What to do with a 100' tower?

Page 2 of 4  

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 14:18:32 -0400, Tony wrote:

Might as well leave the whole tower up if you're going to leave up to 40 feet of it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jeff The Drunk wrote:

Liability. The house next door is less than 100' away.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

If a kid climbs it on a dare from his friends, and gets hurt, or killed, you are on the hook.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote:

If the tower bas is fenced and gated as I'm sure it is if it was a commercial site, you *are not* on the hook for their trespassing, breaking and entering, and subsequent injury.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Don't bet on it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 12:09:36 -0400, salty wrote:

Especially in today's litigious society.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yea, like the dumb-ass McD's woman who toasted her beaver with coffee.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<stuff snipped>

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
Would you have just said "nevermind" if you had your balls burned off by not just hot but scalding hot coffee? Somehow, I doubt it.
"A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused."
When defendants refuse to pay reasonable claims because they know they can *mostly* skunk the little guy, they often suffer punitive damages. What might have cost them as little as $20K ended up costing close to a million because they wanted to play hardass. Problem is they ran into a lawyer with a harder ass than theirs that kicked them around they way they deserved. Sometimes it's smarter to fess up than to fight. McDonald's was serving unreasonably hot coffee according to the testimony given, just 20 degrees shy of boiling. Other establishments and home drinkers usually serve/drink coffee at the 140 degree mark or thereabouts. That can cause burns, but nowhere as serious as 190 degrees can.
McDonald's coffee, as served in the restaurant, was undrinkable because it would have caused severe mouth and throat burns, so why make it so bloody hot? They did it because a) they were idiots and b) a consultant told them to. Since the suit, they've turned the coffee thermostat down. They just wanted to make a million dollar fuss out of being made to do it and they got what they asked for. How anyone but a franchisee can love anything McDonald's does is beyond me. Just look up "pink slime beef" and "McDonalds" and you might not want to eat there anymore. Or maybe ammoniated centrifuged floor scrapings are your cuppa tea.
It turns out 700 other people had been burned by McDonald's unusually hot coffee in much the same way, and some of those cases involved servers mounting the wrong lids or mounting them improperly and basically tossing a cup of nearly boiling water in the victim's lap.
The trial judge called McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful because they *knew* the product, as served, had seriously injured over 700 people before. Sometimes it takes a big lawsuit to force a huge corporation to stop selling bad tires, runaway cars, scalding hot coffee or salmonella laced peanut butter. Usually, a number of people have to die or be seriously injured before anyone notices.
Lawyers serve a very valid purpose in the Corporate States of America. You can bet that hungry teams of them are going to be kicking BP's well-deserving ass all around the Gulf of Mexico and the process will have a deterrent effect on other idiot drillers who don't follow safety rules. McDonald's makes more coffee sales in one day than they paid out to that woman. It's chump change for them.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Bobby You left out one of the many salient facts that came out at trial. The coffee was served that hot so that it could not be drunk quickly subjecting the staff to request for free refills which would have cut into profits. That was discovered by the plaintiffs investigators in McDonald's own files. -- Tom Horne
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

not
grafting.
with
got
a
corporation
a
<<Bobby You left out one of the many salient facts that came out at trial. The coffee was served that hot so that it could not be drunk quickly subjecting the staff to request for free refills which would have cut into profits. That was discovered by the plaintiffs investigators in McDonald's own files. -- Tom Horne>>
You are correct: but I wasn't trying to write an abstract for Lexis/Nexis! (-: McDonald's loss forced them to produce a number of examples of their business practices that they were not happy about revealing and letting people find out that they deliberately made the coffee scalding hot to reduce refills seems quite in line with the other information that came out at trial. "You deserve a burn today - at McDonalds. We'll pour it all on you!" (-: While the case is touted as an example of "greedy trial lawyers" just the opposite is true: it's greedy Big Business that has decided 700 burns is worth discouraging people from getting a refill that can't cost them more than a dime. Without regulation, either by law or litigation, we KNOW what companies are willing to do to boost profits.
When a company adopts a hard-line, we won't pay any claim "fair or not" attitude they may be forced, at trial, to reveal things that in the long run can cost them much more than reaching a fair settlement. Those revelations can scare away investors and can force a stock's value to tank when a really big skeleton comes out of the closet during depositions.
In companies this large, they routinely have "tombstone" meetings to determine how serious a product flaw would be in terms of human life and lost profits (and not necessarily in that order). Sometimes, in 'well-advised' companies, the meetings are top secret ones at "retreats" disguised as HR events and are composed in such a way that any of the scant evidence presented can disappear easily if need be. Tip O'Neill once said "Don't write what you can say, say what you can nod, nod what you can wink, etc."
Toyota is paying a huge fine - largest ever but still just a gnat sting to them - for having corporate records that detail "tombstone meetings" and their failure to alert the feds. The info indicates, basically, that they thought *all* runaway reports were lies and they had no exposure to the mounting claims of runaway cars so they took the hard line. They are not alone. Many companies wouldn't do anything until irrefutable evidence began to emerge like recordings of cellphone calls from people screaming "How do I stop this thing!? as they sped to their deaths.
In Toyota's case those reports were "backed up" by a midwest professor who demonstrated that their on-board computer that controlled acceleration was vulnerable to soldering iron attacks (????). Even though his dubious experiment was almost as bad as the rocket motor rollover hoax, the hunt for Toyota's head was on. We may never know what the true story is with Toyota. I've had a "runaway car" when I used to drive small cars in cowboy boots. Too easy to "heel and toe" without wanting to. I am willing to assume that as many as 9 out of 10 incidents are user stupidity.
The end result is that eventually every new car will have a "brake and gas" inhibitor that gives priority to the braking system if there's a dispute. Expert winter drivers should be able to override that to get up icy driveways, but I imagine they'll just get screwed in the name of protecting everyone. Since I didn't hear of anyone winning the Emunds.com million dollar prize, it could be that Toyota's problems were not electronic. They might not have even been real. Some statistics show claims of runaway Toyota's are in the same proportion as other car makers. It could have all been a hoax engineered to keep GM alive. (-:
McD's scalding coffee is a perfect example of a free-market failure. If flying were so dangerous that 20,000 Americans died each year in crashes, business would figure out how to make that a plus ("Do you have the *balls* to fly?" ad campaigns). They would factor wrongful death payouts into the price of the ticket (they actually do now). That's just business. Death is a calculable number to them, a knowable risk in a world of unknowables.
Fortunately, we have representatives of the people who can and do say: "20,000 deaths or even 2,000 deaths a year is not acceptable." In the case of flying, it's the FAA. They're empowered to enforce safety rules in the name of everyone who flies and everyone they fly over. They've been seriously weakened as a result of years of a deregulatory fever, but since I live on the approaches to 2 different airports, I am glad that the FAA's here and we haven't allowed total regulation of the industry which I am sure they will some day be pushing.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

