Followers

Friday, May 11, 2007

EcoSpeakers

I'm pleased to let you all know that both Ray Moritz (the popular San Francisco Chronicle "Ask an Arborist" columnist and, not incidentally, my husband) and I have both joined the team of EcoSpeakers on the subject of the Greening the Urban Environment. The EcoSpeakers homepage is at http://www.ecospeakers.com This is a great organization which provides speakers on many environmental issues.

Ray will talk mostly about his work in urban forestry, helping home owners and public agencies with tree issues. He's also a fire ecologist, so much of his work is in that area. As a "forensic forestor," Ray works with attorneys on legal cases involving trees, including wildland fire, tree hazards and liability issues. He's also a very entertaining speaker.

We are pleased to join the likes of L. Hunter Lovins, Paul Ehrlich, Huey Johnson, Betsty Rosenberg and others who are members of EcoSpeakers.

You can also check out Ray's column on the first Saturday of the month in the SF Chronicle Home section or at sfgate.com http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/qws/ff/qr?term=%22ask+an+Arborist%22&Submit=S&st=s or click on the Ask an Arborist link above.

In other news, I am pleased that this Blog is generating interest and I have been fielding calls from all over the state! Thanks for reading Land Use News. Your comments are most welcome.

Dotty
coastlaw@earthlink.net

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

More on the Baffling Boundary Trees

or LOOK BEFORE YOU LOP!

A commenter writes that a tree overhanging her dock was causing a concern it might fall and damage the dock. She had trimmed overhanging branches before, and the neighbor had never complainted. So she thought since the tree leaned her way, if was ok to cut it down.

Whoops! The neighbor has now taken her to Small Claims court, where the damage limit is up to $7500.

What should she do? She thinks the trunk might actually have been on the property line; if so, she may be liable for only half the value of the tree, since she would be responsible for half its upkeep. If it was truly in danger of falling and causing damage, its value would be lower and its hazard potenial higher. Too bad she didn't have it assessed by a consulting arborist before taking matters into her own hands.

Nevertheless, it is not too late for her to get expert advise. She can still have a consulting arborist assess the situation. Does she have photos of the tree before she cut it down? Is there any wood left that can be evaluated for disease or other stressers that may have devalued the tree?

Another step may be to have a survey done to determine if it was truly on the property line. All of these things can be costly however, so she may want to negotiate with the neighbor over the value of the tree and cost to replace with one that won't overhang her dock.

The moral of this story might be summed up as "Look before you Lop." In the long run, you can save time, money and your relationship with your neighbor if you get all the facts and are willing to work things out first.

Friday, September 15, 2006

PROPOSITION 90 IS WOLF IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING

Eminent Domain Reform Bill really “Taxpayer Deception” Bill

No one wants their family home or small business uprooted so that some developer or mega corporation can move in. Nor does this happen very often. But to hear the carping of the proponents of Proposition 90, the so called “Protect our Homes” initiative, this is a daily occurrence that must be diligently guarded against.

Not so. To be sure, there are abuses. Last year’s Kelo case in New London Connecticut, in which the Supreme Court upheld the Town’s use of eminent domain, the power of a governmental agency to take private property for public benefit, to take modest single family homes for the purpose of putting in a pharmaceutical factory under the rationale that the local economy would get a much needed boost, being the most famous.

We can find some right here in the Bay area. The once culturally diverse and thriving Fillmore District was transformed into the Western Addition with many a politician’s pocket lined in the process. The popular Marin City Flea Market is now the site of a dreary and underutilized shopping mall. And in Oakland, small auto repair and tire shops are scheduled to be replaced by more upscale retail operations. All to boost economic development under the government’s redevelopment powers.

If our legislature had acted in the wake of Kelo and passed its own laws, modifying the definition of blight and defining what is and what is not a public benefit, we might not see Proposition 90 on the ballot this November. But it didn’t act, and so the vacuum was filled by an eager band of property rights advocates headed by New York developer Howard Rich. Rich and his friends are stumping all over this nation with their “reform” message. And fearful homeowners are falling for it, often to their dismay, when the true costs of “reform” are revealed.

Think we’ve got problems now? If Proposition 90 goes into effect, no neighborhood, family farm or community will be safe from developers keen to squeeze every cent out of every square foot of property they can get their hands on.

Just ask our neighbors to the north. Oregon’s Measure 37, passed in 2004 as eminent domain reform, has resulted in the wholesale gutting of what were once the strictest environmental protections and sound planning practices in the nation.

Besides requiring that no private property be taken for purely economic benefit, Proposition 90 contains the following clause:

“Except when taken to protect public health and safety, ‘damage’ to private property includes government actions that result in substantial economic loss to private property. Examples of substantial economic loss include, but are not limited to, the down zoning of private property, the elimination of any access to private property, and limitations on the use of private air space. ‘Government action’ shall mean any statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation.”

This clause allows any landowner to sue any governmental agency for any action which they claim devalues their land. This would include such mainstays of good planning as downzoning, restricting the use of airspace and zoning that prohibits mining or other environmentally dangerous activities. This means that laws restricting heights of buildings to preserve sunlight or views or to maintain historic character may be fair game under this law, according to the California Legislative Analyst’s office.

And the law is not limited to real estate but could apply to any “property” including liquor licenses (so there go laws restricting liquor stores near schools), your good name as a consumer (those lists maintained by your utility and credit card companies are property after all) and a myriad of other intangibles not generally considered property under standard land use laws.

In Oregon, which used to have some of the strongest environmental protections and smart growth practices in the nation, Measure 37 has threatened to cost taxpayers millions in lawsuits against regulations that property owners claim devalue their property. The result has been that local agencies, strapped for the cash to defend these regulations, have caved in to developers allowing massive residential and commercial developments, including mining operations, where strict regulations previously protected the environment and the residents of the State.

