 gaforcesUnited We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA | reply to cooperaaaron
Re: They should simply..... Tree roots cause problems and if they did plant them, they would be liable for damages. |
|
|
|
mglunt
join:2001-09-10
Fredericksburg, VA Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to PhoenixDown
Re: I want 100/100 said by PhoenixDown:but I'd be pretty upset too if a company dumped 2 refrigerator sized boxes in the middle of my front yard... I would be too. If there is a way to hide the box, but the company wants to save the money that would cost, I'd be pissed. I take pride in how my property looks.. I don't need a 5-6 foot tall metal cabinet out front. Thankfully, FIOS runs everything underground (at least where I am). The only thing I see in my back yard is a 3'x2' (or so) lid on a buried box. ...and the lid is green so it blends in with the grass. |
|
1 edit | reply to Tzale
Re: Somebody, punch her! said by Tzale:Care to translate for me to sensible English? -Tzale Nope. Sensible English is overrated. Just like you.
--
"In a fight between you and the world, bet on the world." - Franz Kafka |
|
Reviews:
 ·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to asdfdfdfdfdf
Re: Utility easement said by asdfdfdfdfdf :
" But it's the age of entitlement. People really believe strongly that they are entitled to what they FEEL they are entitled to."
So when homeowners are upset by the state coercing them into allowing private entities access to their property you believe that this is indicative of their sense of entitlement?
If the state really did "coerce" them, they would have a case. But when they bought the house, the easement was right there on the survey, and they knew it (or should have known). No coercion involved. I can't imagine why you would even think that was the case.
Which is why I say people have these notions that they strongly believe and will fight for things they FEEL they are entitled to, whether or not this has any basis in reality. It's the only way I can explain statements like yours that fly in the face of the facts. For some reason you think that just because it FEELS like the right thing to you, it SHOULD be true.
I have two questions.
1. If a large property owner, such as a large corporate entity, bitches about the state placing conditions on the ownership of their property do you likewise condemn them for their feelings of "entitlement" or do you applaud them for defending what you believe is their inviolable right to do whatever they want to with their property?
To put it another way why is it freedom when powerful property interests protect their turf but it is whining when small property holders try to protect theirs?
Excuse me but what the hell does this have to do with the subject of this thread? There was no "state placing conditions on the ownership of property". It was IN THE DEED THEY SIGNED. And what is this giant red herring you are introducing of corporations vs. individuals owning property? That has nothing to do with this and I'm baffled why you bring it in.
2. Since these companies seem to believe they are not utilities and shouldn't be treated as utilities(for example, they believe they should be deregulated and should have no universal build out requirements imposed upon them), why should they be granted use of easements anyway? They were granted these easements in an age where they were viewed and treated as utilities. If they are no longer utilities maybe their legal status with respect to use of easements should change as well.
The easements are existing agreements. The easement does not say "if utilities are deregulated this easement is null and void". You can't just go back on what was agreed to in a deed and change it arbitrarily. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to yock
Re: I'd like to propose a solution You can always put poles up. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to gaforces
Re: False dichotomy Burying is easy. Its called a CEV. Only problem is $$$$$$. Uverse is 99 cent store next gen broadband. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to gaforces
Re: They should simply..... run it over with a pick up, and drive away |
|
davePremium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
1 edit | reply to burgermeister
Re: Somebody, punch her! No, I think it was more like this:
"I work in the broadband industry. Therefore I have no concern about members of the public, because it's all about me." |
|
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
Re: Utility easement quote:
But when they bought the house, the easement was right there on the survey, and they knew it (or should have known). No coercion involved.
Come on, this is like arguing that taxes aren't coercive because we all know we have to pay taxes when we choose to get up in the morning and we could all choose to go to a deserted island in the south pacific if we didn't want to pay taxes. The fact is, if you want to live in anything approximating civilization in the modern world, you are going to be paying taxes to some state somewhere. There is no practical way to avoid them and therefore I feel it is legitimate to say that they are a coercive act.
Easements are par for the course with pretty much any land parcelled up and sold today. For most people, trying to buy land and avoid some type of easement would be like trying to avoid death or taxes. Nor are such easements negotiable in any meaningful sense of the word. I therefore think it is perfectly legitimate to state that this is a form of coercion.
quote:
It was IN THE DEED THEY SIGNED."
I don't understand the idea that if something is signed that means that there can be no coercion or state force involved. To go back to taxes, you sign your tax return. Does this mean taxes aren't coercive? What if you refuse to sign? Then the state doesn't accept your return as legitimate and then the state comes after you for violating the law by not filing a legitimate tax return. The signature is a formality that doesn't address the underlying question of power and coercion.
quote:
There was no "state placing conditions on the ownership of property.
A deed is a legal instrument. It isn't as if property exists separate from the state and its legal measures. Utility easements don't exist because utilities went and negotiated agreements with each individual property owner and the property owner agreed to mutually satisfactory terms with the utility companies. They exist because a political determination was made that such easements facilitate infrastructure build and therefore the state requires that such things be regularly applied to most property as part of the process by which the state recognizes the legitimacy of property claims(such as a deed).
quote:
And what is this giant red herring you are introducing of corporations vs. individuals owning property? That has nothing to do with this and I'm baffled why you bring it in.
My point was simply that our outrage over state coercion is proportional to the extent to which that coercion affects the wealthy and powerful. Maybe we should feel similar outrage when coercion affects the small property holder as well. I think principle demands this.
quote:
The easements are existing agreements.
