"The government wants you to install solar panels at your house, and will even give you a tax break to do it. But your neighbors? Maybe not. It's a lesson Angel and David Dobs discovered when their homeowners association north of Atlanta denied their request to install solar panels on their roof. Neighborhood officials said the panels would look out of place and might lower home values..."
There is a parallel with folks under a HOA putting up Satellite Dishes and even On-the-Air TV antennae (as well as Amateur/CB stuff.)
My understanding is that the FCC passed a special rule that said that HOA's could NOT block communications based stuff. (Owners can; thus renters are stuck).
Perhaps in the fullness of time, the feds will cause a similar rule in regard to solar heat and solar electric panels.
I wouldn't get too upset, were I you.
Back in the days of Jimmy Who, lots of folks put up solar water heating panels. Within a decade almost all of them had been bypassed and most of them completely removed.
No they are not. As long as the antenna is not attached to the building and is in and area the renter has exclusive control of (patio), it can go on a tripod or other non-permanent base.
Problem for lots of apt. dwellers is a south facing exclusive area of control.
The FCC did only after SCOTUS had weighed in and said it could only because the FCC (and thus the Feds) had pre-empted the field and could do so under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. In other words because Congress had given the FCC sole authority over the care and feeding of radio and TV in the US. There is no similar agency in the US for solar panels.
I am not sure they can, at least using the same legal idea as was used in the FCC.
"They're just afraid that someone's going to put up this big, honking ugly thing that reflects light and just looks ugly," he said.
Which sounds like a legitimate concern to me. I've yet to see one installed that didn't look ugly. If you put it on the back side of your house where no one else can see it, then it has no effect on neighbors. But I've seen them put right on the front of houses. And IMO it does lower the property value.
For my next house, I'll pay extra to have solar panels already installed so I can enjoy lower energy bills. Maybe the hand-wringers in Atlanta should just mandate the use of the type of solar cells that look like roof shingles so their aesthetic sensibilities aren't compromised.
Tomsic
I think a lot of this was due to old technology. PVC, which most of those early systems were made of, was not UV resistant and in a short span of a few years most of it broke down and fell apart. Those early systems were jes not reliable. I also don't think they were very cost effective in the long run, so didn't get rebuilt when newer material technology appeared. Jes a guess.
nb
One of my neighbors had some type of system on his roof that was shredded during the last hail storm. He didn't reinstall it.
Only problem with that is that for the enjoyment you're going to shell out a hell of a lot of money upfront to hopefully recover it over decades. And it only makes economic sense at all if the installation is heavily subsidized. Meaning someone else is then paying for your enjoyment.
And if you want them, why wait for a new house? They go on an existing house just as well as a new one.
"They're just afraid that someone's going to put up this big, honking ugly thing that reflects light and just looks ugly," he said.
Which sounds like a legitimate concern to me. I've yet to see one installed that didn't look ugly. If you put it on the back side of your house where no one else can see it, then it has no effect on neighbors. But I've seen them put right on the front of houses. And IMO it does lower the property value.
*****************************************************************************Eye of the beholder. The lower utility bill is more important to me. I'd not object to them. I may even pay more for a house with them.
You can pay extra right now.
However, you miss the entire point. They don't help the NEIGHBORS, but are an impact on them.
Except that it's not your house that is being depreciated because of them.
But as the price of energy goes up and up, it may be Appreciated.
I've seen some installations that don't look bad at all, black panels on a black roof.
one day such panels may be required by law........
The biggest thing that lowers home value is a HOA.
Remove 333 to reply. Randy
one day such panels may be required by law........
Or essential. If California is going to comply with their own law which is to achieve their goal of building mostly zero energy homes by 2020, that's a lot of roof panels.
Tomsic
Seems to me, HOA wields their power thru litigation. Comply or be sued. Turn it around.
If solar pwr actually will save you money, sue the HOA on the grounds of how much money you will lose by not converting to solar power. IOW, sue based on how much $$$ the HOA is costing you!
nb
Ridiculous suit that has no merit. When you buy a home in a HOA community, you know and agree to the HOA having control over certain aspects of what you can do with your property. If you don't want that arrangement, then you simply buy somewhere else. If you do buy, then you are bound by the convenants imposed and if they include control over what the exterior looks like, then too bad, so sad, but you're gonna lose.
Somebody (Woody Allen?) said "Ninety percent of success is just showing up!" You, and no more than five of your neighbors can probably take over the HOA governance at the next election.
Then, as another great worthy once said, "Payback's a bitch."
A good friend tried that after their HOA president was hiring himself for renovations (which weren't getting done). The covenants required 50% of the
*members* (not just those in attendance) for any elections and 60% for a change to the bylaws.
Not buying that. There are as many, or more, who like some control over their neighborhoods than not.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required