Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1.WahooSam posted on September 11, 2012 at 08:50 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
So, the Olerud's built a home, knowing full well where their neighbour's tree was, and then demand he cuts it down? What ########. That's like buying a house near the airport then complaining about the noise
2.Lassus posted on September 11, 2012 at 08:57 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
I wonder if he wears his helmet in his living room.
Not that big a tree & it looks healthy from the picture. Don't see how you can insist your neighbor cut down his tree to improve your view, especially when the tree was there first. The local law allowing trees to be condemned to improve someone's view seems awfully mischievous.
So, the Olerud's built a home, knowing full well where their neighbour's tree was, and then demand he cuts it down? What ########. That's like buying a house near the airport then complaining about the noise
Yeah, I could see his complaint if he bought the house before the tree started to grow, but the tree was there long before Olerud.
Yeah, I wouldn't have figured Olerud for an #######, but there it is.
Yeah, always seemed like a nice guy. But, ####### move.
8.NTNgod posted on September 11, 2012 at 09:08 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
The cherry on top:
The Oleruds lived in the Bakers' house for eight months in 2008 and 2009 while the Oleruds were building their own 6,680-square-foot home and Bruce Baker was working on his doctorate at Scotland's University of St. Andrews.
This seems like a dispute that the right amount of money could easily solve, and I'm sure the Oleruds can afford to pay (especially if the improved view will increase Olerud's property value).
Also, bringing religion into it (especially when the other guy is a pastor) is kind of a dick move by Olerud.
18.SteveM. posted on September 11, 2012 at 10:00 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
"You guys saw the trees," Olerud said at the board hearing. "They're not attractive trees. I would say they're the kind of tree that only an arborist would love. ...
Its always those damn arborists. The tree looks good to me but what do I know? I am from New Mexico and still am in somewhat awe of the wilderness (and green) I live in now up in the Northeast.
19.Shock posted on September 11, 2012 at 10:03 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
If I were the neighbour and I had money, I would invest whatever I could to acquire and plant 5 more of the ####### and hope they grow fast.
i read about these disputes in san fran a lot as well. folks got all caught up in 'the view'
21.MM1f posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:17 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
Nancy Dammkoehler, a neighbor who spoke at the hearing, said the Oleruds are reasonable people and scolded Baker: "All they want is to see the top of the Space Needle. If you can't figure this out, boy, I tell you, you'd better find a different line of work, buddy, because you're not very Christian."
Yeah Reverend! Didn't you read the part of the Bible about "thou shalt not obstruct views of tourist attractions"!?
I think they should come to a middle ground. Olerud apologizes and pays for any costs the Bakers have incurred and the Baker agrees to not knock out Olerud's teeth.
25.JoeHova posted on September 12, 2012 at 12:14 AM #hit 0 | hit 0
If I was Bruce Baker, I'd hang a gigantic sign on my tree that said "EAT #### OLERUD." Let him see just how much worse an "obstruction" can get.
26.GregD posted on September 12, 2012 at 12:20 AM #hit 0 | hit 0
Yeah Reverend! Didn't you read the part of the Bible about "thou shalt not obstruct views of tourist attractions"!?
This is the best part of the article; a bystander weighing in so stupidly.
My sense is that California view laws protect the views people purchase from infringement. That actually kind of makes sense. Why should your neighbors' decision to plant tall trees lower your property values? But I've never heard of having a right to proactively force your neighbors to improve your view from the one you bought. Madness.
My sense is that California view laws protect the views people purchase from infringement. That actually kind of makes sense. Why should your neighbors' decision to plant tall trees lower your property values? But I've never heard of having a right to proactively force your neighbors to improve your view from the one you bought. Madness.
Yeah, this is a terrible ordinance. If the tree had already been there, that's one thing, but building it there with full knowledge that the tree is there and complaining about it later? Pure dickishness.
I don't use Lexis or Westlaw any more but I suspect there's some decent case law on the matter throughout the country (published or unpublished). This would definitely be a great Property Law casebook case.
My recollection of cases involving homes and trees were always related to branches encroaching on adjacent property and damages either caused, or likely to be caused as a result. The tree owners are not undefeated in those cases.
I recall a very old weeping willow tree (a very tall/wide tree, great for climbing as a kid, impossible to hit a golf ball through it) being removed from our neighborhood, after the adjacent owner threatened to sue, as the trees roots were causing all kinds of issues to the guy's water pipes.
My sense is that California view laws protect the views people purchase from infringement. That actually kind of makes sense. Why should your neighbors' decision to plant tall trees lower your property values? But I've never heard of having a right to proactively force your neighbors to improve your view from the one you bought. Madness.
To be fair, according to TFA, no trees have ever been cut down under the ordinance, and this is only the third case brought to the board. That's not to say that the existence of the ordinance itself hasn't led to any homeowners cutting down trees rather than go through what the Bakers are dealing with now, but it's not like the town is going around chopping down trees willy-nilly (although this did happen to my parents once in suburban New York. There was a tree on the border with a neighbors' property, one day they got home from work and all that was left was a stump. Neither my parents nor the neighbors knew whose property the tree was on and both assumed that the other had cut it down without asking. They were both pissed off until they started talking about it and realized neither of them had cut it down. Apparently the town had done so because the tree was too close to the road or something like that.)
i like the view cases where the tree has grown in the interim from not blocking the view when the owner originally purchased the house to now it's blocking the view and the homeowner wants the tree owner to crop the tree.
This is what boggles the mind. If the Oleruds cared so much about the view, why didn't they buy a house that already had one?
Doing it this way was cheaper.
