On Jan 14, 7:32*am, George wrote:
On 1/13/2011 11:07 PM, wrote:

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 03:12:40 +0000 (UTC), Mel
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 18:42:36 -0500, aemeijers wrote:
Not everyplace uses attorneys for property purchases.

In California, it's almost unheard of to have an attorney present when
you purchase a home. Dunno why. Just is.
* Ameicans have atorneys involved in just about anything else - why not
a real estate transaction - quite possibly the largest investment of
your life????

Thats one of the problems. Simple things became intentionally way too
complicated because of powerful lobbies. Just consider most legislators
are lawyers.

It gets really tiring hearing government folks asking "are you a lawyer"
as a roadblock when you are researching properties etc at the local
courthouse.

Same exact deal with taxes. Get rid of all of the tax forms and
accounting procedures, exemptions, credits whatever and replace it with
a flat tax based on consumption with exemption for basic stuff such as
food much the same way sales taxes are applied.

That might sound like a good idea to you, but I assure you, if
implemented
and you saw the tax rate required, you'd have a different opinion.
The
simple fact is the top 5 percent of income earners are paying a huge
portion of the tax burden. And they don't spend anywhere near enough
of that income to generate the equivalent revenue using your idea.
The
result would be a huge shift from a progressive tax system to one
that is
regressive, putting way more of the burden on those with lower
incomes.

Mel Knight wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 13:16:02 -0600, HeyBub wrote:
We need more information. Will the pole burn (i.e., creosoted
timber) or is it metal?

Creosoted timber.

Why do you ask?

You should take it upon yourself to dig a fire-break around the pole
(wink-wink) to prevent it from catching fire by spontaneous compubstion
(nudge-nudge), lightning strike (know-what-I mean, know-what-I-mean), or
(God forbid!) arson (giggle, giggle), the wire won't tumble down on your
property.

On Jan 15, 12:26*am, Evan wrote:
On Jan 12, 9:43 pm, Mel Knight wrote:







I'm not mad. I just don't want poles and wires crossing my property if I
don't have to have it so.

My first inclination is to just tell them to remove it.

My second inclination is to see what they offer (but unless it's on the
order of tens of thousands of dollars, I'll default to my first
inclination).

I don't know how long the pole and wires have been there. The creosote
looks still wet, so I'd say about a year or two (compared to other
poles).

I gave the PG&E guys the pole number but there is no date or other
identifying information in this part of the country (California) on the
poles out here.

On Jan 14, 9:59*pm, Mel Knight wrote:





On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 08:35:18 -0800, Harry K wrote:
it "sounds" like the pole is on the public ROW and
only the wires cross the property.

Yup. Most likely (according to the title company).

you have lost no useable land and the wires probably do not
affect your use of the property in any reasonable way.

According to the title company, that's not an issue (of course, that's up
to the courts to decide). The title company said that I could put in a
"claim" to them if it costs me money to relocate the wires, if they
"missed" an easement, or if I have costs associated with an easement that
they missed.

Since there is no easement (that we know of), then I'm expecting the
power company to relocate the wires. Where or how they relocate them
isn't my issue as long as it's not over my property.

I didn't see this reply until now, but, the title company didn't say
anything about losing "use of the land", so, I hope that's not a factor..

Thanks for the ideas!

Sadly what you want and what the law allows are two totally
separate things...

1. *Did you purchase this house with the wires already routed
over/across/through the back yard?

If you read the thread, he said he doesn't know, because he only
noticed the wire issue recently. And he never said it's through
the back yard.





(If you did and you are complaining about it now, rather than
at the time of sale when you should have asked about it, is
like complaining that there is an increase of traffic on a rail
spur line that abuts your property... *The rail line [in your
case a pole and wires] existed before you owned the property
and the appropriate time for your objection has come and
gone and if you want it moved at this point you would have
to pay for all of the costs involved with that because you
failed to do your bona fides and properly determine that the
wire in dispute had no specific easement prior to purchase...)

2. *How long have you owned the property in question?

He stated he's owned it less than a year.



3. *How far into your property do the wires extend?

That is a good question indeed.




(Zoning law usually prohibits zero-lot line construction, so
you will own land that you can not build on, if the wires
cross an un-buildable portion of your site because of the
setback requirements, then you have no loss or damage
that you can claim...)

That's not true. Just because a portion of a lot is unbuildable
doesn't mean someone can put up wires across that portion
without an easement. And if an easement is needed, the
economics of the easement are based on how it affects the
rest of the property, not soley on whether he can build on it.
Someone in this thread gave a good example, where there
was a property zoned for agriculture and the electric company
wanted to use an existing easement, replacing low wood poles
with high tension wires. They wound up having to pay a
substantial amount, because it changed the property in a
significant way, including that aerial spraying of crops would
no longer be possible.




Are you really willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars
filing a lawsuit in land court over this with a lawyer who
specializes in such cases over a wire which slightly crosses
over your "land" near a utility/roadway ROW? *If you lose
the case you will have to pay the legal costs of the utility
companies and that can be much more than you will
spend on your lawyers...

