SPECIAL FEATURES:
Email
Billionaire vs. redwood: The world's most egregious landscaping dispute
Super rich person Larry Ellison's years-long landscaping nightmare comes to an end as his downhill neighbors, the owners of view-obstructing backyard redwoods, agree to settle out of court.
Tue, May 31 2011 at 8:00 PM
Related Topics:
PEOPLE SKILLS: Larry Ellison is, among other things, a champion sailor. (He's shown here with the 2010 America's Cup trophy.) But he may not be considered a champion neighbor. (Photo: ZUMA Press)
Now that Memorial Day has come and gone, summer — the season of back porch grilling, front porch lounging, purchasing obscenely large tubs of mayonnaise-based salads, and getting into a heated spat with your neighbor over issues of landscaping — is, for all intents and purposes, upon us. Let’s focus on that last point, the one about landscaping disputes, shall we?
Ever since Martha Stewart notoriously duked it out with her erstwhile East Hampton neighbor Harry Macklowe over misplaced shrubbery, fighting with your neighbor over lawn maintenance has evolved into a late spring/summertime tradition that ordinarily fizzles over after a bit of compromise. However, such disputes can turn violent, malicious, and in the case of Bay Area business magnate/billionaire Larry Ellison, very obnoxious.
Ellison, best known as the fifth richest man in the world and co-founder and CEO of software company Oracle, initiated what the Wall Street Journal calls a “full-blown spectacle” over a cluster of trees that he believes are partially obstructing the views of the San Francisco Bay enjoyed through the floor-to-ceiling windows in a Pacific Heights home that he purchased in 1988 for $3.9 million. (The WSJ article also has photos of the view from Ellison's manse.) The offending trees, three redwoods and an 80-year-old acacia, are growing in the $6.9-million backyard of Bernard and Jane Von Bothmer who moved into a manse downhill from Ellison’s residence in 2004.
The “tree problem” started not long after the Von Bothmers moved into their home and decided to let the trees grow naturally without regular trimming as they enjoyed the privacy that the towering green canopy behind their home provided. Upslope in his 10,742-square-foot home used primarily for “entertaining,” Ellison was not too pleased. After several years of back and forth bickering and allegations of "tree-passing," Ellison and the Von Bothmers were to go before state Superior Court in San Francisco on June 6. Representing Ellison: Barri Bonapart, an arbor-oriented attorney who specializes in “tree and neighbor law.” According to Bonapart's website, Treelaw.com, her firm offers "practical solutions for an impractical world."
But as new details emerge, it looks like Ellison and the Von Bothmers won't be heading to court after all: over the holiday weekend, the lawsuit was settled out of court and the Von Bothmers have agreed to cut the three redwoods and landmark-worthy acacia that have been causing Ellison so much grief. Paging Julia Butterfly Hill ...
Read all the pulpy juicy particulars of the Ellison vs. Von Bothmer case — basically a Lifetime Original Movie meets Court TV special with a dash of the National Geographic Channel thrown in — here and let me know what you think. How have you settled landscaping disputes with neighbors? Any San Francisco residents out there have strong opinions on this much-publicized case and on the city’s “Tree Dispute Resolution Ordinance?”
In my humble opinion, Ellison sounds like nothing more than a schoolyard bully — an extremely powerful, multi-billionaire schoolyard bully who is used to getting what he wants ... including unobstructed San Francisco views.
Related on MNN: Donald Trump is in dispute with his neighbor
Via [WSJ]
The opinions expressed by MNN Bloggers and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of MNN.com. While we have reviewed their content to make sure it complies with our Terms and Conditions, MNN is not responsible for the accuracy of any of their information.
You might also like:
Sign in with one of these accounts to add your comment.
EDITORS' PICKS
Advertisement
TODAY'S MOST POPULAR ON
- 15 famous people who mysteriously disappeared
- 10 false facts most people think are true
- What causes tornadoes?
- When is tornado season?
- Easy homemade soap
- Popular Science announces 10 best inventions
- 15 houseplants for improving indoor air quality - A breath of fresh air
- 20 ways to reuse coffee grounds, tea leaves
- The 9 nastiest things in your supermarket
- 8 hair care treatments you can make yourself
From our sponsor
NEWSLETTER
ABOUT Matt Hickman
Eco-living expert blogs about best ways to go green at home.