These measures trot out sympathetic faces to advertise their benefits, the farmer whose land was taken for development, the tire store operator whose shop was replaced with a shopping mall, the grandmother whose lifelong home was seized so that a drug company could relocate there. No one doubts there are abuses of redevelopment and eminent domain laws. But Proposition 90 is not the answer. So far it has been opposed by major environmental groups, the League of Women Voters, League of California Cities and many major newspapers.

But then so was Oregon’s Measure 37. It still passed owing to the false and misleading propaganda those who favor it blast out on the airwaves. Major players besides Mr. Rich and his band of merry developers are the Republican Party and the Libertarian Cato Institute. Big development money is expected to hide its ugly mug behind sad faces of displaced homeowners or actors portraying them.

You know the drill: “I never though this could happen in America. The government came and took my family home, the one my grandfather built with his own two hands. And they’re putting up a giant paper mill that will pollute our river. They say it’s for jobs and economic benefit of our community. I say it’s big government run amok. We need Proposition 90 to protect our homes.”

Ok, I invented that ad myself, but you get the drift. The developers and big business will too, so expect those kinds of ads to play this fall. The irony is, Proposition 90 is actually going to make it easier for the polluting paper companies to build in our State if we don’t stop this wolf in sheep’s clothing in November.

Dotty E. LeMieux

Dotty E. LeMieux is a land use lawyer and political consultant in Marin County. She can be reached at coastlaw@earthlink.net

A version of this article appeared in the Marin Independent Journal on 9/14/06

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

TROUBLE ON THE BORDER

By Dotty E. LeMieux

No this isn’t about immigration or the Israeli-Palestine question. The border is closer to home and one that affects all of us as homeowners.

It’s the boundary line between you and your neighbors, and it has been scene of as many pitted battles as any international border between warring states.

Simple as ivy on the wall or water under the fence, or complex as dual ownership of boundary trees or uncertainty over where the property line really is, these spats can turn into deadly feuds, reminiscent of the legendary Hatfields and McCoys of West Virginia and Eastern Kentucky Hill Country.

Although neighbor battles don’t usually result in bloodshed, they can be lethal for trees, shrubs and other vegetation, as many hapless property owners have learned.

“The Fruit of the Poison Tree”

Any one who has experience with Criminal Law knows that expression coined to cover information gathered in an illegal search or seizure. In the context of neighbor disputes, it can often be quite literal. Neighbors have been known to spike trees whose overhanging limbs dropped debris into their yard with herbicides, to sprinkle poison over fences to kill neighbors’ prized azaleas and even to lob strychnine laced hamburger to quiet a barking dog.

These acts are all illegal, and can result in severe penalties, possibly even criminal sanctions.

More common are the cases of lethal wounds to encroaching roots or overhanging limbs. If your neighbor’s tree is overhanging your property or its roots pushing through the fence and surfacing under your garden walk, there are measures you can take, short of murder.

Root and branches may be trimmed to the property line so long as the trimming does not damage the structural integrity of the tree. You need a trained professional to assess this. Do it yourselfers should proceed with caution.

As I always advise my clients, talk to the neighbors first; they may not be aware that their beloved pine tree is driving you crazy with windfall and pine needles.

Trees that Straddle the Fence

A situation that sometimes occurs is that of trees whose trunks are on both sides of the property line. These are known as boundary trees and pose unique problems, since each neighbor is mutually responsibly for their care and upkeep, and responsible for any liabilities.

Problems arise when neighbors disagree about the care of a boundary tree. When one neighbor’s view is blocked by a rapidly growing tree, while the other values the privacy the tree provides, an impasse is often the result. Neither neighbor can take unilateral action. If a tree is diseased and threatening to fall on one neighbor’s house and the other neighbor refuses to have it removed, the first neighbor may be forced to sue the other for his half of the cost.

Get a good appraisal of the health of the tree and cost to remediate the problem or remove the tree. Think about panting replacements that you and the neighbor both choose. If you go in with well developed information and a plan to keep a good relationship with your neighbor, chances are he will be more amenable to your desires, especially if you offer to pay more than your half of the cost.

The Case of the Missing Boundary Line

You buy an older house in a nice neighborhood with the help of a reputable realtor. You have your deed, the description of your land and the 1942 subdivision map. You decide to repair the sagging wire fence on the property line with a nice redwood plank one. You start putting up your fence posts, only to be greeted with a shout of protest from your neighbor. What’s happening? He just had a survey done to determine the setback so he could enlarge his home, and guess what? What you thought was the property line, wasn’t.

“But” you sputter, “My realtor said this fence marked the property line.” Thought is the operative word. Unless you have a survey of your own showing conclusively that the fence does mark the line, you may be out of luck. The lesson? Don’t rely on out of date subdivision maps. Make sure you know just where your property starts and ends, on the ground, not on a map.

Wandering Cats, Dogs and Vegetation

Your neighbor’s overgrown Tom cat Fluffy has taken to stalking your own Foo Foo, who likes to preen herself in the sun, but now is forced to take refuge in the house whenever that mean old Fluffy comes prowling around. And he doesn’t just say hello either; he caterwauls and leaves messy calling cards. You complain to your neighbor and demand he do something about his wayward pet. But he ignores you, shocked that anyone would consider his precious Fluffy less than loveable.

Meanwhile, the neighbors on the other side leave their home under the protection of Spike, a yappy little teacup sized dog whose constant shrilling is driving you to drink.

Not only that, the Ivy they planted as an easy to maintain border is now enveloping your side of the fence, threatening to strangle the wisteria and honeysuckle you’ve been cultivating.

What is a hapless homeowner to do? First check your town’s cat and dog ordinances. Many Towns and Counties have ordinances restricting the number of cats or dogs that may be kept, noise and nuisance ordinances. There are also ordinances providing sanctions for “dangerous” dogs. And mediation is always an option. The County of Marin has a pet mediator, just for these occasions. There is not, to my knowledge, any plant mediator, but maybe there ought to be.

The ivy can be cut back by you to the fence line and if all of these problems persist, consult an attorney specializing in neighbor law or check with the excellent Nolo Press book of the same title. (Go to www.nolo.com to see about ordering it and other excellent self-help legal guides.)