You think maybe before it comes to that he should take his
own advice and send the electric company a letter telling
them the wires are there without an easement and see what
their response is? He even stated that the electric company,
after looking into it a bit, asked him to do that. It's not like
they told him to kiss offf.



You should have brought up this objection at the time you
purchased the property prior to the close of the sale...
You bought into it knowing that the wires were there without
obtaining any actual proof that no easement existed...
Like Harry K. mentioned above you have no reasonable
impact or hindrance on your use of the lot... *The "preference"
to not have wires crossing over your land is something that
if you want to realize is something that you will have to
pay for... *$10,000 for a crew to relocate the poles and wires
needed to move them from over your lot to fully exercise
what may be non-existant "air rights" (how tall are structures
allowed to be on your lot by zoning law) is something
which you would need to pay the full cost for...

You think maybe before it comes to that he should take his
own advice and send the electric company a letter telling
them the wires are there without an easement and see what
their response is?





$10,000 to relocate the pole and wires is a sure thing...

Clairvoyant?



Or you could pay that as a retainer for a lawyer to take
on your case and see ballooning legal fees and endure
a two year wait before your land court case goes to trial...

You think maybe before it comes to that he should take his
own advice and send the electric company a letter telling
them the wires are there without an easement and see what
their response is?





Remember the title insurance will cover you for actual
costs to deal with this issue AFTER THE FACT... *Do
you really want to be paying commercial interest rates
on a loan you took to pay off your legal costs and wait
MORE months while you deal with the title insurance
claim before you are reimbursed?

So now you know his financial position too. You are
clairvoyant.

It's also not clear to me that the title company
will only deal with this after the fact. That's like saying
an auto insurance policy will only pay or get involved
after the party I've hit has sued me and won. In fact,
just like with auto insurance it's in the interest of the
title company to get involved and figure out what is
going on from the beginning, so they don't wind up with
an even bigger claim.




Good Luck...

My advice is to just "lump it" and deal with the wires
where they are... *You could be opening a Pandora's
Box where you quickly lose control over what you
have put into motion... *All because you would rather
not have a wire intrude into your yard...



You think maybe before it comes to that he should take his
own advice and send the electric company a letter telling
them the wires are there without an easement and see what
their response is?

On Jan 15, 9:40*pm, Mel Knight wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 06:07:22 -0800, trader4 wrote:
Start of the process with a letter that is a lie.

Where is the lie?

There is no easement for the pole that I know of.

This is what you stated:

"Yes. I bought the property within the year. It's rural. There's not
another home within hundreds of yards, and it's all wooded. The pole
is
near the main street (within the easement of the main road) but the
wires
cut over my property. "

"The title company and I have determined there is no underlying
easement
(although the pole itself is covered by the roadway easement). "

Then you said:

"So, I'll write them a letter, telling them the pole and wires have
no
underlying easement and that we need to "discuss" the matter. "

That looks like a lie to me, especially since you stated that the pole
was
covered by the roadway easement, but given all the apparent confusion
here,
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Apparently what you wrote is
not
what you meant.


The only possible
(maybe even probable) easement is the road ROW which I don't have so I
don't know what the road ROW is. The pole is definitely on my property.


That was kind of my point. You're preparing to write a letter stating
that there
is no easement for the pole, when in fact, you don't know what the
existing
easement for the road allows for. And I'd agree with the assessment
that it
is in fact probable that the 30ft road easement provides for
utilities.



As for the wires, there is no underlying easement for it either. That the
title company is certain of because, unlike the pole, there is no
easement whatsoever under the area where the wires to the neighbor's
house are routed.



I think a few people have asked this now:

Exactly how far over into your property do these wires extend and how
far
do they then run?

I'm kind of picturing a situation where they they cut a
few feet into a corner of your property as they go from the street
over to
the neighbors house. If that's what it is and

A - it's a large buildable lot
B- it would have no material impact on what you can do with the
property
C - it isn't a big eyesore that diminishes the value of the lot
D - there are similar wires/poles in the rest of the neighborhood so
it
doesn't stand out as an ugly wart

then maybe if you're nice to them, you can get them to move it. But
if it goes
beyond that, IMO you're in a losing battle. If it turns out that
they do have the
right to use the road easement, I'd start drawing mental images of how
the
"problem" could be fixed by the electric company putting an even
bigger
and uglier pole within their allowed easement area.

As for tens of thousands in payment to leave it where it is, IMO, you
can forget
about that. If utilities handed out money like that, we'd be paying
2X for electric.
And I suspect, that's how a court would view this as well. We all
need electricity
and one day, if you build there, you will need it too. A service
wire encroaching
a few feet over a corner of a lot might get you a few hundred
bucks. Even
when they put up high tension towers over a portion of a property,
you'd be
surprised how little the utilites are willing to pay.

On Jan 16, 7:43*am, wrote:
On Jan 14, 7:32*am, George wrote:





On 1/13/2011 11:07 PM, wrote:

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 03:12:40 +0000 (UTC), Mel
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 18:42:36 -0500, aemeijers wrote:
Not everyplace uses attorneys for property purchases.

