Are you seriously suggesting this is OK? Kilowatts or not, this is Wrong and this law will be overturned.

    But it's good to know just how little the people in this "Movement" care about our private property rights.

  • bonniepunch
    16 years ago

    I'm all for solar panels and plan to install some if I ever get a house with enough room for them. But this dude is missing some circuits in his head. What kind of idiot installs $$$ solar panels on the north side of established redwood trees?

    BP

  • cindra
    16 years ago

    What came first the trees or the panels? I'm betting the trees were there first. I can the see potential of a topic opening a can o' worms!

  • aftermidnight Zone7b B.C. Canada
    16 years ago

    That's what I was wondering which came first. If the trees were there before the panels I'd be pretty upset.

    A......

  • bonniepunch
    16 years ago

    The article states that the trees were planted four or so years before the solar panels went in.

    BP

  • jimmyjojo
    16 years ago

    It's hard to believe this is even an issue. I think the trees should take priority over a few bucks saved a year. So many birds and wildlife can use those trees. I think those native red wood trees are threated in California too.

    I encourage everyone to plant more trees in their yards. We have three spruces and the nuthatches and chickadees spend the whole winter there.

  • ianna
    16 years ago

    This is a curious debate worth exploring further. These are matters that are not black or white issues. I'm for both trees and solar/wind/water energy harvesting. It really boils down to neighborly respect for each person's needs. Each homeowners have equal rights to do what they can within their own property but WITH RESPECT to their neighbors. These sort of debates have been argued since Plato's time. Most of the points raised here are on the side of either trees or the solar panels. I'm thinking more on the point of each homeowners' action.

    The neighbor with the cedars trees, did not seem to considered their neighbor's needs when they chose to grow 100 foot cedars. If the trees were planted solely to identify the edge of their property, did they not consider smaller trees? These are behemoths trees. It does question the logic of using these trees to line the property since the property isn't exactly that large. It begs the question -- what were the homeowners thinking when they chose those trees? Redwoods can grow beyond 100 foot. These trees are already casting deep shadows in that person's home and these are still juvenile, they are continuing to grow taller - never mind that the panels were installed after. I'm sure the house itself was already built before the trees were planted. I'm sure the area enjoyed a nice sunny south location before it became impacted by the trees. The other homeowner (solar owners), not intially wanting these folks to destroy the trees, asked them to trim it down (hence it may not look nice but these will still be alive) just enough so to allow the sunlight to penetrate but the tree homeowners refused - forcing the decision to have a court ordered destruction of the trees. There was an attempt to resolve this neighborly but that was rejected. One can indeed try to control the growth of the trees to satisfy the needs of his neighbors, or opt for the worse option which is to destroy the trees. It looks like the tree homeonwers decided to risk their trees in order.

    I'm all for trees that's for sure. It's just sad that the homeowners chose behemoth trees. It's not unlike a nieghbor who chooses to adopt an elephant without regards on how it can impact his neighbors.

    I say, plant carefully, plant with knowledge on how it impacts it's environment, and by environment, that means everything and everyone in it's surrounding.

    Ianna

  • jimmyjojo
    16 years ago

    Ridiculous. If it isn't illegal, plant what you want. How dare someone try to tell another what they can and can't plant in their own backyard. If you want to have a say on what the other person plants... Then pay his TAXES!!

    I once heard about a guy living in downtown Toronto. He was letting his backyard grass grow to reseed itself. One morning he looked out his back window and saw his neighbour, in his fenced backyard, pulling dandelions. He went out and said "What the H*ll are you doing"? The neighbour told him she was afraid his weeds were going to lower her property value.

  • ottawan_z5a
    16 years ago

    Ridiculous!!
    Think again. If your home was on a 100 feet wide lot and each of your two side neigbours planted trees close to the property line on their side which would have 50 feet lateral branches from both sides prviding a good shady cannopy for your backyard in the summer time. How many people in your house will like it besides yourself?

  • hamiltongardener
    16 years ago

    Even if it wasn't solar panels, I think I would fall on the side of the solar panel owner.

    What it comes down to is that the large shade trees are interferring with the neighbour's enjoyment of his own property. What if it wasn't solar panels? What if these trees grew to a size that shaded out a neighbour's backyard garden? What if your neighbour planted trees that eventually shaded your nice sunny backyard?

    I'm all for doing what you want on your own property, but NOT if it interferes with your neighbours enjoying their own.

