There is a court case here in Pittsburgh that is the electric utility against a building owner in the downtown area. The issue is an electrical vault in the sidewalk, which is OUTSIDE of the property occupied by the building but services the building. The vault needs $600,000 in repairs, and the electric utility wants the building owner to pay, reasoning that in PA the "property extends to the middle of the street". I don't see how that argument could win, then I would have to pay to fix the road in front of my property, the utility pole, the manhole, etc.?ÿ
It is the Frick Building in this old map...22 stories. It is where Henry Clay Frick was shot by an anarchist in 1915...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Clay_Frick
?ÿ
?ÿ
Even if the property line extends into the street, the utility is using an easement for their own facilities. Certainly not everything in the easement is the customer's responsibility unless they have an agreement that says so.
The issue shouldn't be whose property it is, but rather where in the distribution is the demarcation between the utility-owned equipment and the customer-owned equipment.?ÿ In my residential neighborhood, I think I'm responsible for the buried cable between the house and the transformer box that sits near the rear lot corners.?ÿ The utility is responsible for the transformer box and high voltage lines.
This wouldn't mean that you would have to maintain the street anymore than you have to maintain the oil pipeline that crosses your farm. Public utilities usually operate under different rules, that require the customer to be responsible for the equipment that only benifits them and is on their own property.?ÿ
It will be interesting to see how this gets resolved.?ÿ
Well, if it rules that the landowner has to pay... Then another question comes up. Can the landowner hire his own contractor to fix it? At a reduced cost? And, who is responsible in the future to maintain it? If it falls onto the landowner, then the landowner could conceivably cut off any other user who benefits, from those buried lines. Ultimately, I think the pwr co will loose, because they stand to NEED to control the quality of the infrastructure, without the private control, that comes with private money.
Thank you,
Nate
It seems like two issues are being confused: maintenance of the electrical equipment, and maintenance of the environment on which or within which the equipment is located.
The article is clear, the equipment inside the vaults is solely the responsibility of the utility. It is the vault that houses that equipment that is in question. I can't speak to PA law, but it the article does mention that the "ownership to the center line" only applies when the street has been vacated, which makes sense.
The fact that these particular vaults "exclusivley serve the Frick Building" really should not matter, for if you were to interpret the maintenance costs solely on this basis, then maintenance costs would logically be apportioned to the countless users served by other such vaults. I would bet good money the utility has not been billing thousands of customers separately (above and beyond their regular utility bill) each time they repair other vaults, though I could be wrong.
I could be wrong, but it seems clear "In 1904, the predecessor to the current Pittsburgh council granted the utility the right to enter that street and others to install, operate, and maintain equipment"... I didn't see anything that said the city gave the adjacent landowner any right to install, much less maintain a vault at all.
The cloudy issue is the fact that the vaults "were actually installed by the previous owner".... It's hard to say exactly how that happened. Do they have actual documentation of such, or simply the lack of documentation otherwise and somebody is making assumptions? Was it a requirement by the utility at the time? Was it simply a matter of it's FASTER and easier to do the installation of the vaults at the same time they are doing footings for the building and the owner was willing to pay for such simply to have construction done sooner (and thus get the building open sooner and money from occupants coming in sooner)? Did the owner pay for the installation, but receive credit towards his utility bill for doing so? What do you think the odds are anyone could prove or disprove any of the above 70 years later?
In my opinion, thus far it seems simple to rule that the utility is solely responsible.
?ÿ
Now here's the rub. NO GOOD DEED GOES UNPUNISHED!
The building owners performed maintenance on the vault in 2011 (and "other occasions"). If he truly believed he owned the vault (to which he does not have title nor easement to) then logically he would continue in such belief and would have simply paid for this maintenance and the case would not be in court. However, If the building owners did so, be it in good faith of just doing what needed to be done, or knowing the utility was not going to get to it as soon as he might hope and so in fear of a lawsuit from some passing pedestrian who might be injured if part of the vault collapsed or a grate broke or whatever, he has set himself up. Much like McDonalds trying to give the customer exactly what they ask for, HOT coffee (because lots of people would b!tch if the coffee wasn't as hot as they made it)... there will be a jury of 12 people, with a member or two that is willing and able to do the right thing and serve, but sadly the majority of which will be there because they have no job (and quite likely very little education or other "qualifications" I will leave to your imagination) that will be swayed far more by how smooth which lawyer is than on the facts of the case.
My 2 cents anyway, and even pennies aren't worth what they used to be.
An interesting read:
Meet You in Hell: Andrew Carnegie, Henry Clay Frick, and the Bitter Partnership That Changed America
by Les Standiford
The museum and caf?? are worthwhile but the real attraction is the house, I highly recommend it!
https://www.thefrickpittsburgh.org/
?ÿ
$600,000 to repair a vault? I would build a new vault for much less and tell the utility company to move all their equipment.
Paul in PA
Then the owners would have to pay for the utility to move their equipment.?ÿ
?ÿI can't speak to PA law, but it the article does mention that the "ownership to the center line" only applies when the street has been vacated, which makes sense.
The owners are arguing this, but I wouldn't assume that the court will agree.?ÿ
Legally I'm clueless. But I would argue whoever installed the vault is responsible for its upkeep unless documented otherwise. I would subpoena accounting records from 70 years ago. Someone paid to install the vault.
It seems reasonably clear to me that both parties have a shared stake and responsibility to share in the costs regardless of the nature of the ownership of the sidewalk. Whether ownership goes to the road centerline or not is a red herring. The building owners solely benefit from the power distributed through the vaults and the vaults themselves were constructed to house and protect the equipment to allow the building to function. I can only speculate but I'd venture a guess that a court may find the building owners responsible for the costs of physical demolishing and reconstruction of the vaults and the utility for the outside plant equipment housed in the said vaults to complete power delivery to inside of the building. The only certainty is the true winners will be the legal firms handling the case.?ÿ
Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.
Yeah, the house is really cool but just as cool is the Car and Carriage museum that is on the grounds
I agree that the lawyers will make out better than anyone. The building has a bunch of law firms as tenants. Before I started in surveying I worked for a law firm about a block away as a paralegal, and used to go there all the time. The lobby is pretty cool.?ÿ
The cars are cool, another good collection is in the basement of the Cleveland history museum.