A Note about Noise

Neighbors and noise go together like picnics and ants, summer and sunburns. Unless you live a long way out in the country miles from the nearest human habitation, you’re going to get noise pollution. Chain saws, weed whackers, children’s parties, loud stereos and barking dogs come with suburban life.

But there’s no reason to suffer in silence. Again, talk to the noise neighbors, nicely. Keep your voice low so they’ll get the message. And if they don’t, there are laws that regulate the noise level in neighborhoods.

An example of noises to be avoided is contained in the San Rafael Municipal Code, section 8.13.030 (Loud or unusual noises prohibited):

“No person shall maintain, emit or make, or cause, suffer or permit to be maintained, emitted or made, any noise or sound produced by human, animal, mechanical or other means, which by reason of its raucous or nerve-wracking nature, shall disturb the peace or comfort or be injurious to the health of any person or person”

That just about says it all. Wracked nerves, disturbed peace and neighbor issues generally are the stuff of local law enforcement daily life. Just read the sheriff’s calls in small town papers like the Pt. Reyes Light and you’ll see that you are not alone win having Troubles on the Border.

Dotty E. LeMieux is an attorney specializing in tree, neighbor and environmental law in San Rafael. She may be reached at coastlaw@earthlink.com

Published in Marinscope papers, real estate section, August, 2006

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Practical Politics

PRACTICAL POLITICS CLASS NEARS

As many of you know, besides practicing land use law, I work as a political consultant. Sometimes these two roles go hand in hand. Anyone who's been involved in an environmental battle can tell you that.

So in case any of you are interested in the practical side of politics, check out my class at the College of Marin Saturday September 16, 2006, from 10-4 PM. Anyone running for office, thinking of running for office or working with a campaign are especially invited to join us.

We will, as always, go over some basics for activists, that can be used in campaigns or in your neighborhood battles.

Email me with any questions: del@greendogcampaigns.com

PRACTICAL POLITICS

How YOU can be an Activist for Your Community

"All politics is local" -Tip O'Neill

Dotty LeMieux’s community activist training class will be held at the College of Marin, Saturday September 16, from 10 AM to 4 PM. Learn how to be a more effective activist for your cause.

Environmental: Are you reviewing an EIR for a project in your neighborhood, fighting big box retail or struggling to preserve wetlands?

Social: Would you like your local government to be more responsive to community needs in the areas of affordable housing, transit or other pressing neighborhood issues?

Political: Have you thought about running for office yourself or working for a candidate or ballot measure to make changes in your community?
This training may be just what you’re looking for. Meet like minded people and hear their stories. Gain new allies and learn new techniques in working for your cause or candidate Topics include:

• Telling our stories, campaigns won and lost, what you are doing now in your community!
• Frame that issue: How to get your message just right
• Tracking the elusive volunteers
• Getting the Press to pay attention
• Creating effective materials to carry your message to the streets, City Hall or Washington
• Finding likely and unlikely allies. Learn why "The enemy of my enemy is my Friend."
• Yes, you CAN raise money! Tips to help you get over your fear.
• Planning your next steps; An activist's work is never done!

Successful students of past classes have won elected office offices, led citizen petition drives and become effective at getting their message across in public hearings and in the press.

It would be helpful, but not required, if students read George Lakoff’s Don’t think of an Elephant before the class. Binders with class material provided to each student.

Yes, you CAN make a difference!

Go to http://marincommunityed.org/regist/resources/index.htm

to register

Tuesday, July 25, 2006

WHOSE FENCE IS IT?

From time to time, we will print enlightening articles by others on topics of interest to property owners and land use practitioners. This is from a nice little real estate newsletter out of Oakland. The writer kindly interviewed me following a reading of the Blog.

Enjoy:


Whose Fence Is It?
By Bruce Linde


Copyright 2006 The Grubb Co (www.grubbco.com). All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

The news is rife with stories of border disputes and their ramifications. You might be tempted to say ‘not in my backyard,’ but you might find you have your own border war if you don’t know exactly where your property lines are.

Americans spend more than $1.6 billion per year on fences. California Civil Code §841.2 requires that “coterminous owners are mutually bound equally to maintain the fences between them”… but it’s not that simple. According to Nolo Press’ Fences FAQ, “Unless the property owners agree otherwise, fences on a boundary line belong to both owners when both are using the fence. Both owners are responsible for keeping the fence in good repair, and neither may remove it without the other’s permission.”

It is defining boundary lines that is the sticking point. Boundary-line issues can be readily identified if a buyer obtains a survey of the property before the purchase, but many buyers are unwilling to do so because of the cost ($800 to $1,500 or more). “If a fence is truly on the property line, it’s a shared fence,” says Attorney Dotty LeMieux. “We all assume the fence is the property line, but that isn’t always the case. The only way to know for sure is to do a survey.” Besides showing property lines, a survey will also show the location of pools, decks, fences and anything else that has been added to the property… including structures built without the required permits (and inspections) that regulate their size, height, and location. To further highlight the complexities of this issue, an arbitrator in Berkeley recently ruled that although a homeowner’s land had moved, a survey determined ownership – and several feet of disputed earth now belonged to the downhill neighbor; there is no state law specifically designed to address property-line disputes where the ground is slowly moving, impacting property lines.

Nevertheless, if the deed or plat (map) of your property is confusing, you and your neighbor can simply agree that a fence – existing, or one you build – marks the boundary. This is called an “agreed boundary,” and certain requirements must be met: the line must be uncertain, both neighbors must agree that the fence is the line, and both neighbors must then treat the fence as the property boundary for a period of time. Once these requirements are fulfilled, the fence becomes the legal boundary line on the ground. Such an agreement should be in writing and recorded with the county in case there are any future questions about the boundary.

Even without an explicit agreement, when two neighbors treat a fence as a boundary fence for a long period of time – for example, if both contribute to its maintenance for many years – it can become the legal boundary. A fence on an agreed boundary is subject to all the laws that affect any boundary fence; when one of the properties is sold, the fence remains the boundary, and the new landowner buys mutual ownership of it along with the property.

