Movie mogul's (Jerry Bruckheimer) neighbors stunned at loss of stunning view

Movie mogul's neighbors stunned at loss of stunning view

Residents who live next to Jerry Bruckheimer's ranch in the Ojai Valley rail against the trees he's planted that obscure their vista of the Topa Topa Mountains.



By Steve Lopez

February 14, 2010

Rancho La Vista Estates in the Ojai Valley came by its name honestly. From many of the homes, the view of the Topa Topa Mountains, which climb sharply out of the basin and pierce the clouds, is stunning.

Or at least it used to be.

Dave Olson, a professor at Cal State Bakersfield, can no longer see the mountains from the yard he designed specifically to take advantage of the panorama. For a few years now, he and his neighbors have been fighting a losing battle against the guy who bought the 400-acre Milner ranch and planted tall, fast-growing trees on the perimeter.

That would be TV and film producer Jerry Bruckheimer, he of "Pirates of the Caribbean," "Beverly Hills Cop" and "CSI:"

----------

Now, that view is completely obliterated by the pepper and acacia trees at the end of Tiara, on the edge of the Bruckheimer property. It further irks the neighbors that Bruckheimer's home is several hundred yards away from the trees, making them skeptical that anyone could invade his privacy from such a distance.

Also, the Bruckheimers are rarely at the multimillion-dollar ranch, according to neighbors. Yet the property values of the neighborhood homes -- which sell in the $500,000 range -- are decreased, real estate agent Sharon MaHarry assured me, because of the loss of their best feature.


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez14-2010feb14,0,3767617.column?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fmostviewed+%28L.A.+Times+-+Most+Viewed+Stories%29

Calif Solar Rights act only pertains to solar equipment not view or light. In fact the precedents are to the contrary. No right to view or maintain a view outside of contracts.

Its precedent going back to the 1800s. Solar rights for pre-existing solar systems are getting some protections in some jurisdictions without specific ordinances if there are alternative placements.

In CA the Solar Rights Act trumps HOAs and the like. Some neighbors claim that PV systems devalue their nearby property and the neighborhood in general, but they can not block them or incur additional costs for the owner above $2000.

Doesn't sound like much of a complaint to me.

Never inspires me.

Poor things. They lost their view. :eyes:

We have to plant trees, not only for a wind break but as a sponge against flooding during rain like we had the last two weeks. There is a way to have your trees and your view. There is a method of pruning trees to open up what is called filtered views. Since we have a view of the ocean there are those who don't want any trees to block that view but the trees are necessary so the pruning is a compromise Bruckheimer could do for his neighbors.

You do not have to destroy the view and property values of everyone around you in order to attain some privacy...

Stupid whiny rich fucks! Trees rule!

Nobody was more distraught than Josephine Dolezel, who's in her 80s and lives with her husband, Joe, who's in his 90s. They subsist largely on the organic produce Josephine grows in her yard, but Bruckheimer's trees and shrubs stole the sunlight and greatly reduced her harvest of zucchini, tomatoes, watermelons and grapes, they say.

have purchased before prop values skyrocketted

you are rich compared to the vast majority of Americans, if not necessarily your own neighbors.

for Southern CA only $500,000. I didn't know there were still houses that inexpensive here.

I also support the right to create privacy screens.

If I built a 2-story house, I could probably catch a glimpse of the beautiful Cascade mountains to the west. There is a butte blocking some of the view, but I could catch a little. The view is blocked from my one-story home by the many trees. I have CC&Rs that prohibit cutting down trees except where needed for construction. I'm fine with that; I like the privacy.

My neighbor to the north built a large new 2-story home a couple of years ago. In order to provide a "view" of the mountains, he moved the homesite as close to our dividing fence as codes would allow, and built up the natural slope that put him downhill from me. It really destroyed the feeling of privacy, as I can now see his backyard and kitchen window out of my bedroom window, and hear their activities whenever the window is open.

I've planted a row of trees along the fence line (with room to accomodate a full-sized tree) to screen their house from my view. Someday they'll be tall enough.

I bought my home specifically for the privacy it offered. That, imo, was one of the best features of my property. Should I be able to take legal action against my neighbor for reducing the perceived value of my home? Or should I just bitch to the newspapers about it?

...and yea IMO ...a $500k is a rich mans house.

Some acacias and pepper trees are on the California list of invasive species. If they can identify the ones planted as invasive species, then those could spread and degrade the natural habitat.