Neighbor dispute tree

[turf3]

Originally Posted by Dallas retail updater

...Go ahead and cut the branches up to the property line

I would not recommend being a jerk. Why not just trim the tips if they are getting too close to the roof?

OP posted once, didn't like the answers, ran away. We are just arguing amongst ourselves for the fun of it, now.

[Dallas retail updater]

Originally Posted by turf3

I would not recommend being a jerk. Why not just trim the tips if they are getting too close to the roof?

OP posted once, didn't like the answers, ran away. We are just arguing amongst ourselves for the fun of it, now.

My grandfather was a tree farmer. Cutting the branches on the intrusive side will over time cause the weight of it to shift away from the house. The roots will strengthen in such a way as to account for the shifting of weight. Just make sure if possible that the branch or branches is/or cut even at the trunk. Leaving stumps will cause rot and is stressful on the tree. The branches growing over the op's property is his property to deal with unless the tree is rotting. He didn't even need to mail his neighbor a certified letter in this case. Just cut the branches. Again, since he is acting like a butt, don't dare touch or reach over onto the neighbor's property.

This is common sense. What isn't common knowledge is how dangerous a dense oak tree can be. A vehicle can ram into an eight inch diameter oak tree, slice itself into two parts, and leave little damage to the tree. I was reading about such an accident happening in Houston along Allens Parkway involving the tragic death of a famous lawyer.

[TXNGL]

Originally Posted by TexasRedneck

Well, there can be a number of reasons someone doesn't want the limb over their property - although I would tend to agree that I'd rather have the shade - but what works for one doesn't for another. Apparently the OP has already approached his neighbor about trimming the tree and was blown off. I'd talk to someone at a nursery for the proper method and techniques, then trim the tree accordingly, and DOCUMENT how I did it. If the tree dies, I'm sorry - but it couldn't have been very viable to begin with.

A GOOD neighbor wouldn't plant a tree so that it would encroach over a neighbors' yard to begin with, other than perhaps some minor small limbs.

Who says that person planted it, however? Shade trees on my property are older than I am! Perhaps in the younger suburbs the current owner planted the tree, maybe the builder planted it? And yes, placement should be considered, absolutely.

[TXNGL]

Originally Posted by turf3

I would not recommend being a jerk. Why not just trim the tips if they are getting too close to the roof?

OP posted once, didn't like the answers, ran away. We are just arguing amongst ourselves for the fun of it, now.

Yeah, and one post on City Data by OP. Always makes me suspicious.

[Dallas retail updater]

Originally Posted by TXNGL

Who says that person planted it, however? Shade trees on my property are older than I am! Perhaps in the younger suburbs the current owner planted the tree, maybe the builder planted it? And yes, placement should be considered, absolutely.

Allowing trees begotten by nature to continue growing along the property line is a very common mistake. That is the main reason power lines get taken down during storms. In the long run, radiant barrier foil installed in the attick is better and cheaper shading than tree branches hanging over the house. Again, a large branch from an oak tree will fall through the roof.

[Trainwreck20]

Originally Posted by Dallas retail updater

Allowing trees begotten by nature to continue growing along the property line is a very common mistake. That is the main reason power lines get taken down during storms. In the long run, radiant barrier foil installed in the attick is better and cheaper shading than tree branches hanging over the house. Again, a large branch from an oak tree will fall through the roof.

It is all so dependent on the specifics. Our two big trees add thousands of dollars to our property, potentially 10 thousand plus. The current branches have made it 300+ years and are all currently healthy (checked every few years by an arborist). The trees themselves are no where near a property line nor any house (other than our own), yet their branches do extend over adjacent property. All the utilities are underground.

I have no issues with a neighbor trimming back branches as needed to prevent the tree from impacting his head room or his house (if it ever got that far somehow). But I sure would be pissed if they allowed the tree to get oak wilt or otherwise damaged the health of the tree. I would rather them allow me to call an arborist and have it done professionally. I would foot the bill.

[Ghengis]

you have the right to cut down anything in the forest as long as you use.....A HERRING!

[Trainwreck20]

Originally Posted by Ghengis

you have the right to cut down anything in the forest as long as you use.....A HERRING!

I thought it was only the largest (or mightiest?) tree in the forest...?

[TXNGL]

Originally Posted by Dallas retail updater

Allowing trees begotten by nature to continue growing along the property line is a very common mistake. That is the main reason power lines get taken down during storms. In the long run, radiant barrier foil installed in the attick is better and cheaper shading than tree branches hanging over the house. Again, a large branch from an oak tree will fall through the roof.

Oh I'm not disagreeing with that. Not at all. All I was saying is that the current owner, if it's an older neighborhood, probably didn't plant the tree. It could have been there before there was ever a house, planted by the builder 50 or 60+ years ago, or planted by a previous owner. Yes, a branch from an older oak can cause serious damage.