1 recommendation |
to amigo_boy
Re: 5.5% is cheapsaid by amigo_boy:The land the poles are on are publicly owned. Why should a business benefit from public resources (instead of negotiating private property rights with each property owner along the way)? Wrong as usual. The land is PRIVATELY owned. There is just an easement which lets the Government allow utility companies to use the land to run utilities. The land owner still owns the land. |
|
|
Hall MVM join:2000-04-28 Germantown, OH |
Hall
MVM
2010-Dec-30 3:41 pm
In many cases, this is true. Here, many poles are in the "alleys" between streets and I don't know for fact, but it's very possible that is public land. |
|
|
cdruGo Colts MVM join:2003-05-14 Fort Wayne, IN
2 recommendations |
to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:Wrong as usual. The land is PRIVATELY owned. There is just an easement which lets the Government allow utility companies to use the land to run utilities. The land owner still owns the land. Depends on where it's located and where the actual property lines are. For poles mounted in the front yard between the sidewalk and street, around here that is almost always owned by the city although the homeowner is required to maintain it. |
|
marigoldsGainfully employed, finally MVM join:2002-05-13 Saint Louis, MO |
to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:said by amigo_boy:The land the poles are on are publicly owned. Why should a business benefit from public resources (instead of negotiating private property rights with each property owner along the way)? Wrong as usual. The land is PRIVATELY owned. There is just an easement which lets the Government allow utility companies to use the land to run utilities. The land owner still owns the land. As someone who has recently dealt with pole placement for tornado sirens. That is false. The vast majority of poles are located in right of ways, not easements. Right of ways are public land deeded to the government. |
|
cramer Premium Member join:2007-04-10 Raleigh, NC |
cramer
Premium Member
2010-Dec-30 4:36 pm
Either way, it's land you own but cannot use. Look at any property records in NC. Only interstates and maybe US highways are deeded property. (based on local [wake county] records.) |
|
marigoldsGainfully employed, finally MVM join:2002-05-13 Saint Louis, MO |
said by cramer:Either way, it's land you own but cannot use. Look at any property records in NC. Only interstates and maybe US highways are deeded property. (based on local [wake county] records.) State highways are frequently deeded too in a lot of States; depends on State DOT practice. Deeds are rare for local right of ways (though I have seen some, particularly when the right of way is deeded to a municipality other than the one in which it is located). Those are instead conveyed when the subdivision plat is filed or when the road is platted in the case private roads conveyed to public use or county roads constructed out of private property. The existing private owners are compensated. For example, a non-highway county arterial through a municipality belongs to the county, not the frontage landowner nor the municipality. The county maintains the tree lawns as well as the road, not the frontage landowner nor the municipality. The municipality cannot place signage nor signals in those right of ways without permission of the county. |
|
fiberguy2My views are my own. Premium Member join:2005-05-20 |
to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:said by amigo_boy:The land the poles are on are publicly owned. Why should a business benefit from public resources (instead of negotiating private property rights with each property owner along the way)? Wrong as usual. The land is PRIVATELY owned. There is just an easement which lets the Government allow utility companies to use the land to run utilities. The land owner still owns the land. I'm glad you said it.. because when I saw his post at first I was thinking "WTF??!" ... |
|
|
to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:The land owner still owns the land. If you can't control who uses your property, you don't own it. If you don't believe this, please send give me the keys to your car. |
|
NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616 Asus RT-AC66U B1 Netgear FR114P
|
to marigolds
I can count the number of poles in the public right of way along Johnson Avenue, and Bollinger Road, and Prospect Road, and Lawrence Expressway. The area of San José, California bounded by those public rights of way has many more poles on easements on privately owned property (not public rights of way!) than on actual public property. Significantly more poles which are not in public rights of way than are. |
|
jjeffeoryjjeffeory join:2002-12-04 Bloomington, IN |
to amigo_boy
That's such a loaded and true statement. ...and makes me think of property taxes and home ownership. Hmm... |
|
JakCrow join:2001-12-06 Palo Alto, CA |
to NormanS
And when the lines are buried under sidewalks and streets? |
|
NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA |
They are not in my neighborhood. Just pointing out the problem with sweeping generality. |
|
|
to jjeffeory
want to avoid paying those property taxes? file your property with the state as a place of worship and create your own church. BOOM! non-profit status and you NEVER have to pay property taxes. yes that is legal. Churches/Places of Worship NEVER pay. |
|
|
said by hottboiinnc4:want to avoid paying those property taxes? file your property with the state as a place of worship and create your own church. What's really amazing is that my county pays churches to use their property for elections. You'd think that by not paying property tax to the county, the church would have some obligation to serve the community. Instead, the community pays the church! The last election I worked at, the church (of Christ) had property they've never developed. Just hanging onto it, tax free. They developed another part of their property into an apartment complex. It pays property tax. Or, more accurately, tenants pay property taxes through their rents. The church collects rent, manages the property, making a profit. They held that property in tax-exempt status until they decided to commercialize it. Biggest racket I've ever seen. |
|
NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616 Asus RT-AC66U B1 Netgear FR114P
|
said by amigo_boy:You'd think that by not paying property tax to the county, the church would have some obligation to serve the community. If the church in question was Christian, and living up to its Christian obligations, it would be serving the community just by its very existence. But enough of this OT BS. Back to the OP, AFAIK, the State of Ohio is within its powers to levy taxes, as long as it does not tread on Federal prerogative, or civil rights. |
|
|
to amigo_boy
your state in interesting. In Ohio since the Church still owns the land- they'd still be exempt from paying taxes. Non-profits do not have to pay taxes here. period. |
|
1 edit |
said by hottboiinnc4:your state in interesting. In Ohio since the Church still owns the land- they'd still be exempt from paying taxes. Non-profits do not have to pay taxes here. period. That may be the case here. I assumed when the church built apartments on part of its land, that land would be classified as residential rental and subject to property tax. I didn't think it could be so much of a racket that the church could manage an apartment complex without property tax. But, you could be right. It may be that big of a racket. EDIT: I just checked the county assessor's web site. The apartment complex is classified as "tax exempt housing." The deed says it's owned by the Church of Christ. Another example of "fair" being a valid component of taxation. How in the world is it fair for one apartment complex to compete against another, when one pays about $60,000 per year in property taxes, and the other doesn't? You have to raise your rents $50 per month to recover that tax burden. |
|
|
Normally, tax-exempt housing is for certain eligible groups - poor, homeless, senior citizens, etc. I bet if you looked you'd find those apartments aren't really "competing" but rather serving a need at the lowest possible cost for those who need the help. |
|
JakCrow join:2001-12-06 Palo Alto, CA |
to NormanS
said by NormanS:They are not in my neighborhood. Just pointing out the problem with sweeping generality. There isn't a telephone pole within miles of where I live. |
|
NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616 Asus RT-AC66U B1 Netgear FR114P
|
I've got one within 75 feet of the back of the house. Just on the other side of the fence, set in the neighbors yard. Backyard pole.
PG&E at the top (Pacific Gas and Electric), Comcast next down, and AT&T at the bottom.
The coax used to belong to ATTBI (AT&T Broadband Internet), before AT&T split them off, and sold them to Comcast. At that time, Comcast owned the former TCI hardline about as far up from the current coax run as the telco binder is below. Also at that time, SBC owned the binder. That was before they bought AT&T.
|
|