Going green can earn you your neighbor's wrath

[C_Felix]

Travis...you must keep us posted!

I would suggest, as a start, your mom writing a letter to the HOA and including the law that was posted above.

 

[WildCat]

Arguably it is because of such laws that California uses less electricity (allegedly) than Texas despite having over ten million more people.

You don't have Texas' summers.

 

[TraneWreck]

stupid lawyers could I guess scare stupid people. But to enjoy it, that would be sicko.

I'm not sure you realize how much time and money scaring people saves. You also assumed, wrongly, that I'm talking about haraunging a group of people just minding their own business. The HOA is trying to bully Travis' mom--those are the sorts of people it's very enjoyable to set straight.

When issues become personal, it's often difficult to make any progress. Explaining the very real ramifications of that stubborness--forced litigation--often has the effect of motivating people to make a deal.

I haven't read that California statute, but there are probably grounds for Travis' mother to recover court costs if forced to sue over this issue. Pointing out to the HOA that this continued foolishness will force them to pay for their own lawyer and likely cover the costs of the entire process, may make them reconsider such a pointless stand.

And yes, it is enjoyable to go into a room with a bunch of people who have been behaving like ******** and read them the riot act.

 

[TraneWreck]

They sure shut up quick about the front yard landscaping thing when my mom threatened to take them to court. And that law cited above sure looks like she has a good legal standing for the solar panel thing. I'm thinking they just try to "scare" people into not installing these "eyesores" and don't expect anyone to fight it.

That would be my guess. A lot of these sorts of petty tyrants tend to behave brazenly until someone shows that they won't be a pushover.

 

[mortimer]

You don't have Texas' summers.

Yep, we've already had nearly 30 days over 100 degrees this year, and the lows in the summers only get down into the mid to upper 70s.

 

[billw]

The Solar Rights Act (CA Civil Code 714), enacted in 1978, bars restrictions by homeowners associations (HOAs) on the installation of solar-energy systems, but originally did not specifically apply to cities, counties, municipalities or other public entities. The Act was amended in September 2003 to prohibit a public entity from receiving state grant funding or loans for solar-energy programs if the entity prohibits or places unreasonable restrictions on the installation of solar-energy systems. A public entity is required to certify that it is not placing unreasonable restrictions on the procurement of solar-energy systems when applying for state-sponsored grants and loans.

The Act was amended again in September 2004 by extending its prohibition on restrictions to all public entities. Additional key changes minimize aesthetic solar restrictions to those that cost less than $2,000 and limits building official’s review of solar installations only to those items that relate to specific health and safety requirements of local, state and federal law. Assembly Bill 1892 of 2008 further amended the civil code to nullify any restrictions relating to solar energy systems contained in the governing documents of a common interest development. A common interest development includes community apartment projects, condominium projects, planned developments and stock cooperatives.

Reasonable attorney's fees incurred during a court case between a property owner and a common interest development or HOA will be awarded to the prevailing party. AB 2180 of 2008 provided even more consumer protections under the Civil Code by providing that any homeowners' association that is not a public entity that willfully violates the Solar Rights Act must pay the solar system owner a civil penalty not to exceed $1,000. AB 2180 further provides that the approval or denial of any application submitted to authorize the installation of a system must be made in writing within 60 days. If the application is not denied within 60 days it will be deemed approved unless the delay is the result of a reasonable request for additional information.

http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=CA45R&re=1&ee=1

Here in my own City of Glendale, a resident (JPL engineer, no less) has been fighting the city for years to be allowed to erect a free-standing support structure for solar panels, in contravention to existing design review and zoning standards:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrTNSBk8Pb0

As the following staff report shows, which is mostly an opinion letter from the California State Attorney General's Office, municipalities, HOA's, etc. have very little leeway when it comes to blocking residential solar projects that have no health and safety issues. Aesthetics is most definitely off the table. California Government Code Section 65850.5 states that "A city or county may not deny an application for a use permit to install a solar energy system unless it makes written findings based upon substantial evidence in the record that the proposed installation would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact."

http://www.ci.glendale.ca.us/government/packets/PC_021710/PZON-2009-001.pdf

 

[AvalonXQ]

Show me someone who doesn't get along with their HOA, and I'll show you someone who doesn't get along with their neighbors.

Not true. The consensus among our neighbors is that the HOA represents a handful of extremely anal unrelenting busibodies. It's just easier for the rest of us to put up with their stupidy (and often ignore their rantings) than spend the significant time and effort to dislodge them; nobody else wants the job.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Considering the apparent status of the law, it may make sense to install the panels and force the HOA to try to get them removed.

 

[Dymanic]

The densely populated areas of California have a much milder climate on average than those of Texas.

By that metric, Texas must have the harshest climate in the entire country, because it uses considerably more electricity than any other state -- roughly a third more than the most populous state in the country, California -- which not only has one of the lowest per capita rates of energy consumption in the country (and THE lowest per capita rate of electricity consumption) but also has, by a remarkable coincidence, some of the nation's strictest environmental and building code standards.

 

[Piscivore]

Not true. The consensus among our neighbors is that the HOA represents a handful of extremely anal unrelenting busibodies. It's just easier for the rest of us to put up with their stupidy (and often ignore their rantings) than spend the significant time and effort to dislodge them; nobody else wants the job.

Agreed. It'd been more accurate if theprestige said "Show me someone who wants to be on an HOA, and I'll show you someone who doesn't get along with their neighbors."

 

[Dymanic]

You don't have Texas' summers.

Never spent much time in the San Joaquin Valley during the summer, have you?

 

[mortimer]

Never spent much time in the San Joaquin Valley during the summer, have you?

Not many others do either. That was the point. The population centers in CA have relatively mild climates compared to the population centers of Texas.

I can see how strict environmental laws and building codes can significantly reduce electricity use, however. I've lived in such poorly constructed rental units in Texas that, during the hottest days of summer, the A/C ran 24x7 with the thermostat set to 78, and couldn't keep the inside temperature under 86 during the afternoons.

 

[WildCat]

By that metric, Texas must have the harshest climate in the entire country, because it uses considerably more electricity than any other state -- roughly a third more than the most populous state in the country, California -- which not only has one of the lowest per capita rates of energy consumption in the country (and THE lowest per capita rate of electricity consumption) but also has, by a remarkable coincidence, some of the nation's strictest environmental and building code standards.

My money is on climate rather than building codes. What is the per-capita electricity use in Blythe compared to San Francisco? I'd expect Blythe to use much more electricity er capita, even though it's also in California. I also expect Blythe's use will look a lot like what is used in Texas per capita.

People in California are concentrated in mild climate areas - LA and San Francisco.

Let's look at the current 5-day forecasts for Los Angeles and Houston, according to weather.com.

Over the next 5 days the highest temperature in Los Angeles is expected to be 75, with a low temp of 59. No need to even turn on the A/C, even if you have the most energy inefficient home imagineable. Now let's look at Houston, and we see the high temp the next 5 days is 98, and a low of 76. Houston's low temperature is higher than LA's high temperature. I expect the A/C units are humming in Houston this week!

You simply can't compare energy use between such different climates without making major adjustments to account for that.

And frankly, with or without building codes there's far more incentive to build a well-insulated home in Houston than there is in LA.

 

[WildCat]

Never spent much time in the San Joaquin Valley during the summer, have you?

I have, and know how radically temps can change even within LA. But the point is most people don't live in the hot places in the valleys.

 

[Dymanic]

The population centers in CA have relatively mild climates compared to the population centers of Texas.

Perhaps I should have stuck with "the central valleys" (San Joaquin just sort of sounded better). Hottest temp ever recorded in Houston: 109. Hottest temp ever recorded in Sacramento: 115.