42.Cabbage posted on September 12, 2012 at 11:22 AM #hit 0 | hit 0
In fairness, it's entirely possible that either John or Kelly (but clearly not both) is not a #########, and simply married to a self-entitled, controlling #########.
Homer: So I thought to myself, "What would God do in this situation?"
Bart: [chuckles] Locusts! [holds box] They'll drive him _nuts_.
Homer: It's all in the Bible, son: it's the prankster's bible.
46.Shredder posted on September 12, 2012 at 12:37 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
I can't find the story now, but a number of years ago there was a story in the L.A. Times about a guy in La Canada/Flintridge ("tree-owner") who had a large tree on his property (Sycamore maybe?) that was pretty close to dead, and he was worried about it coming down in a wind storm, and wanted to cut it down. His neighbor ("neighbor") disapproved, because the neighbor liked the shade the tree provided his back yard. So the neighbor goes to the city and complains, and gets the city to step in and stop tree-owner from cutting the tree down pursuant to some ordinance. Cut to about 9-10 months later, there's a big wind storm, and sure enough, tree-owner's dead tree comes crashing down....right on top of neighbor's garage. Poetic justice. To his credit, neighbor took responsibility and didn't sue.
47.Traderdave posted on September 12, 2012 at 12:49 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
Would neigbor's homeowner's insurance pay for garage repair in that instance, or would "contributory neglect" or some other legal thingamabob trump that & allow them to deny claim?
48.Shredder posted on September 12, 2012 at 01:01 PM #hit 0 | hit 0
Would neigbor's homeowner's insurance pay for garage repair in that instance, or would "contributory neglect" or some other legal thingamabob trump that & allow them to deny claim?
I imagine the policy would cover it. I think the insurance company, however, would probably be precluded from getting anything from tree-owner (or his insurance company).
My neighbor's pretty damn big tree crashed through his fence and into our backyard this July. His insurance company said it would pay for the damage to his fence and the cost to remove it from his yard, but anything in my yard (which was just removal) wasn't covered. So he just bought a chainsaw instead.
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 1 of 2 pages
1 2 >Yeah, I could see his complaint if he bought the house before the tree started to grow, but the tree was there long before Olerud.
Yeah, always seemed like a nice guy. But, ####### move.
Also, bringing religion into it (especially when the other guy is a pastor) is kind of a dick move by Olerud.
If I were Baker, I'd offer to trade houses...
He made almost $70M. I have to think he could afford a house on the other side of the street.
Wait, a grad student/pastor can afford a house in that neighborhood? Where did I go wrong?
Because although Olerud played for Toronto, he's not actually a Canadian.
According to the article, he's an ex-Microsoft manager, and founded a company he later sold to Hewlett-Packard. I suspect he's rather well off.
Its always those damn arborists. The tree looks good to me but what do I know? I am from New Mexico and still am in somewhat awe of the wilderness (and green) I live in now up in the Northeast.
Yeah Reverend! Didn't you read the part of the Bible about "thou shalt not obstruct views of tourist attractions"!?
Like looking at trees is bad.
LOOKING AT TREES IS NOT BAD.
My sense is that California view laws protect the views people purchase from infringement. That actually kind of makes sense. Why should your neighbors' decision to plant tall trees lower your property values? But I've never heard of having a right to proactively force your neighbors to improve your view from the one you bought. Madness.
My sense is that California view laws protect the views people purchase from infringement. That actually kind of makes sense. Why should your neighbors' decision to plant tall trees lower your property values? But I've never heard of having a right to proactively force your neighbors to improve your view from the one you bought. Madness.
Yeah, this is a terrible ordinance. If the tree had already been there, that's one thing, but building it there with full knowledge that the tree is there and complaining about it later? Pure dickishness.
My recollection of cases involving homes and trees were always related to branches encroaching on adjacent property and damages either caused, or likely to be caused as a result. The tree owners are not undefeated in those cases.
I recall a very old weeping willow tree (a very tall/wide tree, great for climbing as a kid, impossible to hit a golf ball through it) being removed from our neighborhood, after the adjacent owner threatened to sue, as the trees roots were causing all kinds of issues to the guy's water pipes.
If I was Bruce Baker, I'd hang a gigantic sign on my tree that said "EAT #### OLERUD."
Even better, drape a tarp over the top in the shape of a batting helmet.
To be fair, according to TFA, no trees have ever been cut down under the ordinance, and this is only the third case brought to the board. That's not to say that the existence of the ordinance itself hasn't led to any homeowners cutting down trees rather than go through what the Bakers are dealing with now, but it's not like the town is going around chopping down trees willy-nilly (although this did happen to my parents once in suburban New York. There was a tree on the border with a neighbors' property, one day they got home from work and all that was left was a stump. Neither my parents nor the neighbors knew whose property the tree was on and both assumed that the other had cut it down without asking. They were both pissed off until they started talking about it and realized neither of them had cut it down. Apparently the town had done so because the tree was too close to the road or something like that.)
After all, Olerud said, the Bakers maintain their own view by trimming smaller trees on the lake side of their property."
It's THEIR PROPERTY John, and THEY bought a lakeside house. Let it go.
Amen.
That stupid Elizabeth Hasselbeck just makes me so darn mad. It angries up the blood and makes me cranky.
I believe they are the Australian variant of the Ticket Oak.
Ha!
This is what boggles the mind. If the Oleruds cared so much about the view, why didn't they buy a house that already had one?
Doing it this way was cheaper.
Bart: [chuckles] Locusts! [holds box] They'll drive him _nuts_.
Homer: It's all in the Bible, son: it's the prankster's bible.
Page 1 of 2 pages
1 2 >You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.