Advertisement
There are laws that protect "historic trees." You know, the ones that have been around longer than we or our parents can remember? Who gives us the right to chop them down because we can't see an artificial skyline? MOVE. That makes everyone happy... including your ex-neighbors!
God should use the redwoods as a skewer and cook Larry over the Arizona fires!!
I am not sure about the law there but in parts of Ca. it is not legal to obstruct the view by letting trees grow mismanaged. The trees were indeed there before he moved in but the law protecting his rights would have been there when his neighbors moved in. I think its a pretty good compromise really to let people enjoy their view AND maintain trees that might otherwise obstruct them.
If I lived down hill from him he would be looking at those trees the rest of his life. They were there when he bought the house. Removing trees because someones "city view" is "obstructed" is a waste. I don't care how much money he has. How much power he thinks he has. Or even what he thinks. It would be my property. Good luck getting me to remove the trees.
This Guy is obviously so out of touch that he can't appreciate nature's beauty over a city view?? I mean COME ON!!! he should be kissing his neighbors ass and asking them what he can do to help save and grow these beautiful trees for our planet. His parties must be lame no matter who comes for his money. (-which is made of trees) boycott oracle until he RESPECTS THE EARTH
I wonder what good would have come if the neighbors had settled the disagreement between themselves and give the lawyers fees to a deserving charity. Apparently they both have money & time to burn on trivial pursuits.
This article is not too fair, painting Larry as this wildly rich obscene jerk who just wants his way...probably true, but so is the other couple. Redwoods in SanFran? Those trees grow HUGE! Not the correct tree in an urban setting, as they HAD to know they'd obstruct, not only Larry's view, but everyone elses view beyond him. And calling a tree historic is quite a joke.
This is what happens to people when they have this kind of money. They really think that the world is theirs. A real piece of work that Ellison is. Pathetic.
Along similar but divergent lines, we need more laws protecting scenery from the growing blight of industrial wind turbines that rise 400 feet above natural landscapes.
Do you know how big these trees get? These trees were huge when he bought the place. These are not "landscaping materials". They have been in place for decades. They have maybe grown 10 ft since he bought the house and were probably 80+ ft tall already. Cutting them down to 22ft is a death sentence for the trees. Any arborist who allowed this to happen should be stripped by the ISA.
Where he doesn't have a Bay view. Bear in mind he spends on average only four nights a year at the SF house (if that). His bedroom on the fourth floor by the way, has a perfect view of the Bay.
Isn't it on the ground floor?
One day this spoiled brat of a man is going to travel to a country where the almighty dollar doesn't make much difference to the average poor working Joe and he's going to tick off somebody who'll line him up for even more plastic face surgery because he doesn't know any better.
Note to self- boycott the bully. The arrogance is nauseating.
Who wants to look out their window in Northern California and see Redwoods? Release the hounds.
does any one get the point tht scientists have found a salamander found no where else but up in the trees and now two people want to get rid of them. i wish al gore would step in and stop this crap. with out trees we can not breath nice going you two. trees give off oxygen and take in carbon dioxide. i prefer trees to neighbors any day of the week. at least they don't moan and bitch the trees are oibscuring my view. oh get a life.
you are unfortunately wrong in your assumptions. Trees are carbon neutral. They create no more oxygen than they will be used when they burn or decay. You are thinking of algae and the like who create much more oxygen and use little to decay comparably. It can however cause dead spots in water where oxygen is depleted by the breakdown of a large quantity of oxygen. This is due to the fact that water holds little oxygen as much of it ends up in our atmosphere.
He can afford to have the tree's excavated and moved.
Boycott ORACLE. In the meantime his neighbors should put out natural compost piles for Citizen Kane to entertain by. Breath it in Larry.
I'll bet you don't even know what Oracle does. You can't boycott Oracle unless you boycott most major corporations that use their software. And there's no way you can even tell which ones. And boycott your city and state services while you're at it. Oracle doesn't make off-the-shelf consumer software like a Mario Brothers game you can just decide not to buy.
Pages