AT&T VRADs in CT Need Landowner Approval > And I DON'T want to see them

reply to CylonRed

Re: And I DON'T want to see them

I know large areas of Ohio - read Spring Valley area where NOTHING is available. TW wants to charge thousands to per house to run the line then charge the monthly fee and they have to have a certain % of the people on the street to get cable before they will do anything.

Lots of areas of the country have no high speed internet and would love to have it - even with a box.

Then let AT&T install these boxes in Spring Valley. Something tells me they won't, because a huge box doesn't make it any more financially viable than a small box or no box.

Furthermore, I present the same challenge to you as I did another poster on a previous thread on this subject: Volunteer your front yard. Call the city, offer your berm for easement and have AT&T put their equipment in your yard.

Did I say I would not - nope. If they did it would likely be on the easement that is already there any way. The ones I see in our neighborhood seem to be placed at houses on corners of busy streets (main roads) probably to keep any potential value drop small. I find it funny that I keep seeing a value of $10K drop but I see no proof in any of the reports and no proof that drop goes directly to the boxes.

Companies can't negociate with each individual owner - nothing would ever get done and land owners can then hold a neighborhood hostage which would only encourage more bad press for said company. Again - damned if they do, damned if they don't and the customers then play hypocrite for the press.

Yeah, I don't have a number, but it stands to good reason that any unsightly addition to a property will reduce its value.

If companies cannot negotiate with each homeowner or a group of homeowners, then they should purchase their own property in the neighborhood and put their equipment there. Utility easements are a product of the days of telephone poles and hydro lines. In actuality, the city would be better off if they zoned specific parcels of land for utility purposes that wasn't so conspicuous.

If all of the property is already owned then they can't do that very well and if they did buy from a current land owner then they have the same problems already mentioned - one landowner holding a neighborhood hostage being one.

To be economical - the company would need to pay one amount or else face plenty of litigation if owners ever found out they got paid a lot less then someone else.

Strategically - I would probably decide to do it the way they currently are - less total risk overall.