DISQUS

Tim Lee · 2 years ago

Well put. The role of easements is an aspect I hadn't fully considered before. To the extent that AT&T; is exercising its pre-existing rights under a utility easement, that definitely seems like an important principled distinction. Sometime I want to read more on where those easements originated and who has control over them.

Tom Coseven · 2 years ago

Tim’s original question about the policy ramifications of using eminent domain for public or private gain is far more interesting than whether periodically trenching the first 5 feet of Adam’s lawn is more intrusive than telecom open access. The fact that a government can take or encumber property (albeit for compensation) without purchasing it in a competitive open market, carries with it a responsibility that they are acting in the public interest.

This activity removes the moral argument (for example a telco’s “property rights”) against regulation of “utilities” that use ROW (including spectrum). Now it becomes a policy question, and public interest policy goals could vary over time and by community. Too often we hear the argument that utility regulation is only morally justified by lack of competition when in fact the argument should be framed in terms of economics, social benefit, security, etc…

Put simply… what are a utility’s “private” property rights if it’s existence depends on eminent domain? Can we apply private property morality to a public property centext?

Tim, I am not sure why your question of easements and their origin. Does it matter whether it was originally government land, or a developer “donated” it to the government, or a government captured it by force via eminent domain? Now if AT&T; bought ALL their easements in the open market from the private landowners. Then I think they would have a strong moral argument for private property rights.