So what happens when neighbors can’t agree? Good neighbors communicate, resolving problems to their mutual benefit without resort to the legal system. Mediation is also an option. Your first step, though, should be to talk to your neighbor, share perspectives, and see if you can come up with an equitable solution. The bottom line, according to LeMieux, is that “it’s best to be on good terms with your neighbors, and know where your property lines are.”

Please call with comments or questions about this article, or for referrals to qualified surveyors and fencing contractors. Thanks to Dotty LeMieux, who can be reached at coastlaw@earthlink.net.

Tuesday, July 11, 2006

Boundary Trees Revisited

Tina writes:


You say "both share the cost of its upkeep or liability for its lack of upkeep, in proportion to how much of the trunk is on whose side of the line", but the 2006 edition of Nolo's _Neighbor Law_ says that in California the tree is %50 your neighbor's, even if only a little bit of the trunk is on his property. If the tree was originally only on your property, then the trunk grew to where it was also on your neighbor's property, your neighbor becomes co-owner.

So I'm a little confused here--proportional, or 50%?

Curious (and yes, I do have a tree problem),
Tina

Dear Tina,

Well, as in the law generally, there are two (or more) sides to every issue. The law is ambiguous, so the sides are fuzzy too, like a shaggy barked Eucalyptus. I hope it's not a Eucalyptus coming between you and your neighbor. There are no hard and fast rules. You are both responsible, true, and neither can remove or damage the tree without permission of the other. You may however, trim the branches on your side of the line, so long as you do not damage the structural integrity of the tree.

The reason these problems are not so commonly written about today is 1) most of these issues came up in the days when farmers planted windbreaks to protect the crops along their boundary lines and 2) many people today use the services of a trained mediator to resolve disputes.

That is what I would suggest if you are having a problem with a boundary tree. Your town or County may have a mediation service for just such disputes. If not, you and the neighbor need to agree to hire someone and split the costs.

I wish you good luck with your tree and if you need further advice, consult your local Bar Association for the name of a good tree lawyer in your area.

Dotty LeMieux

Monday, January 09, 2006

The Public Trust Doctrine: Venerable and Besieged

This essay was first published on On The Commons (http://onthecommons.org)


Dotty E. LeMieux


“By the law of nature these things are common to mankind---the air, running water, the sea, and consequently the shores of the sea. No one, therefore, is forbidden to approach the seashore, provided that he respects habitations, monuments, and buildings which are not, like the sea, subject only to the law of nations.”


The quote above is from the Justinian Code of 530 AD, on what has become known as the Public Trust Doctrine in jurisprudence. Justinian, the sage Roman Emperor who gave us much of what we now think of as “common law, had more to say on the subject:

“The seashore extends as far as the greatest winter flood runs up.” He wasn’t through yet: “The public use of the seashore, too, is part of the law of nations, as is that of the sea itself; and, therefore, any person is at liberty to place on it a cottage, to which he may retreat, or to dry his nets there, and haul them from the sea; for the shores may be said to be the property of no man, but are subject to the same law as the sea itself, and the sand or ground beneath it.”
As one can imagine, the conflicts between those in the cottages and drying sheds along the shore and the rest of the public wanting to gather “cockles and mussels, alive alive oh” in the same area grew nastier and more complex as development increased and seashore living became a luxury for the leisure classes, instead of a necessity for the fisher folk.

Public Trust lands are strictly speaking the lands under the oceans and other waterways and are held in trust by the state for the people as a whole. They cannot be bought or sold, except in rare situations where the public trust itself will be benefited.

Enter the Courts

The seminal case which established the scope of this doctrine in the U.S. is Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois , 146 U.S. 387 (1892). The State of Illinois wanted to grant the entire Chicago waterfront to Illinois Central Railroad. The United States Supreme Court determined that Illinois held title to these lands in trust for the public. They could only convey title to other entities id that conveyance would actually improve the public’s rights. This was not the case with the Railroad’s plans for the land, and the State prevailed.

In 1988 the Supreme Court expanded this doctrine by holding that the principles underlying it applied to all water influenced by the ocean’s tide, regardless of whether it was navigable or part of a navigable body of water in the case of Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Mississippi, 484 U.S. 469 (1988).

Early California case law and legislation determined that the public trust lands along the seashore extended to the “mean high tide” mark, and that landowners could own the land under the trust waters, they could not keep the public off it, or impede the public’s use of those lands up to the mean high tide. As late as the early 1970’s, litigants were wrangling over the definitions of these lands:

“Public trust easements are traditionally defined in terms of navigation, commerce and fisheries. They have been held to include the right to fish, hunt, bathe, swim, to use for boating and general recreation purposes the navigable waters of the state, and to use the bottom of the navigable waters for anchoring, standing, or other purposes.” (Marks v. Whitney, 1971, 6 Cal. 3d 251, 259.)

This case also recognized that an important use of the tidelands was “the preservation of those lands in their natural state, so that they may serve as ecological units for scientific study, as open space, and as environments which provide food and habitat for birds and marine life, and which favorably affect the scenery and climate of the area.” (Ibid. at 259, 260.)

So it’s not just all navigation and fishing rights as it was defined in the old days. In California, the State is ultimate arbiter of whether the Public trust lands are serving their public trust purpose. This has led to a collision of competing water interests, when land owners or public agencies with the right to appropriate water from navigable waterways, including rivers, streams and lakes have locked horns with environmentalists.

The most celebrated case on this issue may be the Mono Lake diversion. In the case of Mono Lake, the Los Angeles Department of Public Works asserted their rights to the waters of tributaries to the Lake for the purpose of supplying the vast metropolitan L.A. basin. These tributaries were not themselves “navigable” waters, but supplied the Lake. Diminishment of their capacity was soon felt on the Lake itself, which was in danger of being drained with resultant loss in habitat and wildlife dependent on it. By 1979, the Lake had sunk 43 feet and diminished in size from 83 to 60 miles. Salinity levels were rising leading to changes in migratory bird patterns.

