Topic 'Utility easement' in forum '' - dslreports.com http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Utility-easement-20296820 en Wed, 22 May 2013 23:07:06 EDT Wed, 22 May 2013 23:07:06 EDT Re: Utility easement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20313111
I'm not opposed to the idea of easements. Easements are a trade off. Everyone grants use of land so that everyone can benefit from universal build out of services. The benefits of infrastructure are spread around to everyone and everyone helps facilitate build out of that infrastructure. It's a fair trade.

In those instances where a company is actually providing a basic utility to everyone I don't have a problem with easements for those services. My point is if these companies want to start rolling out services that cherry pick and they don't want these new services viewed as utility services, because they want limited deployment in an unregulated environment, then why should these services be granted a utility's use of easements.

Surely there is a way to maintain utility easements without granting a company carte blanche simply because it provides phone service?

For example, these ugly boxes this article is talking about are for ATT U-verse. ATT especially wants to get into the video distribution business. ATT insists that it shouldn't be treated under the rules that cable is treated, for example universal deployment obligations. Why then should these U-verse boxes be granted space within utility easements?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20313111 Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:03:04 EDT Re: Utility easement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20310715
-Sigh-
why don't you just go back to 400 Baud dialup? It's people like you who'll ultimately force us back into the Middle Ages. Don't like it? Dont buy it. Vote with your wallet. It's a capitalist society for a reason, bro.
Soon enough, AT&t will be forced to quit installing the "crappy" service, and will go for underground BPON. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20310715 Wed, 09 Apr 2008 20:21:31 EDT Re: Utility easement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20306851 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20306851 Wed, 09 Apr 2008 08:28:37 EDT Re: Utility easement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20306797 That AT&T actually went to the cost necessary to really make the damages whole again? Because if they did not, and they did not compensate the difference (and the article says no compensation was paid), then it is not fixed.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20306797 Wed, 09 Apr 2008 08:03:55 EDT Re: Utility easement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20306781 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20306781 Wed, 09 Apr 2008 07:58:38 EDT Re: Utility easement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20306754 said by Bobcat79:

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?
I understand that she lost the vegetation that was there until the current vegetation grows back, that the integrity of the hill in rains is now ruined for good, and that the filled section in the very front of her house will look completely different from the rest for a good 20-30 years given the area where she lives.
Hence why I said "far from fixed".
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20306754 Wed, 09 Apr 2008 07:44:45 EDT Re: Utility easement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20302704 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?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20302704 Tue, 08 Apr 2008 14:33:14 EDT Re: Utility easement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20302918 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?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20302918 Tue, 08 Apr 2008 14:01:18 EDT Re: Utility easement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20302836 said by Bobcat79:

said by Tzale:

said by Bobcat79:

Ummm... No, sorry.
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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20302836 Tue, 08 Apr 2008 13:48:35 EDT Re: Utility easement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20302033 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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20302033 Tue, 08 Apr 2008 11:29:14 EDT Re: Utility easement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20299800 said by Bobcat79:

said by Tzale:

No broadband is worth a $10-30k loss in property values...
The owner should have thought of that before buying the property.
Good luck finding a home without any easements... At least here in NJ, as you probably know, it is nearly impossible..

-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
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20299800 Mon, 07 Apr 2008 22:11:49 EDT Re: Utility easement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20298513 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20298513 Mon, 07 Apr 2008 18:05:39 EDT Re: Utility easement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20298196
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?

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?

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20298196 Mon, 07 Apr 2008 17:24:34 EDT Re: Utility easement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20298122 said by Tzale:

No broadband is worth a $10-30k loss in property values... The owner should have thought of that before buying the property.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20298122 Mon, 07 Apr 2008 16:55:21 EDT Re: Utility easement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20298115 said by Tzale:

said by Bobcat79:

Ummm... No, sorry.
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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20298115 Mon, 07 Apr 2008 16:54:25 EDT Re: Utility easement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20297430 said by tim_k:

said by burgermeister:

said by Bobcat79:

What part of "utility easement" don't these folks understand? They should have looked at the deed before they bought the property.
That doesn't give them the right to put any old piece of crap on the easement. There has to be some limit.
If they can put a nice large telephone pole on my property, they can put a box on yours. For the short time I was a service tech I had to fight my way through the bushes people planted to hide our boxes. I'm sure many of these boxes can be like wise hidden.
Not with that huge concrete wall around it.

My local ILEC hid all their BPON fiber equipment in a fenced in enclosure. It's a very nice, wooden enclosure, open to the street, but in between two subdivisions. It was thought out pretty well and looks good.

My guess is AT&T doesn't care about the aesthetics and just places it where they have an easement that is close enough to the optimal point.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20297430 Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:52:46 EDT Re: Utility easement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20297380
Now according to the article they built 2' outside the easement, that's a different story all together.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20297380 Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:46:08 EDT Re: Utility easement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20297355
Yes, Austin spent tons of money reinventing the airport at a closed Air Force Base.

