Just had a strange conversation with PG&E about an illegal pole on my property

Where is the lie?

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

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.

Where, may I ask, is the lie you speak of?

Reply to
Mel Knight
Loading thread data ...

Creosoted timber.

Why do you ask?

Reply to
Mel Knight

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.

Reply to
trader4

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.

Reply to
HeyBub

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.

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

That is a good question indeed.

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.

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 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?

Clairvoyant?

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?

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.

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?

Reply to
trader4

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 determ "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.

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.

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.
Reply to
trader4

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

Reply to
hallerb

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.

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?

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.

Reply to
trader4

HomeOwnersHub website 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.