This was by far the most expansive use of appropriative water rights, and continued unabated for years. The damage to the Lake was impossible to ignore however, and environmentalists brought suit to stop the practice.

The California Supreme Court clarified existing law that protection of the environment was a reasonable use, and that the appropriative use did not take precedent over that environmental protection. National Audubon Society v. Superior Court Alpine County (1983, 33 Cal.3d 419).

The Ebb and Flow of Water Rights

Today, we see threats to our Public Trust doctrine under attack in the attempted sales of water rights to private contractors. Private entrepreneurs are attempting to buy “excess water” from California rivers to transport in giant water bags to sell to places in need of more water. This year, popular mystery writer, Marcia Muller, used a water grab in the fictitious town of Cape Perdido in one of her thrillers The “waterbaggers” as the locals called them, were forced to fold their bags and go home after a series of unfortunate events revealed them to be more than simply greedy. A good read, based in fact.

The question arises, what is “excess water?” where the public trust is concerned. Can there be such a thing? An even trickier question is how to treat ground water, that water lying under ground, hidden from the public eye, but often feeding local water wells essential to human and agricultural consumption?

Traditionally, the public trust relates to navigable waterways only. In Mono Lake, the doctrine was found to extend to instances when diversion from a tributary to a navigable waterway damages that water, in that case, Mono Lake.

Ground water, that body of water lying under the ground, in springs for instance, is not so protected. Although ground and surface water are interconnected, there is no permit process for the use of ground water the way there is for surface water.

Consequently, it is often treated like a commodity, to be bought and sold. If you drink water out of a plastic bottle, chances are it comes from a groundwater source and it may be having a devastating effect on the environment.

Case in point: Recently the Nestle Corporation entered into a contract with the water agency in McCloud to sell ground water for bottling. Locals sued and the court ruled this spring that they needed to do an environmental impact report before entering into the contract. So the project is on hold for now. However, resolution of the issue of whether this use will impinge upon the public trust will have to wait for another day.

This is an ever-evolving area of the law and public policy. Many third world countries are now obliged to buy their own water from private corporations. In fact, the World Bank encourages privatization as an answer to dwindling water resources. NAFTA and the WTO consider water as a “good” and failure to treat it as such by signatory countries can result in trade sanctions. This is a devastating development as water resources are literally drying up in many places on the globe.

The commons are in trouble, not only in the third world but here at home. The City of Atlanta turned to water privatization as a way out of a failing public system. Only recently did the City take back control of its own water supplies. If the Atlanta experience is any indicator, people in this country are not willing to have the public trust sold to the highest bidder. Not yet anyway.

A Walk on the Beach

Earlier this summer, two state Supreme courts issued landmark ruling upholding the Public trust doctrine to shoreline areas. The Michigan Supreme Court’s ruling overturned seventy years of appellate court decisions in favor of private property rights over the public’s access to shoreline. In that case, the justices found that the public’s right to beachfront access extended to the “ordinary high water line,” not just to the actual water itself.

A similar outcome resulted from a case in New Jersey in which a private club tried to limit public access to the Beach. There, the court found that the public’s rights to enjoy the beachfront to the mean high tide did not depend on that line being under water, as contended by the property owners.

Property rights advocates are in a tizzy over these rulings, and urging the US Supreme court to overturn them.

In California, our rights to walk on the beach are still protected to the mean high tide line, whether on wet or dry ground. Here, the issue is mostly over access to the beach, with fierce battles being waged by property owners in tony beachfront communities like Malibu, not wanting the great unwashed to pass their multimillion dollar investment homes on the way to the public beaches.

In Seadrift, at Stinson Beach, property owners, in an attempt to stem the rising tide of storm washed seawater, built rock bulkheads without benefit of permits in the early 1990’s. After a long court battle with the Coastal Commission, the State caved into the owners’ demands and agreed to limit the public access. Frightened homeowners were terrified at the specter of scruffy beachgoers standing atop their seawall for a look at how the other half lives. Or so they claimed.

A group of citizens (represented by volunteer attorneys, the author of this piece among them) brought their own suit claiming an “implied dedication” to the entire beach, meaning the public had used the beach for so many years as if it were a public beach, that dedication for public use could be implied. This case, Citizens for Open Access to Sand and Tide, was heartbreakingly dismissed on the eve of trial for lack of standing. The court found that the earlier Coastal Commission settlement determined the public’s rights and no one else was allowed to sue to protect them. (See Citizens for Open Access etc. Tide, Inc. v. Seadrift Assn. (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1053)

Beach goers and their legal teams are avidly watching the two newly decided cases opening up access in Michigan and New Jersey (as well as a similar case working its way through the Washington State court system) with a certain amount of trepidation. Will a more conservative property rights oriented United State Supreme Court reverse the Michigan and New Jersey cases , and if so, what is the implication for California and the other states which already had a more expansive view of the Public Trust doctrine? That is the question on everyone’s minds.

________________________________

Dotty E. LeMieux is an environmental attorney in Marin County California, working on land use issues in the public interest. You can read her updates on her blog at www.landusenews.blogspot.com.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

WHEN TREES COME BETWEEN NEIGHBORS - The peculiar predicament of the “boundary tree”

"A fool does not see the same trees a wise man sees." Rick Hilles

Good Trees Good Neighbors Make?

You and your neighbor have a big Cypress tree growing on the boundary line between your two properties. The tree has been there since long before you moved in. Your neighbor said it was planted about 50 years ago by the man who originally subdivided the property, Old Mr. McPherson. It’s never given you any trouble over the years, but lately it’s begun to look a little scraggly. Small branches are dropping out of it and it looks like it could really use a haircut.

Something nasty and brown is oozing out of on your side too. Your arborist tells you the tree is senescent, which means older in tree years than Old Mr. McPherson must be in people years by now. He also says you might want to have it removed, because it really isn’t going to get better and it might even start dropping larger branches or fall over altogether right on your roof. “Notice how it’s leaning,” he says. Now that he mentions it you do and rush to call your neighbor to help pay for its removal.

Since the tree is on the boundary, you assume the neighbor will have to pay half the cost of its removal and planting some more suitable variety. But unexpectedly, he balks, pointing out that most of the tree’s trunk has grown on your side of the property. Besides, it’ll fall on your house, not his, so he doesn’t see why he should have to pay for it. Does he?

In California, the rule is that when two owners share a tree, both share the cost of its upkeep or liability for its lack of upkeep, in proportion to how much of the trunk is on whose side of the line, which is not always easy to determine. (If the trunk is wholly on one side, even if the tree leans or the branches hang over on the other side, the tree is said to belong to the owner of the property on which the trunk stands.) Neither owner may do anything to damage the other owner’s interest in the tree.

If there’s a dispute about who owns the tree, a survey may be the answer. See if the neighbor will share the cost. It’s always a good idea to know where your property line is in any event. A lot of our subdivisions were laid out before modern survey techniques became commonplace, and the old landmarks have been destroyed, sometimes cut down or paved over.

In this case, the tree is clearly a nuisance and poses a hazard. Since it is partly growing on the neighbor’s land, I would ask him to contribute to its removal. The fact that it’s leaning over your house and not his doesn’t shield him from any liability. In fact, if it falls and damages your property, he will be at least partially responsible. Point this out to him politely over a neighborly cup of tea or glass of Chardonnay, to make the cost more bearable.

Fruit of the Boundary Tree

Suppose your boundary tree is a nice big McIntosh Apple or Bartlett Pear? Or hung with bright persimmons? Assuming you share the trunk of the tree, the fruit hanging over each owner’s line would be the property of that owner. If the tree trunk is entirely on one property, however, it wouldn’t strictly be a boundary tree and the fruit would be the property of the owner on whose side the trunk is growing.

If the overhanging branches themselves become a problem, you would have the right, under common and California law, to trim the branches back to the property line. The question arises, what about the fruit? Surprisingly, you do NOT have the right to the fruit, even if the branches hang over your yard. Technically, you’d have to pay for the fruit, if you cut back the branches. At least I think you would. I have not found any reported California cases on this subject, such disputes being more the product of rival orchards in the 1800’s than neighbors of today.

So, it’s unlikely the neighbor will sue you over a few apples. But it’s better to keep on good relations with one’s neighbors. So ask permission first. You’ll probably get it and you can make apple pies for both.

If you can’t resolve these or other property related problem with a neighbor, consider going to mediation. The County has a low cost mediation service and many towns operate their own. A qualified arborist can give you an evaluation of the health of the tree and if all else fails, talk to an attorney experienced in tree and property matters.

Dotty E. LeMieux

Dotty E. LeMieux is an attorney specializing in tree and land use issues. You can reach her at coastlaw@earthlink.net You can also read her articles at www.landusenews.blogspot.com

Friday, October 21, 2005

The Nettlesome Nuisance

WHEN A NUISANCE IS MORE THAN A PAIN IN THE NECK


“Barking dogs and crowing hens often come to bad ends” Old saying


The Problem

Your neighbor’s son is starting a rock band in his garage. He’s put egg cartons on the ceiling and old blankets on the walls, to muffle the sound, but it’s still ear piercingly loud at 1 o’clock in the morning.

Another neighbor is fixing old cars in his driveway for fun and profit, causing unpleasant smells to waft through the air and gooey substances to puddle in the street, sometimes oozing into your well tended front yard.

And next door, the man with the prize winning azaleas is spraying untended irrigation water over the fence causing rivulets to undermine your own drought resistant garden.

These, along with barking dogs, tree roots surfacing in your yard, loud parties and other aggravations to your peace of mind, are classic nuisances.

What is a Nuisance?

Anything that interferes with your use and enjoyment of your property is called a nuisance. In legal speak: “ Anything which is injurious to health, including, but not limited to, the illegal sale of controlled substances, or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, or unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use, in the customary manner, of any navigable lake, or river, bay, stream, canal, or basin, or any public park, square, street, or highway, is a nuisance.” (California Civil Code, section 3479.)

Nuisances can be either public or private.

California law states: “A public nuisance is one which affects at the same time an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal. Private nuisances affect only one property owner, and are the typical cases we see where one neighbor takes on another.” (Civil Code section 3480.) All other nuisances are private.

Public nuisances affect general public, by unreasonably interfering with the public health, safety, peace, or well being. Toxic waste, dangerous activities and the like are examples of public nuisances.

Some activities that look like nuisances may be permitted activity. The San Rafael Rock Quarry which blasts neighbors out of bed in the early hours has been the subject of much controversy and many lawsuits over the years. To the neighbors, it’s a nuisance and then some. In these cases, the issues revolve around whether the operation is in violation of its permits or whether circumstances have so change that the permitted activity is no longer a beneficial one.

But changed circumstances don’t always mean annoying activities are now nuisances. Because of the proliferation of residential development in farming areas, and the recognition of the importance of agriculture to the state economy, the Legislature has officially proclaimed that agricultural operations which were in existence prior to residential development cannot be considered a nuisance due to changed circumstances. (See California Civil Code section “Prior Agricultural Activity Not Nuisance.”)

It’s usually the garden variety nuisance that plagues the average neighborhood, barking dogs, loud motorcycles, debris from nearby trees.

What can you do?

After you’ve politely approached the neighbor and asked him to curb his son’s enthusiasm, or move his car repair activity to a more appropriate location, and the nuisance persists, what can a law abiding citizen do? Many towns have procedures for dealing with certain types of nuisances, for instance interference with views are addressed through local procedures in towns such as Belvedere, Tiburon and Corte Madera. Other towns have their own specific tree ordinances.

If none of these apply to your case, you might ask the neighbor to go to mediation. Marin County has a low cost mediation services and even specialists in the barking dog problem. Both parties have to be willing to take this route, however.

