There is an ugly fight against a 500 mile high voltage DC power line
through Iowa and Illinois and use of eminent domain to acquire the
farmland.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Block-RICL-Rock-Island-Clean-Line/133050610203359
*From:* Chuck McCown <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Saturday, February 28, 2015 1:27 PM
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
It is a tool to be used as a last resort. You make no friends and it
ends up costing you lots of money and goodwill. But it is a very
effective tool in Utah.
*From:* Trevor Bough <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Saturday, February 28, 2015 12:03 PM
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
I have no doubt that eminent domain has been abused all over the
country in the manner you described with the developer (that's why I
provided the link about the Missouri port authority losing their
eminent domain claim to show that MO anyhow has attempted to put an
end to that and, in effect make it harder to win any eminent domain
case). I also agree that it is much easier to win the argument that
fiber is providing a public use than a land developer. It is also
easier for the landowner to prove that your fiber doesn't have to go
through their property (unless they have a rather large tract of land,
in which case they are just stupid not to take the money and accept
the easement in the first place) to get where you need to go. I am not
against eminent domain. It's a sometimes necessary tool. I'm against
the idea that eminent domain just makes problem people go away.
On Feb 28, 2015 12:46 PM, "Chuck McCown" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Utilities are treated as quazi public entities before the law and
are almost universally allowed all rights accorded to political
subdivisions such as eminent domain. It is easy to “prove” that a
fiber line is needed for public use. Even our dear President would
agree that your fiber brings better, needed, service to those poor
folks at the other end of town... That half of the argument is
almost impossible to lose.
I would guess most states have that as a requirement. the judges
I have been before did not even want to step into that argument.
Much easier to prove than a land developer taking property for a
new development and saying it will help bring jobs and commerce to
the community therefore it is needed for public use. And you know
that has happened all over the country.
*From:* Trevor Bough <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Saturday, February 28, 2015 11:37 AM
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
The 5th Amendment just established just compensation for eminent
domain. It leaves it to the states to define what "public use" is.
And the landowner still always has the right to argue their point
that it is not going to be used for public use. Luckily, I live in
a state that puts the onus on the condemning authority to prove
the taking is definitely needed for public use.
On Feb 28, 2015 12:24 PM, "Chuck McCown" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> The 5th amendment of the US constitution took that from you many
years ago.
>
> From: Trevor Bough
> Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 10:30 AM
> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
>
>
> As a property owner, I find that idea completely terrifying. I
should absolutely have the right to say what is or is not on my
property. Working in the utility industry, I still find that idea
completely terrifying. Electric utilities typically require at
least 30' of dedicated ROW. Gas and water utilities typically
require at least 20' of dedicated ROW. Would you like to be
required to give up 70' of your front yard without any say? You
still get to mow it and maintain it, but if the utility feels the
shrub you planted will interfere with them operating their line,
they have the right to come destroy it. I would love to have
dedicated easements everywhere, but that is the reason there is
dedicated public ROW everywhere. Honestly people would be much
better off dedicating 20' to a utility easement when they record
the legal description of their property. Virtually all utilities
can fit into a single 20' easement, especially if several go
aerial, they just don't like to. In my opinion, eminent domain
should be a difficult process with a requirement on the condemning
authority to prove need and history of good faith negotiations.
Just my 2 cents (probably closer to $0.10 now).
>
> On Feb 28, 2015 10:48 AM, "Mike Hammett" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>> Tangent...
>>
>>
>> I understand property rights and all, but I'd like to see
automatic approval for all ROW requests by qualified entities.
>>
>>
>>
>> -----
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: "Trevor Bough" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
>> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 6:56:45 PM
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
>>
>> Apparently Missourians fight to protect their property rights
more vigorously because, here anyway, it is a lengthy and
expensive process. Landowners in MO can also be awarded legal fees
if the condemning authority drops or loses the case of eminent
domain, so it is definitely not a, "This guy is being difficult,
we'll show him." fix-all.
http://watchdog.org/88546/missouri-landowners-win-in-eminent-domain-test-case/
Looks like it wasn't always the case here though.
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Chuck McCown <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I have done it several times. In my cases it was pretty much
the easy button. Just had to wait for the docket.
>>>
>>> From: Trevor Bough
>>> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 6:21 PM
>>> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
>>>
>>>
>>> It's not quite that easy... You have to be authorized by the
state to be able to use eminent domain and even then it is a very
lengthy process (minimum of six months typically) and it has to be
for "public use", which a utility can qualify as, but even after
going to court for six months or more to prove that this is
necessary for the public you are still at the mercy of the quart
ruling that you are right and now have the luxury of paying the
landowner for the access. It's not some magic automatic "Easy Button".
>>>
>>> On Feb 26, 2015 1:34 PM, "Chuck McCown" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If you need to cross property with your pole line or
underground line, you can do so under the right of eminent
domain. Landowner has no say so. You go to court, the judge
bangs the gavel, and voila, instant ROW. However at that point in
time the tables turn somewhat in the favor of the landowner as you
have to compensate them for what you have taken.
>>>>
>>>> That that typically ends up at a place where it became a very
expensive ROW...
>>>>
>>>> What you are talking about below is the establishment of a
prescriptive ROW through your failure to defend your property.
Another word for it is acquiescence or adverse possession. You
can certainly lose your right to defend if you sit on your
rights. So, yea, if they didn't have an easement or court order,
cut down that pole.
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Adam Moffett
>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:27 PM
>>>> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Live Link
>>>>
>>>> What eminent domain actions can a utility take? My
"knowledge" on that
>>>> topic is all hearsay.
>>>>
>>>> I heard of a landowner who saw a company putting a pole in an
empty lot
>>>> that he owned across the street from his house. He watched
them set the
>>>> pole and then after the workers left he went out with a
chainsaw and cut
>>>> it down because they never asked him if they could put the
pole there
>>>> (so the story went). In his point of view, if he let them put
the pole
>>>> there, they have permanent rights to access that spot on his
property
>>>> because of eminent domain.
>>>>
>>>>> You may even have the right of eminent domain now.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
