Sometimes, I don’t really have answers. This case where the neighbors of a solar user were forced to cut down their trees is one of those times.
This story brings up all kinds of troublesome issues, and challenges a lot of assumptions about green living and being environmentally responsible. Most, or at least many, environmentalists would say that they are in general in favor of conserving natural features - such as trees, lakes, etc. They would also say that they support the spread of renewable resources like solar, to counter the dehabiliating effect of fossil fuels upon the planet. And yet in this case both desires cannot be satisfied.
This isn’t a case that requires King Solomon, but it’s tough to decide who exactly is in the right. Retroactive criminality - such as the trees you planted suddenly becoming illegal - is always an uncomfortable concept. But if people want to install solar, then every effort should be made to encourage their investment, which might include features of neighboring homes that are non-essential and, in this case, economically detrimental. The choice can’t be framed as simply or divisively as “trees v. panels,” but this is a situation that offers many challenging variables.
I’m not prepared to pick a side in this case, but I’d love to hear your thoughts. Was the state right to order the trees cut down?
Interesting find, Eric. I’m not sure where I fall on this issue, either. It seems to me, though, that the law in this case was accurately interpreted. Legally, it comes down to what’s on the books. It makes sense to me that California would accord property rights to a certain percentage of the sunlight reaching your plot. Whether this percentage is too much, or too little, will obviously be up for debate as more cases of this nature arise.