There may be local or state regulations that apply. Most jurisdictions have ordinances, prohibiting loud or incessant noises, especially late at night. In the case of the car repair activity, most towns forbid such work in residential areas, without a use permit and allowing motor oil and other substances to escape into the street and possibly the storm drains is definitely prohibited and can result in a hefty fine if not criminal prosecution.

If you are personally affected in more specific way than the general public, you may have a cause of action for a public nuisance. For instance, the oil that seeps onto your property causes specific damages. Otherwise, you can go the Town, County or other agency to abate the nuisance.

If mediation doesn’t work, and there is no recourse through a public agency, you should consult a land use attorney to find out what your best options are. Sometimes an attorney can help you negotiate with the neighbor involved. The attorney can also help you determine whether the nuisance is a permanent or continuing one. (A permanent nuisance is one that is complete at the time of its occurrence, and is governed by a three years statute of limitations. A continuing one is one that is ongoing or repeated and may be abated at any time.)

Before you resort to costly legal action, consider appealing to the neighbor’s interest in maintaining good relations in the neighborhood. You may be surprised that when the problem is brought to the offending party’s attention, it can be resolved amicably.

Dotty E. LeMieux. Dotty E. LeMieux practices tree, land use and environmental law in Marin County and may be reached at coastlaw@earthlink.net.

Thursday, August 18, 2005

TIMBER TRESPASS

The assault

For the past several years you’ve enjoyed the privacy and comfort of your large pine trees on the edges of your property. They keep your yard cool in summer and screen the neighbors’ pool.

Then one day you return from a hard day at work to find your beloved trees massacred. Their branches hacked to within an inch of their life, the trees are skeletal remains of themselves.

You think you can see the neighbors peeking around the corner of their newly exposed house, grinning slyly.

What has happened?

All too often neighbors have vastly different opinions about the trees that separate their lots. To you, the pines were a sheltering green zone, providing a sense of tranquility and home to birds. To the neighbors, they were messy nuisances that shaded their garden and dropped unsightly debris on their lawn. They may even have considered them a view obstruction or fire hazard.

One day, the neighbors had enough. Someone had told them they could trim on their side of the property line, so they hired the Chop and Drop Tree Co. to come over and do just that.

Unfortunately, Chop and Drop got carried away and started hacking on your side of the line. Your beautiful trees are now a mess.

Worse yet, your neighbors never even consulted with you. You would have agreed to a little reasonable thinning for their garden’s sake.

But now you are angry. What should you do?

What could have been amicably resolved between good neighbors has turned into an ugly feud. The neighbors have committed what’s known as “timber trespass” or “trespass cutting of amenity trees.”

The law

Contrary to what it sounds like, “Timber Trespass” isn’t when a member of Earth First takes up residence in an endangered redwood tree in the middle of an old growth forest. It’s any time someone crosses onto the property or air space of another, and causes damages to their trees.

If your neighbor goes on to your property and removes vegetation there, it’s a timber trespass. Trees have value, monetary and non-monetary. These can include aesthetic, architectural, energy conservation and wildlife habitat.. They provide shade, privacy and a sense of emotional well being to the people who tend them and appreciate their beauty and the natural setting they offer. The trees can also provide critical slope stability and erosion control.

To lose your tree can be a devastating loss.

That’s why the laws in California and many other states provide stiff penalties for the unlawful removal or damage of another’s trees. Iin most cases you can even recover two or even three times the actual loss, and even, in certain circumstances, emotional distress damages.

The law provides that for the intentional injury to “timber, trees, or underwood upon the land of another, or removal thereof,” the damages to be awarded are three times the actual value of the loss. Where the wrongful cutting is unintentional or negligent, “the measure of damages shall be twice the sum as would compensate for the actual detriment…” (California Civil Code section 3345: Wrongful Injuries to Timber, Trees or Underwood.)

In fact, courts have found that because of people’s special relationship to their trees, this is one of the unusual situations when you may be able to recover for emotional distress for a purely property damage claim. In an early case on this subject, the California Supreme Court stated that once you establish that a trespass or nuisance has occurred, “an occupant of land may recover damages for annoyance and discomfort that would naturally ensue therefrom." (Herzog v. Grosso (1953) 41 Cal.2d 219, 225) A more recent case stated it this way: “Mental distress caused by the nuisance created and maintained by the defendant is an element of loss of enjoyment.” (Smith v. County of Los Angeles (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 266, 287-288, quoting Sturges v. Charles L. Harney, Inc. 165 Cal.App.2d 306, 323.)

The remedy

If this happens to you, make sure you document the loss immediately, contact a consulting arborist who can evaluate the monetary damages, and call your insurance company. It helps if you have both “before” and “after” photos to support your claim. Immediately photograph the damage and write down an accurate timeline of events. The arborist will use a number of factors in evaluating your loss, including species, size, health, location of the tree on your property and its importance for privacy, shade, wind screen or other values particular to your property.

A good land use attorney experienced in tree law can help you determine the best course of action.

If your neighbors have been complaining about your trees, it’s always best to try to work it out informally or through mediation before things escalate to a full bore timber war. It pays to keep track of your trees health, their effect on neighboring properties, how fast they are growing and other factors that can come between even the best of neighbors. In fact, courts have found that homeowners have a “duty to inspect” their trees and property. Ignorance is not an excuse.

In the case of mature trees on your land, an ounce of prevention can be worth a ton of cure.

Dotty E. LeMieux

Printed in the Marin Scope papers, August 15, 2005

Friday, August 12, 2005

Tree Law in the News

Below is an article hot off the presses, by Marin's own Beth Ashley, a wonderful reporter, columnist and activist. Notice just about everybody she talks to in the article is a woman. Yeah! Moi included. Yes, this is what I do for a living, along with the environmental law/action and campaign consulting. To me, it all goes together.

Note that the "consulting arborist" identifed as my husband, is Ray Moritz, and he's the one who advised Drake High School not to cut down that grand old Redwood tree to make way for the astroturf. My husband - A hero to students and trees alike!

