Wow. You can cut any parts that go over your property line. I would contact your municipality. Seems hard to believe this tree can be left as is.

If herbicides mysteriously found their way to roots the tree couldn't survive. Dead and dying branches are a hazard to persons and property that city can force owner to remove. Ongoing expense for arborist removing limbs is enough to make most people cut their loses an remove the tree. Noone,not even the plumber would know but soil backfill following drain line replacement would contain broadleaf killer and copper sulfate. Just saying of course.

The tree is both an asset as well as a hazard in my opinion. It needs pruning top and root, perhaps a cost to share with neighbor. Removal should be the last option.

no such thing as a root barrier..

i disagree completely with kita.. this plant is not an asset to anyone ... imo ...

where are you. big city name.. with all the inclines.. i might guess SF ..

municipal law rules.. speak with an atty ... and find out what your rights are...

i can see the trunk.. but where is the property line.. are you sure its on their property??? i cant imagine there is more and a couple sq feet of soil ...

ken

just spotted the power lines.. report the tree to the power company.. and ask that they come prune the tree.. THEN see whats left ...

after last winter ice and snow storms.. in my city.. the power company would have cut that tree back to the easement line.. which is 10 or 15 feet from the center of the power pole ... which looks in this case.. like the lower facade of both houses...

ken

Ken it is a widely used street tree in its native Australia. Albeit too close to the house, I see it providing shade and privacy. I bet it could be limbed up and even coppiced.

That tree is way too big for the space it is in. I would think your neighbor is responsible for damage to your plumbing and sidewalk. If you can peacefully agree to split the cost of removing the tree, that would be best. Worst case, I would consider sending them the bill for the repairs and suing if necessary.

That tree is a hazard. It’s causing ”sidewalk bulges” & your city isn’t involved? i would contact an attorney re the damage to your property before doing anything else. The tree is inappropriate for that location, period!

@ ken_adrian Adrian MI cold Z5: Yes it's in San Francisco. The two houses are "attached" so the property line should be right at the red brick wall in the photos.

Yes we are sure it's on their property, and they planted it (not the city). The power company (PG&E) actually don't care about such thing and will not trim the tree, as the tree is supposed to be a private property (belongs to the neighbor). We consulted a lot of people, and it seems that the best solution (at least for now), is to find a arbitrary to help us communicate with the neighbor. As I mentioned before, the neighbor actually "prefer" to have that tree (for providing shade and privacy) so it would be tough to convince them to cut down the tree.

Just curious, for such tree (Lophostemon confertus, also known as brush box, Queensland box, or Brisbane box), how big and tall can it grow into? If this tree continue to grow for the next 20-30 years, could that damage the foundation on both properties? Thanks!

That's interesting about PG&E. Here they will trim any tree that gets near the power lines - public or private. I'm surprised they don't do it there also with all the fire issues.

That said, PG&E is really beside the point.

I understand that the neighbor would "prefer" to have the tree. But I believe that they open themselves up to liability for damage to your home - particularly if you have brought it to their attention and tried to be reasonable. Bringing in a tree service to cut any part of the tree over the property line and prune the roots is a possibility also - but that's a really hostile way to go and would probably kill the tree.

Some form of arbitration seems reasonable, but they would have to agree to be bound by it.