  • gardengal55
    Original Author
    16 years ago

    Does enjoying their property include clear satellite TV reception?

    You enviro bunch have zero concept of private property rights. If the tree is healthy and no risk of falling down then as a neighbour you have "NO" say about it. There are plenty of properties that are all shade in the backyard. If you don't like the shade MOVE!

    Grow-up! You bunch of "Nanny-State" children!

  • bellabella_2008
    16 years ago

    This is a tough situation. I know when I bought my property there were huge trees 19 in fact that were on our property line - they belonged to us. They actually brushed against my neighbors house and kept one side of his house in shade at all times. They in turn had a monster tree blocking my view of the water. I asked them if they would consider cutting down this tree. They thought it over and had it removed. Then without question we paid to have the huge trees on our property border removed at a great expense. The neighbors were so happy they offered to contribute to the cost but we declined. They repainted the inside of their house and had to put up curtains because for years it had been so dark inside. Now they had light! Since then we have planted new tree (cedars) but these ones will only grow to a reasonable height. Sometimes, we all need to take a deep breath and think of how we can all get along.

  • gardengal55
    Original Author
    16 years ago

    What a silly thing to do. Nineteen mature trees? Sweetie, you took between $30,000 and $100,000 off the value of your property depending on where you're located.

    "In studies led by Professor Nate Perkins of the School of Landscape Architecture at the University of Guelph, Ontario, people valued a property with trees up to 15 percent higher than the same property without trees.
    Researchers asked people to examine model houses with yards, and state what they were willing to pay for the house with no trees or with two red oaks planted between the sidewalk and the curb.

    The average estimated value of the unlandscaped houses was $200,000. But the value of houses with two trees out front was as much as $230,000."

    http://www.arborday.org/trees/benefits.cfm
    http://www.chrischopik.com/
    http://www.chetboddy.com/Pages/addvaluelandscape.html

    "Appraisers take landscaping into account as they compare a house to similar ones. The Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers says a mature tree can have an appraised value of $1,000 to $10,000."

    "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." Mark Twain

    Here is a link that might be useful: Trees add value to your home

  • bonniepunch
    16 years ago

    Please be civil. Being rude wins no converts to your point of view.

    Bellaballa may have reduced her property value, but she has a much more valuable asset - a civil relationship with her neighbours. I have lived with both good and bad neighbours and let me tell you, good neighbours are worth more than even 100 mature trees. I would be willing to remove trees if it was a *reasonable* request from a good neighbour, If a bad neighbour made the same request, I'd tell them to take a hike.

    BP

  • gardengal55
    Original Author
    16 years ago

    What you've done basically is replace mature high value canopy trees with low value dwarf and understory trees. The self-congratulatory overtone of your initial post is still baseless. I would hope your neighbours understand and appreciated the monetary hit you've taken for them, even if you don't.

  • ottawan_z5a
    16 years ago

    bellabella
    May you always have a happy neighbourhood and I am sure you will make it so.
    Only when people open their mouth can one find out how beautiful they could be to their neighbours. I will cherish to have a neighbour like you. I better stop here.

  • Mystery_Gardener
    16 years ago

    I read the article and it seems the people with the trees were being unreasonable, everything could and should have been worked out before court intervention. That being said, the judge seemed to find a fair compromise. I can not understand why the tree people are appealing this decision. The regulations seem pretty straight forward and they are in violation of this law, whether they knew about it or not.

    I do not agree with the concept of 'my property, I will do whatever I please with it' Sadly people have woke up and found their neighbour had moved thousands of old tires or dozens of old cars onto their property for permanent storage. Extreme example but you do need rules and regulations to keep everybodys 'property rights' from conflicting.

    Cheers,
    MG

    PS When planting my own trees, I take / took into consideration the effect they will / would have on my neighbours. No use creating a potential conflict when one can use a little foresight or creative thinking instead.

    Here is a link that might be useful: Our website

  • triple_b
    16 years ago

    For those of you who like reading novels, this whole thing has a real John Irving feel about it.

  • mary-in-toronto
    16 years ago

    clip
    * Posted by gardengal55 (My Page) on
    Thu, Mar 13, 08 at 14:58
    Grow-up! You bunch of "Nanny-State" children

    clip

    No:you grow up gardengal55. I bet you voted for Harper.

  • ianna
    16 years ago

    Everyone,

    Please let's be civil. It's quite clear that we are all firm in our opinions and it so it really doesn't make any sense to continue this discussion. Let's resolve to move on to other subjects.