Enjoy the read:

Beth Ashley: Power can be rooted in the oddest places

Beth Ashley

Marin Independent Journal 8/10/05

SUDDENLY, I have more power than I suspected.

Larkspur officials informed me recently that the homeowner four houses away in my Greenbrae neighborhood wants to cut down a palm tree in his yard. Would that be OK with me?

Well, duh. I thought anyone who owned a tree had an absolute right to cut it down.
Silly me.

It turns out many Marin towns and the county itself have rigid rules on trees and their fates. And people like you and me have power over certain trees in someone else's yard.

I can object to my neighbor's cutting down his palm because it is a "heritage tree," so large that it has a privileged life of its own.

Recently, when a landlord in a Mill Valley neighborhood wanted to cut down an old oak in his front yard, he had to inform the city first, and the city informed the neighbors, and several of them protested. They liked the tree and wanted it to stay.

A hearing was held, and - because the tree is certifiably sick and in danger of falling - permission to cut it was granted.

Attorney Dottie LeMieux, who specializes in land use and property rights, and who is married to a "consulting arborist," knows tree regulations like the back of her hand.

- Tiburon, she says, has the toughest tree ordinance in the county.

- Several towns protect some trees as heritage trees - so designated by their size and age and sometimes by species. An oak, for instance, is usually considered a treasure - hands off! Mill Valley protects oaks, madrones, redwoods or Douglas firs of a certain diameter. But according to city parks official Ron Misurrace, "It's OK to cut down a bay, pine or cypress, as long as it's on private property."

- Some trees, considered a nuisance, aren't protected at all. Most cities and the county would be delighted if you cut down a eucalyptus, and some towns - Corte Madera, for instance - forbid the planting of nuisance trees like eucalyptus, Monterey cypress, juniper, acacia and Lombardy poplar.

Trees can be the source of bitter neighbor-to-neighbor feuds. "A tree is part of a man's home," says county mediation services chief Barbara Kob, "and a man's home is his castle."

All kinds of issues arise: your tree is blocking my sunshine; the roots of your tree are buckling my sidewalk.

One of the biggest sources of neighbor disputes arises when one guy's tree blocks the other guy's view.

Tiburon, Belvedere, Sausalito and Corte Madera have view preservation ordinances - you had better not let your trees grow tall enough to cut off your neighbor's view of the bay, the bridges, the hills or, in Belvedere, even cut off his access to sunlight.

Ellie Bloch, a veteran mediator for the county, says disputes over views, next to divorces, are the most challenging to mediate.

"People covet their views and think the view is their right. But there are many perceptions of what is a view. We're dealing with people's feelings. It's hard to describe."

Bloch,who lives in the county area of Tiburon, says she trims her trees to accommodate her neighbor. "By law, I don't have to do it, but they asked me to do it, so I do. Many, many people do the same."

Others, however, end up in mediation or in court.

"Some people want privacy from a neighbor, so they plant trees for a sound barrier, a wind break, or to fence their property off from their neighbor's," Bloch says. "One neighbor might not mind, but when a new person moves in and wants more view, they often end up in a fight."

Tree disputes are often not about trees, LeMieux says; "they're about neighbors who don't like each other."

Sometimes neighbors do "awful things" to one another's trees, she says. "They'll put poison at the base of the tree, or cut down a tree because it was bothering them and then say it was a hazard."

Sometimes neighbors talk, but often resort to "self-help," she says.
LeMieux warns that the last thing you should do is to take matters into your own hands. If you do, lawsuits may await. People will sue if you trespass on their property (and sometimes win triple damages). They'll sue if you trim a tree that leans over your fence. Sometimes the courts even allow damages for "emotional distress" over modifications to their trees.

Trees: the new family pets!

LeMieux had a case in which neighbors squabbled over a line of trees close to the property line. "My clients loved these trees, which provided shade, beauty, privacy. But they came home one day and found their neighbors cutting them down. They called the police."

Accusations flew back and forth that were "way beyond trees," she says. The offenders "paid a fair amount" to settle the case.

Tree disputes are usually lightning rods for other issues, says Barri Bonapart, a tree law specialist in Sausalito. "There's usually some other offense that's bothering them - like, you did not invite them to your daughter's wedding."

Tree disputes between neighbors "are almost worse than family law," Bonapart says, "because in a divorce, at least, one of the parties moves out."

Some towns have tree committees that try to come up with solutions. If the problem is about a view, the tree owner may be required to "make a see-through window" in his trees. Some cities set up long-term monitoring situations, so the views are constantly preserved. Sometimes, when a tree has to be removed to accommodate new construction, cities will require planting a new tree.

Trees, according to the founder of Marin Releaf, a 15-year-old San Rafael-based organization, are essential to human health: they purify the air we breathe.

Sandra Sellinger and her volunteers are pushing for an agency that would take care of the street trees that were once planted curbside by cities but which now seem to fall on property owners to maintain.

Over the years, Marin Releaf has planted trees where trees were needed - in parks and school yards, at China Camp and at the Marinwood-St. Vincent's interchange.

Even when the trees aren't their own, some Marinites take their presence personally. When Dominican University cut down 42 eucalyptus trees - eucalyptus trees! - on Grand Avenue in 1999, the outcry was so great that the city fined the university and demanded that new trees be planted.

Last year, when officials at Sir Francis Drake High School planned to remove a 100-year-old redwood tree to renovate an athletic field, students raised such a ruckus the school board reversed itself.

Trees have been important in Marin for at least the last century. The venerable Outdoor Art Club in Mill Valley and the now-defunct San Rafael Improvement Club both were early planters and protectors of trees.

In the 1950s, a maiden lady named Georgia Wintringham made San Rafael trees her special bailiwick, ever on the lookout for sick trees and doing whatever she could to encourage tree planting.

How much do we value our trees?

Recently, Bonapart had a client who contended that a neighbor cut the roots of his 90-foot tree, damaging it so much it had to be removed. The case was settled for $40,000.