I've lived in both Texas and California -- as well as Arizona. The hottest day I ever saw during my time there was 121. I'll give you that summertime in parts of Texas can be pretty miserable; it's one of the reasons I no longer live there. I'm just not buying that as a complete explanation for Texas consuming such a disproportionate amount of electricity.

 

[rwguinn]

My money is on climate rather than building codes. What is the per-capita electricity use in Blythe compared to San Francisco? I'd expect Blythe to use much more electricity er capita, even though it's also in California. I also expect Blythe's use will look a lot like what is used in Texas per capita.

People in California are concentrated in mild climate areas - LA and San Francisco.

Let's look at the current 5-day forecasts for Los Angeles and Houston, according to weather.com.

Over the next 5 days the highest temperature in Los Angeles is expected to be 75, with a low temp of 59. No need to even turn on the A/C, even if you have the most energy inefficient home imagineable. Now let's look at Houston, and we see the high temp the next 5 days is 98, and a low of 76. Houston's low temperature is higher than LA's high temperature. I expect the A/C units are humming in Houston this week!

You simply can't compare energy use between such different climates without making major adjustments to account for that.

And frankly, with or without building codes there's far more incentive to build a well-insulated home in Houston than there is in LA.

I'm with you--my office has 9" of batt insulation in all 4 walls (2 of which are interior walls) and 24" in blown-in in the ceiling. a 1500 watt heater running at 1/2 capacity keeps it warm in the coldest winter, and if I leave the windows open at night, the temperature within will stay comfortable until around 2:00 PM when nighttime lows are in the 50's and daytime highs are in the 80-100 range.
The problem is that 90-100 degree air with 40-50% humidity, when cooled to 80, is now in the 60-80% range, which is decidedly uncomfortable. That's why our A/C's run so much.
So-Cal is a desert--no real humidity...

 

[Dymanic]

Let's look at the current 5-day forecasts ...

Yes, let's -- especially since it would be of such great benefit to your argument for us to do that, considering this year's weather here in California has been completely crazy. We had what were basically winter storms up until the first part of June, fer cryin out loud.

You simply can't compare energy use between such different climates without making major adjustments to account for that.

I agree. It's the reason I have a problem with broad statements like "You don't have Texas' summers" -- it fails to take into account the variability of the climate in Texas, which, like California, spans multiple climate zones.

 

[WildCat]

Yes, let's -- especially since it would be of such great benefit to your argument for us to do that, considering this year's weather here in California has been completely crazy. We had what were basically winter storms up until the first part of June, fer cryin out loud.

I agree. It's the reason I have a problem with broad statements like "You don't have Texas' summers" -- it fails to take into account the variability of the climate in Texas, which, like California, spans multiple climate zones.

Texas has nowhere near the climate variability California has. And once again, the overwhelming majority of California's population lives in the mild climate zones.

You can't escape the heat in Houston by relocating 10 miles away as you can in the LA area.

 

[Dymanic]

Texas has nowhere near the climate variability California has. And once again, the overwhelming majority of California's population lives in the mild climate zones.

A look at the map:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:California_population_map.png
suggests that that majority may not be as overwhelming as you seem to think. The Central valleys are home to twice as many people as live in the Greater San Diego area.

You can't escape the heat in Houston by relocating 10 miles away as you can in the LA area.

I don't know how you'd do that in LA either, unless it was by driving down to the beach.

 

[rwguinn]

A look at the map:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:California_population_map.png
suggests that that majority may not be as overwhelming as you seem to think. The Central valleys are home to twice as many people as live in the Greater San Diego area.

I don't know how you'd do that in LA either, unless it was by driving down to the beach.

From downtown LA to the Angeles National forest is 10 miles (mayb4e 12) as the crow flies.
By road, it's 33 miles to the top of Mt Wilson. 42 to Pacifico mountain (at 7000 feet)
by contrast, it is 700 miles, plus a 10 mile hike, to get above 5000 feet from Houston...