    Ianna

  • gardengal55
    Original Author
    16 years ago

    Dear Mary-in-the-center-of-the-universe,

    How dare you impugn another Canadian Citizen on how they vote. This is still a democratic Country and each one of us has the right to vote however and for whoever they wish. I truly hope you didn't fully understand the implications of what you wrote, because if you did, it doesn't bode well for our Nation's future.

  • triple_b
    16 years ago

    why not move this over to the "hot topics" forum? It will be a nice break from the US Presidential Race threads.

  • mxbarbie
    16 years ago

    couldn't they reposition the solar panels?

    I think it's nice to be considerate of your neighbours.
    We've really lost a sense of community in recent years.
    3 years ago we bought a house on a quiet street (mostly houses, couple of small shops) zoned res/lite industrial.
    I guess we should have paid more attention to the fine print. Last year someone starting building log homes 2 doors down so now I hear cain saws all day. all year round. Across the street from there is a shop that used to work on logging equipment and now is being used to repair helicopters. It's not much fun when our windows are rattling every 10 mins and my kids can't nap because helicopters are landing and taking off constantly.
    Our new next door neighbours and their 4 barking dogs are planning to cut down 5 large/tall birch trees that are just on their side of the property line. These trees are giving our 1/2 acre front yard the only shade available. Why are they cutting them down?... because they park under one of the trees and little bits of sap get on their truck... nice. So now my kids will have to play in the back yard which is not fenced (front has 3' chain link all around) and is frequented by fox, deer, bear, or be in the scorching sun all day until the trees I planted when we moved in get bigger.
    On the plus side, our property value has almost doubled... but so has everyone elses so while we would love to move with the profit from selling our place we still can't afford anything better.

  • glaswegian
    16 years ago

    It's a tough one, but moving solar panels is going to cost the owners a lot. Cutting the trees down is a cheaper way, and perhaps the solar panel owner can offer the tree owners some of that energy from the solar?

    I can't see that happening now, as things have got out of hand. Neighbours with dogs that let them back like crazy are just a menace to society. If you can't look after your dog, then give it up!

  • mdahms1979
    16 years ago

    Labeling anyone who has an interest in the environment as "a bunch of nanny-state children" is absolutely ridiculous. I hope that you realize that this situation took place in California the American state with the most extensive environmental protection law in the U.S. and not in Canada. Without the specific law mentioned in the article this situation would not have taken place and I am sure that it took a lawyer to think it up as well.
    There is nothing wrong with taking care of this planet we live on and the situation in the article speaks about conflict between neighbours more than it does environmental activism. The solar panels could have been a swimming pool it makes no difference because the neighbor does not want the trees to affect his property. This is the same as when someone builds any structure in their yard only to have a neighbor complain that it blocks their view. This reminds me of a situation I saw on a TV program where a Australian homeowner cut trees on a sea side embankment that were blocking here perfect view. There is now a huge metal sign stating that she cut the trees and that the sign was erected in their place to once again spoil her view and make a point to others who are in search of an unobstructed view of the sea. Another similar event took place in Vancouver where a homeowner poisoned a group of mature trees that were blocking her view, she has since been fined and forced to pay for new trees as well as having her professional reputation irreparably damaged because of a completely selfish act. No one deserves a perfect view especially if it means cutting down a group of mature trees just to satisfy that "need".

    Mike

  • gardengal55
    Original Author
    15 years ago

    Your post took two paths.

    1. Neighbours are entitled to unblocked, unaffected view or sun for solar panels or swimming pools, makes no difference.

    2. Save the trees and you're not entitled to cut down or damage trees to get an unblocked, unaffected view, because that would be selfish.

    They contradict each other.

  • mdahms1979
    15 years ago

    I was not clear. I did not say I felt that the neighbor was correct in having trees cut for his benefit but where the law is concerned it will more than likely take precedence. I was trying to bring attention to the fact that the removal of the trees under the By-law was a legal tactic after the initial negotiations did not work. This is not in my mind going to be a common occurrence it simpply makes a good news story. I personally would much rather see the trees stay where they are but perhaps as others mentioned they were placed in an inappropriate location to begin with due to their size at maturity.

    I do however think that it is selfish to cut a group of mature trees just to improve your view. If the trees are on your property they are yours to deal with but in the cases I was referring to they were in a natural area surrounding homes and a public park.