From real estate standpoint, this whole thing is suspect. Those towers USUALLY do have fenced areas, and the property description would have any exclusions or easements on it. In addition, disclosure would have to indicate such a small thing as a very high tower complete with guy lines. The OP is so buried now in thread drift, that I have made no attempt to quote him.
But, if I was the OP, and was considering getting this property, I'd make sure that it did not include a permanent easement, that it did not exclude the property under the base of the tower, and that the maintenance and or removal of the tower were in the disclosure. As I mentioned in the previous post, he might be buying an expensive remediation project.
Steve
visit my blog at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve B wrote:

Hey Steve, OP here. The bottom of the tower has fence around it that is attached to the tower. It's been this way for many years. I also found out that it hasn't had any antenna's on it for years.
I would be having a title search and insurance done.
I am checking into costs to have it taken down, cheaper if I'm going to scrap it, but some are telling me it's worth quite a few $'s.
That's were I'm at.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not sure if you read my long post that I used to do work similar to this. Only MUCH MUCH heavier. As towers go, this one is a baby. Someone put it up, someone has to be around your locale that can take it down. It shouldn't be (I hate that word) expensive, as I know our crew would have it down by lunch time (starting at 0600) on a $100 bet. 6 men at $80 per hour would come out to about $3,000. Could be done with four.
Your concern is not to buy something that you will inherit the bad things such as easements, or you having to pay any extra costs. If you want to keep it there, just realize, too, that there may be some ongoing costs, and regulations as per regular maintenance by a certified person. And then, maybe not. Who knows with the Big O in office now. Don't dig so deep that you uncover all the snakes, but just enough to know where they are.
Let us know what the end result is.
Steve
visit my blog at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 09:30:24 -0400, Tony wrote:

If the tower is guyed properly and in good physical shape I wouldn't worry about it crashing into the neighbor's house. I have a 65 foot tall TV tower with a large ham radio antenna atop that I put up in 1980 that is not guyed (cabled) and it has withstood some storms that have knocked down nearby trees. Funny though this tower is 10 foot sections with a 9 foot top section. I can't recall seeing TV tower with 20 foot sections. Even heavy duty tower for ham radio like what's available from Rohn is in 10 foot sections.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jeff The Drunk wrote:

20' sections are common for heavy duty commercial grade towers. These towers are designed to last many decades and to carry significant wind loads such a 10' diameter microwave dishes, panel reflectors, etc. This tower probably has a face width of 24" or better and continuous fall protection anchor point for climbing it. The light duty towers you are familiar with are in a different class.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 10:55:18 -0500, Pete C. wrote:

I've seen some fairly heavy-duty looking Rohn non-freestanding in 10 foot sections. Obviously 20 footers would indicate commercial grade designed for commercial heights. You wouldn't want 30 sections of tower for 300 feet. That's inherently poor in strength.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
All might want to check at "alt.ham radio" under 100 foot tower. There is a great picture of the tower and shack and fence etc. Sure looks like a pretty nice "former ham shack" to me!!
Sorry bout the top post <G>
Sparky 01

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Correction: that's alt..ham-radio
Sparky01

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pete C. wrote:

Yes now you are close! The *face width* is 3', like I said in my original post.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 13:46:58 -0400, Tony wrote:

Sorry I'm guilty of not reading that far. That tower aint going anywhere.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.