BTW, it is possible to get used to the noise at an airport. I lived, at one time, off the end of the runway where B-52's were stationed, and if you think commercial airliners are noisy, try that.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20297355 Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:41:33 EDT Re: Utility easement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20297317 said by burgermeister:

said by Bobcat79:

What part of "utility easement" don't these folks understand? They should have looked at the deed before they bought the property.
That doesn't give them the right to put any old piece of crap on the easement. There has to be some limit.
If they can put a nice large telephone pole on my property, they can put a box on yours. For the short time I was a service tech I had to fight my way through the bushes people planted to hide our boxes. I'm sure many of these boxes can be like wise hidden.
--
RIP my baby Buttons 1/15/94-2/9/07 Buttons, Buttons video
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20297317 Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:36:59 EDT Re: Utility easement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20297305 said by Bobcat79:

said by burgermeister:

So, I could start a 'utility' and install anything in people's yard?? I'm no expert, but I don't think they can put anything on the easement they want.
The telephone company can put telephone equipment there. The cable company can put cable equipment there. It doesn't have to be aesthetically pleasing.

The utility wouldn't be able to put something there that wasn't part of their business to provide utility service. e.g., they couldn't put an oil well there.
And the local town can argue that the boxes are ugly and request / demand that the company change their installation methods.

No broadband is worth a $10-30k loss in property values...

-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
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20297305 Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:34:25 EDT Re: Utility easement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20297292 said by Bobcat79:

Ummm... No, sorry.
Your wrong. It was 2 feet over the property line!!! ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20297292 Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:32:28 EDT Re: Utility easement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20297268 said by Bobcat79:

What part of "utility easement" don't these folks understand? They should have looked at the deed before they bought the property.
Agree 100%. But it's the age of entitlement. People really believe strongly that they are entitled to what they FEEL they are entitled to.

Best example I know is right here in Austin, TX. We had an old airport close in to town and we got a new one far outside of town. One of the big reasons for moving it? Because the homeowners and neighborhood associations near the old airport complained, complained, complained that they BOUGHT HOUSES BY AN AIRPORT and now they had to put up with AIRPLANE NOISES. Of course their complaint was "when I bought the house it wasn't this bad!" Well, Austin grew, airport traffic grew.

Rather than the city telling them to stuff it, the city believed they would have to pay a huge amount of money to essentially rebuild thousands of houses to soundproof them.

Insane, isn't it. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20297268 Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:29:20 EDT Re: Utility easement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20297220 said by burgermeister:

So, I could start a 'utility' and install anything in people's yard?? I'm no expert, but I don't think they can put anything on the easement they want. The telephone company can put telephone equipment there. The cable company can put cable equipment there. It doesn't have to be aesthetically pleasing.

The utility wouldn't be able to put something there that wasn't part of their business to provide utility service. e.g., they couldn't put an oil well there.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20297220 Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:19:13 EDT Re: Utility easement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20297194 said by Bobcat79:

What part of "utility easement" don't these folks understand? They should have looked at the deed before they bought the property.
Uhh, it was OVER the easement and 2 feet passed the property line. And, a retaining wall (the ugliest retaining wall possible)??? Actually, since TV and HSI is NOT an essential service, not sure easements can be used for whatever they hell AT&T wants.

AT&T
Your UGLY New Retaining Wall. Delivered. :uhh:
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20297194 Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:13:35 EDT Re: Utility easement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20297110
Size of the box has to be compliant with the highway or street jurisdiction. And, for what it is worth, the VRAD placed in my subdivision is much smaller than the original ones placed at the start of U-Verse.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20297110 Mon, 07 Apr 2008 13:56:47 EDT ... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/-20296949
Sure there are utility easements along most every residential street. They could be managed better. Underground cableing and pipes, sure. Stuctures, boxes, and meters out by the walk are rediculous.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/-20296949 Mon, 07 Apr 2008 13:31:25 EDT Re: Utility easement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20296888 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20296888 Mon, 07 Apr 2008 13:21:24 EDT Re: Utility easement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20296873
I'd also argue that broadband and television service isn't a utility at all. For phone, electricity, water, and gas I can understand. Actually, pulling a wire isn't a huge deal to me, but the boxes are.

But that's a whole different discussion.
--
"I've learned that depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20296873 Mon, 07 Apr 2008 13:18:08 EDT Re: Utility easement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20296871
I understood that when I built my house...Just as I had to sign over 15 foot of my property for future road widening. Just the way it is.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20296871 Mon, 07 Apr 2008 13:17:58 EDT Re: Utility easement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20296835 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20296835 Mon, 07 Apr 2008 13:11:51 EDT Re: Utility easement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20296830 said by Bobcat79:

What part of "utility easement" don't these folks understand? They should have looked at the deed before they bought the property.
That doesn't give them the right to put any old piece of crap on the easement. There has to be some limit.
--
"I've learned that depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Utility-easement-20296830 Mon, 07 Apr 2008 13:10:56 EDT Utility easement http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Utility-easement-20296820 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Utility-easement-20296820 Mon, 07 Apr 2008 13:08:44 EDT