yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| reply to CylonRed
Re: And I DON'T want to see them
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. |
|
CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County
| 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. |
|
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| 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. |
|
CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County
| 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. |
|
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| said by CylonRed  :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. Indeed, and I should have prefaced my statement with that bit of knowledge. It was meant as hindsight, and a way to avoid these things in the future. Easements are not fair to the property owner.
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.
The utility company could always offer a flat rate for any property owners who would volunteer for the service. They could partner with home builders to arrange these things with regards to new development.
The problem I have here is that the local government is giving them permission to put something on property that they don't own. If we are to keep the system of easement in this country then we should demand that our local officials consult with property owners prior to granting easements. |
|
