So I'm busy drafting up easements that we have been granted for our utilities(Water, Sanitary Sewer, Storm Water...) and I'm told by a little bird that someone in the organization has come up with a grand plan on how to capitalize on our easements to gain monetary value for the 5G network that is coming....
I will stay quiet to the process, however, the idea of using these easements for things other than they were originally intended and prescribed to says nothing to the effect of 5G( they didnt even know cell phones would exist at that time when written...) or any other nonspecific use. Has anyone in the forum run across anything like this before? Just thinking about this for a "Friend"?ÿ 😉
?ÿ
5G is going to be a windfall for attorneys
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/5g-network-cell-towers-raise-health-concerns-for-some-residents/
When DSL became a thing, they were placing new and bigger pedestal boxes every 3+ miles apart and they took a 10ftx10ft easement along an existing highway or rural road and there were some larger and farther away that needed an access trailing.
I doubt that when they upgrade their boxes with different tech there is any care for them to revise their easement.
What is important is that they place them responsibly, hahaha.
Clarification:?ÿ The idea is that we will sell access to our granted easements for 5G developers/etc to generate revenue.?ÿ We don't own the property, just permission to convey water through the easement.?ÿ Am I missing the intent of the easements we have been granted??ÿ Woohoo!?ÿ Windfall of cash!.... 😉
?ÿ
The intent of the easement is key. But if it isn't spelled out in the easement document, therein lies the problem. I suspect that you will have plenty of property owners object, and quite possibly object with their attorney. If I were one of the owners, I would ABSOLUTELY object.?ÿ
?ÿAm I missing the intent of the easements we have been granted??ÿ Woohoo!?ÿ Windfall of cash!.... 😉
?ÿ
Everything would hinge on 1) the exact language of the easement documents, and 2) state statutory/case law regarding the adding of additional burdens to easements.?ÿ
The intent of the easement is key. But if it isn't spelled out in the easement document, therein lies the problem. I suspect that you will have plenty of property owners object, and quite possibly object with their attorney. If I were one of the owners, I would ABSOLUTELY object.?ÿ
Me too.?ÿ I'm just keeping my SA high as these IT folks mill about and try to do something that seems quick and easy, but is more like walking in the surf, along a west Oregon beach not expecting the sneaker wave building in the foam about to wash you off your feet....
Neighborhood property owners are going to be upset about a) more antennas going up in their neighborhoods and b) some entity making money off granting sub-easements for those antennas based on easements already recorded against they and their neighbors' property.?ÿ The lawyers for the entity better have a good case planned before it happens.
The vast majority of easements do not include the right to grant access to a third party for profit.?ÿ The answer lies in the easement language, of course if the new encumbrance is innocuous enough maybe the property owners won't notice......
Use of an easement can change incrementally over time, for example a road easement originally for horse and wagon can be used today by motorized vehicles.?ÿ I don't see how a water easement can be made into a communications easement other than by grant from the servient estate especially where the dominant estate thinks they can assign their rights for money.
If the dominant estate (called that even though easements are not an estate in real property) has a telephone easement from say 1960 a Court may consider it an incremental change from copper wire to fiber optic but allowing a cell tower is doubtful.
Not to rain on your parade but it sounds like an attorney's wet dream. I seriously doubt any reputable telecom service provider is going to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars and up installing and operating a tower or fiber fed switch unless it's properly permitted and they have a signed lease or easement dedicated from the fee holder specifically granting them the authority to be there.?ÿ
Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.
?ÿ
....but allowing a cell tower is doubtful.
The 5G networks aren't about putting up towers, rather sticking hundreds of small antennas not much bigger than a total station on existing infrastructure?ÿ
Most telecomunication company agreements have clauses that allow for constant upgrades of equipment that is necessary as long as it does not exceed the area their easement covers.
They add stuff all the time if someone wants to rent a space to attach their equipment to their tower.
There is big money being spent on hardware and technology placed around America to connect to users that is being added to exisiting systems.
?ÿ
....but allowing a cell tower is doubtful.
The 5G networks aren't about putting up towers, rather sticking hundreds of small antennas not much bigger than a total station on existing infrastructure?ÿ
The middle picture looks like Sacramento & Mason Streets in San Francisco (Pacific Union Club to the right).
That might be incremental enough but someone would have to ask the Judge to be sure.
Most telecomunication company agreements have clauses that allow for constant upgrades of equipment that is necessary as long as it does not exceed the area their easement covers.
They add stuff all the time if someone wants to rent a space to attach their equipment to their tower.
There is big money being spent on hardware and technology placed around America to connect to users that is being added to exisiting systems.
Even though this is true, in the OP the easement was for "Water, Sanitary sewer, Storm water...". If the original easement was for electric and/or telephone that would be different. I think it is a stretch to go from Water or Sewer to Telecom.?ÿ?ÿ
Either way, there will be lots of Attorney's hired in a situation like this.?ÿ