dslreports logo
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search Topic:
uniqs
20
share rss forum feed

Bobcat79
Premium
join:2001-02-04
reply to Tzale

Re: Utility easement

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.


marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:2
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

Bobcat79
Premium
join:2001-02-04
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?


marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:2
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

Bobcat79
Premium
join:2001-02-04


marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:2
Put it another way... that's a region where the hills are mostly decomposed granite caps. You want to claim that the fill put in had the same hydrologic and geologic qualities as decomposed granite?
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

Bobcat79
Premium
join:2001-02-04
Since neither of us are there, neither of us knows.