In California, it's almost unheard of to have an attorney present when
you purchase a home. Dunno why. Just is.
* Ameicans have atorneys involved in just about anything else - why not
a real estate transaction - quite possibly the largest investment of
your life????

Thats one of the problems. Simple things became intentionally way too
complicated because of powerful lobbies. Just consider most legislators
are lawyers.

It gets really tiring hearing government folks asking "are you a lawyer"
as a roadblock when you are researching properties etc at the local
courthouse.

Same exact deal with taxes. Get rid of all of the tax forms and
accounting procedures, exemptions, credits whatever and replace it with
a flat tax based on consumption with exemption for basic stuff such as
food much the same way sales taxes are applied.

That might sound like a good idea to you, but I assure you, if
implemented
and you saw the tax rate required, you'd have a different opinion.
The
simple fact is the top 5 percent of income earners are paying a huge
portion of the tax burden. *And they don't spend anywhere near enough
of that income to generate the equivalent revenue using your idea.
The
*result would be a huge shift from a progressive tax system to one
that is
*regressive, putting way more of the burden on those with lower
incomes.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

rate would be 23% and everyone would get a kickback to pay basic
expenses.

this would get revenue from those living here illegally, encourage
saving, elminate tons of government and private sector workers who
produce nothing but paper. and easier to enforce the laws. taxes would
only be paid for by business.

you paycheck would be totally yours no fed tax, no SS tax everything
paid for by sales tax......

far easier to understand

On Jan 16, 10:09*am, " wrote:
On Jan 16, 7:43*am, wrote:





On Jan 14, 7:32*am, George wrote:

On 1/13/2011 11:07 PM, wrote:

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 03:12:40 +0000 (UTC), Mel
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 18:42:36 -0500, aemeijers wrote:
Not everyplace uses attorneys for property purchases.

In California, it's almost unheard of to have an attorney present when
you purchase a home. Dunno why. Just is.
* Ameicans have atorneys involved in just about anything else - why not
a real estate transaction - quite possibly the largest investment of
your life????

Thats one of the problems. Simple things became intentionally way too
complicated because of powerful lobbies. Just consider most legislators
are lawyers.

It gets really tiring hearing government folks asking "are you a lawyer"
as a roadblock when you are researching properties etc at the local
courthouse.

Same exact deal with taxes. Get rid of all of the tax forms and
accounting procedures, exemptions, credits whatever and replace it with
a flat tax based on consumption with exemption for basic stuff such as
food much the same way sales taxes are applied.

That might sound like a good idea to you, but I assure you, if
implemented
and you saw the tax rate required, you'd have a different opinion.
The
simple fact is the top 5 percent of income earners are paying a huge
portion of the tax burden. *And they don't spend anywhere near enough
of that income to generate the equivalent revenue using your idea.
The
*result would be a huge shift from a progressive tax system to one
that is
*regressive, putting way more of the burden on those with lower
incomes.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

rate would be 23% and everyone would get a kickback to pay basic
expenses.

Sorry, but your math doesn't come close to adding up. Let's take a
person
making $80K, with a house, 2 kids. They are probably paying around
20%
in income tax, or $16K. Somewhere around 6% of the $80K
goes to SS tax. That leaves around $59K. Many states have their own
unemployment or income taxes that further reduce that, but let's leave
that
out. Let's say he saves $4k of it, and another $8K goes for local
property
taxes, mortgage interest,credit card interest, etc. You aren't
proposing to tax
mortgage interest as a purchase, are you? That leaves around $47K
that he
can actuall spend on goods and services in the economy. Taxing that
at
your 23% rate, yields $11K. And then you want to give everyone money
back
to offset the impact, so give him $3K, and now you're down to $8K net
that
he's sending the FEDS instead of $16K. Where's the difference coming
from?
Somehow I don't believe there's enough to come from spending by
illegal
immigrants working at $8/hr off the books to make up for it.

Additionally, it gets much, much worse when you move up the income
scale.
Those taxpayers are today carrying the heavy load and paying the vast
majority
of income tax. Unless you think the guy making $1mil is going to go
out and spend
it all, your system just gets worse. At today's income tax rate,
he's paying probably
over 30%, or $300K in income tax. At 23% of spending, he'd have to
spend more
than he makes to generate the same revenue.

If you have some credible economic analysis that shows a 23% sales tax
would work, I'd love to see it.



this would get revenue from those living here illegally, encourage
saving, elminate tons of government and private sector workers who
produce nothing but paper. and easier to enforce the laws. taxes would
only be paid for by business.



you paycheck would be totally yours no fed tax, no SS tax everything
paid for by sales tax......

You can't even offset income tax with a sales tax rate of anyhwhere
near 23%
and you want it to pay SS tax too?



far easier to understand- Hide quoted text -



It's simpler, that's for sure. But like I said, if you do the math
and figure
out the rate required, you may think otherwise.