    Mike

  • viktoria5
    13 years ago

    I don't think this would work in Quebec. Legally, there is a notion here of "reasonable inconveniences of neighbourhood". This is simply a way of saying that, when you choose to move to a crowded neighbourhood, you should be prepared to endure the noise and traffic that it entails. It also means that if you move next door to a house that has a bunch of trees near the property line, you can't force your neighbour to come and clean up the leaves in the fall. Needless to say, it is understood to mean that you can't force your neighbour to change anything on their plot just because their landscaping is inconvenient for you. Unless their landscaping causes you prejudice that you can prove (such as damaging your property, and not such as not being able to use something that wasn't there in the first place), there isn't a thing you can do to force your neighbour to change anything on their property, which is just as well.

    What's next? Forcing the neighbour to demolish his house because it blocks out the afternoon sun? Having the neighbour put down his dog because it changes the acidity of the soil near the property line? Forcing the neighbour to give up his car and take up biking instead just because the sound of the car starting wakes you up in the morning?

    I am really glad this legal notion exists. This whole story sounds like a party having way too many rights while the other party is denied basic rights, like keeping whatever is on their property, which besides causes no harm to anyone. I sure hope the victim of this farce finds a way to have the neighbour destroy their solar system to allow them to do something perfectly legal on their own plot.

    Having said that, please don't accuse the "movement" of being careless and self-righteous. Accuse individuals instead. Many people in that very movement would happily chain themselves to those trees in order to save them.

    In any case, the judge must have been on drugs...

  • yugoslava
    13 years ago

    I'm familiar with this case. Long before it appeared here. The tree owners were rigid to say the least. We have to consider that solar panels will become even more important as they drop in price and people installing them will demand to have sunlight. Even without solar panels we should have sun at some time of the day. As for trees I have gone to great lengths to save several trees which were about sixty years old. Since I moved to my present house we have planted 16 cedars, 1 Kentucky Coffee Tree (which is facing street) and not blocking any light. The cedars will grow to 8 or 9 ft. The problem I encountered with planting evergreens close to property line was with my neighbor who used a grass trimmer too close to the base of the trees and they have bare knees on their side now. Obsessively trimming can be harmful as well. Of course, the same neighbors killed nesting birds because they were chirping too loudly. It is all a matter of balance.

  • ianna
    13 years ago

    This case was long resolved. I've seen the photos of the properties of both. Frankly don't understand why they chose such gigantic trees. If they had planted those trees closer to their own house, there probably wouldn't have been an issue and theyd' still have their privacy. Anyway, The homeowners with trees eventually arrived to a compromise which they should have done well before this all went to court. They didn't kill the trees but they just had to prune the branches off the part of the trunk so as to allow sunlight to the neighbor's property. I cannot imagine living in a house that would permanently be in shaddows. We need sun in order to be healthy. The other neighbor only wanted to create privacy. Ultimately it was privacy against the neighbors right to access light.

  • oilpainter
    13 years ago

    mary in toronto--
    I resent your comment about Harper. This discussion was not about politics and you made it so. Well I have an answer for YOU--I voted for Harper and I would do so again and will continue voting for the whoever I consider the best person--that certainly wasn't Dionne nor is it Iggy.

    In future don't drag politics into what is a discussion on other topics

  • lynda22
    13 years ago

    Why is this in the Canadian forum? It`s news in California...

  • viktoria5
    13 years ago

    Just a little reaction to what ianna wrote: "Ultimately it was privacy against the neighbors right to access light."

    I agree that the issue may be thus simplified. However, the fact that one favors access to light over privacy doesn't mean everyone will or should. Furthermore, there is no law to my knowledge that grants greater priority to access to light than to privacy (and vice versa).

    I still think that this is a bad precedent. Next thing you know, you have to cut down your lilac bush because your neighbour considers the bees visiting it a hazard to his health. Where will it stop?

  • mary-in-toronto
    13 years ago

    clip
    mary in toronto--
    I resent your comment about Harper. This discussion was not about politics and you made it so. Well I have an answer for YOU--I voted for Harper and I would do so again and will continue voting for the whoever I consider the best person--that certainly wasn't Dionne nor is it Iggy.

    In future don't drag politics into what is a discussion on other topics
    clip

    I beg your parden: The personal is political. What do you think this discussion is about?? I did not drag politics into this discussion. What do you think " grow-up you nanny state children" meant?

Sponsored
Ed Ball Landscape Architecture
Average rating: 4.8 out of 5 stars30 Reviews
Exquisite Landscape Architecture & Design - “Best of Houzz" Winner