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.

 

Local Public Right of Ways to be Controlled by the Federal Government

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


Dear dereks,

Yes it does and you can look at your deed, I don't have one to post. Google one. Google "public right of ways" or ask someone to read their deed to you. With all the people on this site who have probably owned a home or been in real estate, someone would correct me if I was wrong.




posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by AQuestion
someone would correct me if I was wrong.


You are wrong, you do not own up to the middle of the road.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


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.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:18 AM
link   

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)



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


States when they build highways take the property through eminent domain, cities rarely ever do this because you have to pay for the property, they take the easement instead.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:20 AM
link   

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)


This is real life, search it and learn something, I am not your babysitter or teacher, I owe you nothing. How bout you check things for yourself? Then you don't have to wonder. I gave you enough to look up to find the answer for yourself.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by AQuestion
This is real life


No it is not, it is a conspiracy forum where some people make up and post any garbage here, like your claim.


How bout you check things for yourself?


I have, and you do not own to the centre of the road...


I gave you enough to look up to find the answer for yourself.


And it shows that once again you are wrong!



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:32 AM
link   
Well he is right, Here where I live the city easement goes 15 feet into my property from the property line to 15 feet away (which is the middle of the street). Also here the utility company's own the poles that they use (Usually the power company) and if any other utility uses them they have to lease a spot on the pole from the owner (again it's usually the power company).

A side note if the power company wants to put a power line on your property they can. They just get the ok from the city or counties and plow/cut anything in there way other than a standing structure. Which is what they did to me and shouldn't be allowed without consent. Just my 2 cents..


edit on 20-3-2011 by Oklastatefan because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Oklastatefan
 


It goes fifteen feet in because I bet the road is 22 feet wide, you can measure it. Lanes are 11 feet wide and the rest is for the sidewalk, normal sidewalk is 3 to 4 feet wide, so I am betting that the sidewalk is adjacent to the street if you have one.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


Dereks,

Seeing as how you are completely wrong, where did you look it up? You didn't, you lied. Its not even a good lie, homeownership is at 65% of all households and that means that 65% (minimum) of the people on this site can look at their home deeds and check, it says they gave an easement to the city or county for their road unless they live in a gated community.
edit on 20-3-2011 by AQuestion because: further information



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 03:07 AM
link   

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 ....



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 03:11 AM
link   

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 ....


Please correct me, show any source. If you had one then you would. I don't need to look it up, I worked in it for 23 years. You give no facts, you just make claims, if you looked it up and I am wrong, why didn't you post your source. I told you to investigate and not just accept what I said. You have no source, you are lazy. Spend all the time you want checking what I said and man up. Prove what you say.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


Oh and by the way, I will provide links to the cities that make property owners fix the sidewalks. It is most of them and the reason is because you own the sidewalk and have to allow people to use it or you could not use theirs. The truth is simple, lies always lose in the end.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 05:06 AM
link   
Don't mean to intrude upon the "did/didn't" tussel going on, but having been in the real estate biz formerly & a homeowner, property ownership extends to center of roadway, but the right of way or easement usually extends 33 feet to either side of said center line....That's how my grandfather lost some land when the state upgraded & widened a road....depending on municipality, county, state there may be additional legal or regulatory issues which carry their own impact....

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?

Looking at the current situation this country is in, I'd have more confidence in someone's pet zebra to manage the thing before the USDMW (US Dept of MotorWays). Look at Social Security, Medicaid, the deficit, etc, etc. nauseum....

I'm not as worried over motoring checkpoints as not having a road to motor on....The Feds have been playing fix the system for decades, & it's becoming more & more broken....I cringe when thinking of the situation in just a few years...we'd be reduced to transportation routes that the founding fathers would deplore....& the ultimate fix-it-solution would be "Throw more tax dollars into that pothole. We'll get you where you're heading fast!" ...which is flat busted & wholly disgusted...

No hard feelings OP, but just my opposing opinion...



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   
I'm sorry for questioning you, but is it possible that you trusted some source that gave you faulty information?

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.

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.

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.

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. (See para. 3 of the discussion.)
Easement maintenance
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.

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.

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.)