Of course they are existing agreements. Are you arguing that existing agreements can not be changed? Before modern utilities developed there were no utility easements. These utility easements later become legal conditions of ownership of property, so clearly the conditions of property ownership can be changed over time. As the circumstances surrounding utilities change, surely the state and society can effect a transformation of conditions of property ownership to reflect this? Certainly, at a minimum, easements on future property transfers could be changed to reflect changes in the status of telecommunications companies as utilities.
It might even be possible for the state to simply alter the status of classification as a utility without having to transform the easements themselves.
In the same way that utility easements developed to grant access to these companies, the access granted can be removed, by a similar process, as their status as utilities should disappear.
quote:
The easement does not say "if utilities are deregulated this easement is null and void".
If they are simply another deregulated provider of some service, that service is NOT viewed as important fundamental infrastructure and they no longer have universal service requirements should they even continue to be classified as utilities? |
|
| reply to dave
Re: Somebody, punch her! said by dave:No, I think it was more like this: "I work in the broadband industry. Therefore I have no concern about members of the public, because it's all about me." Ok, that could work too! 
--
"I've learned that depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." |
|
 marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:2 | reply to Ben
Re: I want 100/100 said by Ben:So let's see, the choices are: A) Use dial-up. To download the latest Fedora Core 8 DVD image (which is 3.18GB) would take close to a week, if you run the dial-up 24/7. OR B) Live with a large box nearby, but download the same DVD image in less than 18 minutes (assuming 25Mbps download). The boxes provide TV service, not broadband internet.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:2 | reply to Riplin
Re: who cares what they look like said by Riplin:TBH if they offered me 100mbit to my house for a reasonable rate I could care less what they look like. What if they were offering you 400 channels of television instead? That's what those boxes provide, not internet. |
|
marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:2 | reply to jester121
said by jester121:So geek on over to a real estate law site and read up on utility easements. These companies aren't breaking the law; homeowners are generally idiots and don't realize what is and is not allowed according to zoning, easement, and other local regulations. RTA.
They placed the box outside the easement. |
|
marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:2 | reply to Bobcat79
Re: Utility easement said by Bobcat79:said by Tzale:Your wrong. It was 2 feet over the property line!!! And they fixed that. It not the first time a utility made a mistake, and it won't be the last time. No they didn't.
"Gordon said the company did not plan any additional compensation other than filling the portion of her hillside mistakenly dug up and replanting vegetation. AT&T still plans to install one or two service boxes at the location."
That is far from fixed. They actually removed 2 feet of the front yard outside the easement.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
| reply to dave
Re: Somebody, punch her! said by dave:No, I think it was more like this: "I work in the broadband industry. Therefore I have no concern about members of the public, because it's all about me." Me? I don't think I'm her neighbor, otherwise I'd punch her myself.
--
"In a fight between you and the world, bet on the world." - Franz Kafka |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
·Optimum Online
·EarthLink
| reply to marigolds
Re: Utility easement said by marigolds:No they didn't. "Gordon said the company did not plan any additional compensation other than filling the portion of her hillside mistakenly dug up and replanting vegetation. AT&T still plans to install one or two service boxes at the location." That is far from fixed. They actually removed 2 feet of the front yard outside the easement. What part of "filling the portion of her hillside mistakenly dug up and replanting vegetation" don't you understand? |
|
 TzaleProud Libertarian ConservativePremium
join:2004-01-06
NYC Metro | reply to GemSnake
Re: Somebody, punch her! said by GemSnake:said by Tzale:Care to translate for me to sensible English? -Tzale Nope. Sensible English is overrated. Just like you. Your parents really failed in raising you.
Troll.
-Tzale
--
Neoconservatives (G.W.B) are not true conservatives. A conservative believes in defending the Constitution. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - RON PAUL 2008 »www.usconstitution.net/const.html
|
|
TzaleProud Libertarian ConservativePremium
join:2004-01-06
NYC Metro
2 edits | reply to burgermeister
said by burgermeister:said by Tzale:Care to translate for me to sensible English? -Tzale Let me take a stab at it: I love to play WoW at the highest speeds available from my parent's basement. I don't care how bad their front yard looks because it's all about me. Was that close?  Bingo!!!
»Another stupid research
Probably a depressed loser who never sees sunlight and is pissed at the world since he is still a virgin at 32...
-Tzale
--
Neoconservatives (G.W.B) are not true conservatives. A conservative believes in defending the Constitution. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - RON PAUL 2008 »www.usconstitution.net/const.html
|
|
TzaleProud Libertarian ConservativePremium
join:2004-01-06
NYC Metro | reply to GemSnake
said by GemSnake:said by dave:No, I think it was more like this: "I work in the broadband industry. Therefore I have no concern about members of the public, because it's all about me." Me? I don't think I'm her neighbor, otherwise I'd punch her myself. And they'd throw your ass in jail where you'd become the "bitch" for some nice prison lovin'!
I hear they have massive "pipes" in prison... I'm sure you'd just love that experience!!
-Tzale
--
Neoconservatives (G.W.B) are not true conservatives. A conservative believes in defending the Constitution. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - RON PAUL 2008 »www.usconstitution.net/const.html
|
|
| reply to patcat88
Re: They should simply..... Very adult of you.
Isn't it nice that all of this new technology, which by the way doesn't offer anyone anything more than they can allready get with cable or satellite, has to have these eyesores placed everywhere. I understand utility companies have easnemt rights. There is a telephone pole in my back yard which has power, 2 cable companies and AT&T phone on it, if they were to ever want to put those huge boxes back there, I wouldn't be very happy. |
|
