It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by AQuestion
someone would correct me if I was wrong.
Originally posted by AQuestion
No, I stated the truth, you do own to the middle of the road,
Originally posted by dereks
Originally posted by AQuestion
No, I stated the truth, you do own to the middle of the road,
No you did not. So show us a valid source that shows that - you made the silly claim, so it is up to you to prove it. Which you are unable to....edit on 20/3/11 by dereks because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by AQuestion
This is real life
How bout you check things for yourself?
I gave you enough to look up to find the answer for yourself.
Originally posted by AQuestion
Seeing as how you are completely wrong, where did you look it up? You didn't, you lied.
Originally posted by dereks
Originally posted by AQuestion
Seeing as how you are completely wrong, where did you look it up? You didn't, you lied.
Once again you are the one who made the silly claim, but never bothered to look it up - so you are unable to show a valid source ....
Originally posted by AQuestion
When broadband companies wish to install their equipment on light poles or other poles in the right of way, they have to pay a fee. Cities determine the fee. The FCC wants to regulate the rules and fees set by the cities.
Here is the deal. Legally the power to control something means you are responsible for it's maintenance. The Texas Municipal League (and I don't live or work in Texas) sent a letter to Vice President Biden because they were concerned about the loss of revenue. They headline in the letter said, "Contemplated FCC Action to take Local Public Property at Less than Fair Value Could Devastate Texas City Budgets". They didn't say the fed couldn't do it, they said they needed to be paid more.
The fed just said that they want to end local control over the local streets. I hope you understand the enormity of that. No more local control of the streets. The timing is perfect as taking away the control means taking responsibility for the maintenance. The reason Texas didn't just wanted more money is because it releases the cities from maintenance responsibility, if you limit what they can charge in fees that are used to maintain the streets you have to make the responsibility federal. Lots of goodies in this for struggling cities. They save millions that they would otherwise have to spend and fed will repair their roads.
Why, if you claim that the city doesn't own the strees?
If this goes through then the fed would have to pay your city for it's streets.
Of what year? The Bingham link you provide was written in March of 2010. Were they referring to April 2010? When you say "acted on" do you mean there is a bill pending? What federal document shows what action will be taken in April of 2011?
This is going to be acted on in April and I thought people should know what is going on.
It is a trade off, you give up local control of the roads in exchange for not going into bankruptcy and reducing your costs; but, you do give up local control
The streets are not owned by the cities and counties. You probably thought they were. Most streets are public easements. A developer builds a housing track and in order to get his permits he is required to build the streets to a certain quality and give the city an easement. An easement is the right to pass over a property, not ownership. The ownership stays with the property owner. If you live in a gated community, the easement is owned by the homeowners association usually.
No, I stated the truth, you do own to the middle of the road, that is why they call it a "right of way". A right of way is not ownership and that is what cities have, the underlying property is owned by the home owner. Just saying I am wrong is ridiculous. Look it up.
If this goes through then the fed would have to pay your city for it's streets...
You don't need to believe me because I am going to provide links to what I discuss.
Originally posted by ladyjem
While OP seems a proponent of the idea that the Feds take over & establish a national agency to run the show, cutting costs for cities, creating jobs, etc, dare I address one major point which makes this a recommended scenario which I would have to decline to support if given a voice?
No hard feelings OP, but just my opposing opinion...
Originally posted by charles1952
I wish you would have stayed with this. The FCC just wants to regulate rules and fees. They don't indicate anywhere that they want to control the streets.
I don't think your position on maintenance is entirely correct. The Texas Municipal League website contains a discussion of the duties of the city and the landowner in maintaining streets. Texas case law holds that a city can require maintenance by the landowner.
Concerning your second point, about an FCC taking, a search of the TML website didn't turn up any letter with the title you quoted, but they are concerned about a New York case. In that case a challenge is being made to the authority of the city to set the rates it charges for rights of way for cable companies. The TML is concerned with that, they are not looking for extra money.
I'm sorry, I can't see any place in the broadband plan (a link to it was posted earlier in the thread, see chap. 6 "Infrastructure") or on the TML site where the feds say they want to end local control of the streets. They do want a uniform plan for access to poles and conduits so that broadband providers can connect to homes. Your conclusions in this paragraph don't follow logically. (By the way, the idea that the feds will find the money to buy every street in America is highly questionable.)
Why, if you claim that the city doesn't own the strees?
If this goes through then the fed would have to pay your city for it's streets.Of what year? The Bingham link you provide was written in March of 2010. Were they referring to April 2010? When you say "acted on" do you mean there is a bill pending? What federal document shows what action will be taken in April of 2011?
This is going to be acted on in April and I thought people should know what is going on.
It is a trade off, you give up local control of the roads in exchange for not going into bankruptcy and reducing your costs; but, you do give up local control
Sorry, but based on what I've seen so far, I have to reject this conclusion
Originally posted by WTFover
Charles 1952 did an excellent job of debunking, in the previous post. But, I thought I'd point out another flaw.
In the OP, you said...
The streets are not owned by the cities and counties. You probably thought they were. Most streets are public easements. A developer builds a housing track and in order to get his permits he is required to build the streets to a certain quality and give the city an easement. An easement is the right to pass over a property, not ownership. The ownership stays with the property owner. If you live in a gated community, the easement is owned by the homeowners association usually.
and, in a subsequent post, you said...
No, I stated the truth, you do own to the middle of the road, that is why they call it a "right of way". A right of way is not ownership and that is what cities have, the underlying property is owned by the home owner. Just saying I am wrong is ridiculous. Look it up.
Yet, in the OP you said...
If this goes through then the fed would have to pay your city for it's streets...
If the cities do not own the streets, they can not "sell" them. Any monies paid would have to be paid directly to the actual owners, assuming eminent domain is invoked.
You don't need to believe me because I am going to provide links to what I discuss.
I think I'll have to see those, as there are some conflicting claims, in the OP.
As for the TML letter, a Google search and a search of the TML website, didn't reveal such a letter exists. If it is addressed to Biden, how did you come into possession of a copy?
edit on 20-3-2011 by WTFover because: (no reason given)