If this goes through then the fed would have to pay your city for it's streets.
Why, if you claim that the city doesn't own the strees?

This is going to be acted on in April and I thought people should know what is going on.
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?

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



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   
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)



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   

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...


Dear ladyjem,

I am not sure that I am a proponent. I see the benefits and I see what we give up. Just want people to know what is going on. I have been trying to decide how I feel about it all. In the end, if it happens I want to see it done in the best manner.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   

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.)


If this goes through then the fed would have to pay your city for it's streets.
Why, if you claim that the city doesn't own the strees?

This is going to be acted on in April and I thought people should know what is going on.
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?

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


Firstly, the letter I am talking about, I didn't find it on the website, I was given a copy. This is not limited to Texas. Texas along with most states allows cities to force property owners to pay for street maintenance; however, it is rarely if ever done. Residents are usually forced to pay for sidewalk maintenance; but, not the streets. It is too politically unpopular.

Texas is concerned about the possibility of not being able to charge the fees they want. They should be, Texas wants to charge "market rate" and the fed disagrees. Fact is the fed is right on that point. Fees must be based on actual costs, if they are for more than that amount they become a tax and have to be voted on separately.

As far as the fed goes on wanting to take control, regulation of rates is taking control. If the fed lowers the rates that cities can charge then they have taken control. Control means responsibility. The NOI is supposed to be filed in April, that is the action that is coming up. The fed would have to pay for the easement not the property. Easements are still property rights, not ownership.

Good questions. The situation is still what it is. The court case alone should tell you that something is happening in regards to local control of streets and it is not being publicly discussed. I cannot say how this will turn out, what I am saying is what the fed is attempting to do and what the consequences are most likely to be if they go forward. It is possible that the fed will not issue the NOI or move forward; however, Texas believes the fed will move forward and wants to be paid if they do.

On page 2, paragraph 4 it says of the letter I read it says, "As before, Texas cities are concerned that through this FCC proceeding the FCC will attempt to, in essence, take public property in Texas, the public right-of-ways, for less than fair market values, all under the guise of eliminating municipal barriers to entry to enhance the deployment of broadband." The letter also references a "Right of Way Task Force" that the FCC had, Texas may have had representation on it, I don't know, I wasn't on the task force.

Again, nobody has to believe me. Don't really care if they do, what they should do is investigate. If you are a Texan you can request a copy of the letter from the Texas Municipal League and read it for yourself. I gave the date, the author and who it was sent to. I have to believe that someone on this site lives in Texas. Odds are that someone on this site is a member of the Texas Municipal League, this is not a hidden thing, just off most people's radar.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   

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)


LOL. Debunking? The fed would have to pay the city for the easement not the property owner. The property owner does not own the easement, he owns the underlying property. Easements are sold all the time. I work on streets and am a member of the American Public Works Association (APWA), it was sent to me by another member. I did not say you would find it online, I don't know if it is. Life continues to exist off line and business is not all conducted on the internet.

I thought this section was for discussing politics and not about conspiracies. This is not a conspiracy, it is what the fed is attempting to do and the possible ramifications. Over the last few years (even predating Obama), the fed has been getting more involved in local matters. The stimulus money was used for infrastructure projects including streets. That became a blueprint for them to control local maintenance. Talk to your city and ask them how many strings were attached to the ARRA money.

Let me reiterate my position. I am not in favor or against what is happening, I see benefits and problems. That outcome has not been determined, the NOI is supposed to be issued in April of this year. Most in Public Works know nothing about this, it is just now being distributed. Not long ago the fed forced New York city to replace all of its street signs for some reason, people in New York (and I am guessing there are some on this site) had to pay a lot to do it. That is fed control over a local issue on the streets. That may be the case that someone else on this thread mentioned, I don't know. I don't have all the answers, I just became aware of this myself.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by AQuestion
 


Some reading material.

GASB 34 - It is the rule that requires cities to report the value of their streets. en.wikipedia.org...

Public Right of Ways. legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
The description of right of ways is a little off as the author mixes his terminology but it is a good place to start. Usually when a state builds a highway they take the property through eminent domain and pay the property owner.
Cities usually just get a right of way.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join