Steve - It's past my bedtime, but I need to ask about your second paragraph as well.
Why on earth would the town acquire any site to host a tower? Verizon and AT&T lease their sites. VTel is proposing to lease our site. Why would we ever consider buying a piece of property to host a tower?
More puzzling to me, every tower lease agreement I've come across, in several states across the country, designates a leased area measuring 100' x 100' square. The Verizon tower here in town leased a 100'x100' square and that lease bars the landlord from building within the "fall zone," defined as a 100' radius from the base of the tower.
In most cases, I was reviewing the title and offer terms on industrial or farm property which had a corner leased to a cell tower operator. In every instance, the leases transferred with the property being offered for sale and were viewed as valuable additional rent income for the buyer. In one case, the foreclosing bank sought to retain the 100' x 100' tower site and lease while selling the rest, but the buyer refused. Verizon didn't buy acres to build their tower above Four Wheel Drive Road, they lease a little square in the woods.
Your statement also confuses on the matter of an access road. If you want to go buying "multiple acres," why would you need a right-of-way? Any access road, if built on a right-of-way or easement, would, by definition, be outside the "multiple acres" you claim would be required. (No one grants themselves a right-of-way across their own land.) As in every other tower lease I've seen, if we lease a 100' x 100' tower site, the right-of-way to reach it would be part of the bargain.
Again, excuse my skepticism, but I've spent months patiently listening to categorical statements why this tower must be as it is without anything more than a conclusory draft feasibility study offered in support. If you have information that has not yet been shared with the public after all this time, please come forth with it now.
I have some issues with the rest of your post, but they can wait until tomorrow.
From: Stephen Flanders
To: "norwich@lists.valley.net"
Subject: [Norwich] A towering question
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 13:57:30 -0400
What about a different site?
If the town were to acquire a different site on private land, it would have
to pay much more than the core cost of the facility that is soon to be
erected. Currently land is listed at a minimum of $100K per acre; typically,
multiple acres would be required. A road would have to be built over a
right-of-way to the hypothetical site for construction and maintenance.
Depending on the terrain covered, this too would be extremely expensive.
Security at a remote site would be a serious concern, as well.
Why on earth would the town acquire any site to host a tower? Verizon and AT&T lease their sites. VTel is proposing to lease our site. Why would we ever consider buying a piece of property to host a tower?
More puzzling to me, every tower lease agreement I've come across, in several states across the country, designates a leased area measuring 100' x 100' square. The Verizon tower here in town leased a 100'x100' square and that lease bars the landlord from building within the "fall zone," defined as a 100' radius from the base of the tower.
In most cases, I was reviewing the title and offer terms on industrial or farm property which had a corner leased to a cell tower operator. In every instance, the leases transferred with the property being offered for sale and were viewed as valuable additional rent income for the buyer. In one case, the foreclosing bank sought to retain the 100' x 100' tower site and lease while selling the rest, but the buyer refused. Verizon didn't buy acres to build their tower above Four Wheel Drive Road, they lease a little square in the woods.
Your statement also confuses on the matter of an access road. If you want to go buying "multiple acres," why would you need a right-of-way? Any access road, if built on a right-of-way or easement, would, by definition, be outside the "multiple acres" you claim would be required. (No one grants themselves a right-of-way across their own land.) As in every other tower lease I've seen, if we lease a 100' x 100' tower site, the right-of-way to reach it would be part of the bargain.
Again, excuse my skepticism, but I've spent months patiently listening to categorical statements why this tower must be as it is without anything more than a conclusory draft feasibility study offered in support. If you have information that has not yet been shared with the public after all this time, please come forth with it now.
I have some issues with the rest of your post, but they can wait until tomorrow.
From: Stephen Flanders
To: "norwich@lists.valley.net"
Subject: [Norwich] A towering question
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 13:57:30 -0400
What about a different site?
If the town were to acquire a different site on private land, it would have
to pay much more than the core cost of the facility that is soon to be
erected. Currently land is listed at a minimum of $100K per acre; typically,
multiple acres would be required. A road would have to be built over a
right-of-way to the hypothetical site for construction and maintenance.
Depending on the terrain covered, this too would be extremely expensive.
Security at a remote site would be a serious concern, as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment