Posted on 05/20/2012 7:21:57 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
LARGO — Last summer, Mike Zwalley put a $65,000 solar energy system on his roof. The system — a 30-gallon solar water heater and 44 black panels that convert sunlight into electricity — cut Zwalley's electric bill from $300 to $400 per month to $10 to $20.
About two months after Zwalley installed the system at his waterfront home off Indian Rocks Road, his next-door neighbor planted three cypress trees, each about 10 feet tall, along his property line.
Zwalley, a 58-year-old car salesman, was not happy. He had asked the neighbor, Wade Gibson, not to plant the trees there.
Zwalley found several websites that estimated the trees would grow to between 70 and 100 feet. At that height, they could cast shade on Zwalley's solar panels.
Gibson told Zwalley that he did not think the trees would get that big, but if they did, Gibson would take care of it, according to Zwalley.
That answer wasn't good enough for Zwalley. He called city management. He called state legislators. He called legal experts. They all gave him different forms of the same answer: In Florida, the law is not on your side.
It would be in a few other states, though.
As energy costs continue to rise, legal experts say courts should expect more battles over solar panels and a property owner's rights, or lack thereof, to sunlight.
"We're going to see more and more, and if it's on your rooftop or in your back yard, you're going to be concerned about your neighbor growing trees," said Scott Anders, director of the Energy Policy Initiatives Center in San Diego. "And growing trees is a good thing, right?"
If Zwalley lived in any of the following places,...
(Excerpt) Read more at tampabay.com ...
BTW, do you have windows in your house?
assuming he survives a hurrican that wipes out the power grid (again) he will be a-ok.
there are local areas where there are “shade overflow” laws. Just like X amount of drain/rain water has to stay on property, so too does shade. IOW you can’s make a neighbor’s house in complete shade.
True. But, United States Postal Service.
Could be. But you know best eh!
actually the issue becomes when is the zoning changed or what was the area zoning.
usually a race track or concert stadum has to get a varience. Or if it is built next to an undeveloped residential area then the track is on notice of the future issues they will have.
In this case, there is a “solar access” this man paid for. What were the rules regarding home heights? permitted vegitation? fences? shade overflow? There are also laws for “tree fall” if a large tree falls over it can only reach so far into the next lot.
It is a very sloppy article written by someone who should only be writting about kitten fashion shows.
Apparently you and many others are unaware that solar panels only provide worthless power (nonpeak). He is just as dependent on the grid to get (expensive) peak power in evening as you or I. The other travesty is that he gets full price for the power he produces even though it is not needed by the grid. That jacks up everyone else's rate just so he can feel good about himself.
Nope. He has panels and sells worthless off-peak power to the grid at full price when he has sun and no failures (probably spins the meter backwards). Then at peak period in the evening he draws from the grid at the same price, except that is peak power and costs more. If he actually stored his power in batteries that would be commendable but none of those jerks do that, they just scam the other ratepayers and feel smug about it.
He's not, he's a leech, see my previous posts.
If the goal is to break even on investments, you’re right it’s a loss. If the goal is freedom from the grid and to at least have partial power when shtf, then his investment will have been proven a shrewd one!
Air conditioning is probably this man’s biggest expense - needed when the solar power is at its “peak.”
How do you know that he doesn’t have back up batteries? That’s a big expense for a plain grid hook up.
I only see one palm tree in the background. I don’t see a single Cypress tree. They are thin and straight when they grow tall. Not much of a shade canopy at all. I used to have them. Hard to prune when over 15 feet & can get quite ‘dirty’ with bird’s nests debris & dead, dry needles & branches. Make like Tiki Torches when afire.
Could you explain to me why Gibson is morally responsible to increase sunlight to Zwalley's abode while Zwalley is not morally responsible to decrease sunlight to Gibson's abode which is what both individually desire?
Moral responsibilities, or duties, are the corollaries of rights. They are negative, or limits to intentional action that infringes on another individual’s rights. In addition, those rights are hierarchical: Life trumps liberty, which trumps pursuit of happiness (or property).
Property rights end at your property line and are subject to nature and don’t include aesthetics. Your neighbor can plant flowers that bear pollen you’re allergic to and can paint his house pea-green with lavender stripes, absent a pre-existing contract enforcing some sort of standard.
Just as Gibson has no right to dictate what color Zwalley paints his house, he doesn’t have the right to shade from his neighbor’s tree -— otherwise, he could demand that neighbor plant trees, decree what sort, and how high, etc.
Gibson has the right to shade on his property - until the shade impinges on his neighbor’s right to sun exposure. In this case, Zwalley specifically objected, in advance of the intentional act by Gibson of planting trees expected to grow high enough to block a valuable asset.
Technically, Zwalley’s rights won’t be infringed upon until the shade blocks his sunlight, and presumably not until the shade causes harm by blunting his photovoltaic cell production.
Is this written down anywhere?
I only ask because my understanding of property rights is historical and best expressed as:
Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad caelum et ad inferos.
Translated: For whoever owns the soil, it is theirs up to Heaven and down to Hell.
See William Blackstone.
Doesn’t Blackstone recognize the limits of the property line between two properties or the difference between and act and the restraint of an act?
We have the same problem in Indiana. Here it is yuppies who move to the country to “get back to nature” who throw hissy fits because of all the noise when calves are weaned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.