The steep hill is on city property, but the city says any guardrails on the site can't be installed because it would primarily benefit private property owners.
@@user-om2uo1ys9t He's the father of a current councilmember did you watch the video? That's why they initially said yes, then they realized the law prevents them from doing this to avoid council members paying for personal projects with city funds.
This is 100% a private issue, and the family can pay for the fence on their property. He even admitted he fell with the trees there, so it really has nothing to do with the removal of what was there. He is older, and his family should be taking care of his safety needs.
The city has the authority to make improvement's to city property regardless of who benefits. There are attorneys that do nothing else in their career than to sue other attorneys for "legal malpractice". The city attorney is an idiot, I have worked commercial real estate from the dirt up for 36 years, I recognize idiots at work!
@@rhettbaldwin8320 I'll take that as a "you're stupid" my comment is the truth. First dumbass no one said his driveway was or is city property. Next, real estate isn't your strong subject. Has your tiny mind ever heard of an "easement"? Public utilities are run on easement property typically 8' wide from the curb of the street that the city, county or state owns and it's clearly identifiable on "plot maps". Removal of those trees is ABSOLUTELY going to start the soil erosion process and his driveway is going to slide down the embankment. Again, the city is responsible for easement property has a vested interest in improving their easement so that they aren't rebuilding this driveway in the future. Congratulations, you won your own bet.
@@suraceryan The city would claim it quickly enough if they wanted to widen the road. They could fix this problem ... hell, the orange retainer fence was better than this!!
With a drop that steep, there has to be some ordinance requiring a safety barrier. Usually any thing over four feet in communities that I am familiar with. The steepness of the bank seems to be a man-made, not a natural feature. It looks like there was a cut to lessen the steepness of the road. Typically a bank that steep would have some kind of retaining wall to protect the abutting driveway from collapsing. With the removal of all those trees, I’d be just as worried about his driveway collapsing as about him falling. Using city money to ensure the safety of city roads and their associated grading is never an inappropriate use of public funds. It protects the public from a much larger cost of a lawsuit. The city needs to get a new layer if they aren’t focused on protecting the city from negligence claims.
WE ENERGY trims the trees near power lines here. They only remove deadfall and diseased trees. They ruined this man’s view and made it more unstable. They could at least put up a sound deadening wall there ? He could plant trees behind it ?
Without the trees, water wont be soaked up, the roots will breakdown and that land will start sliding. That's a public safety concern, the city has grounds to build a retaining wall and fence if they actually wanted to.
One of the first thing I learned when I served on a government board was that you cannot make a gift of public funds. If the property is his, it's his problem ... if the property belongs to the taxpayers, its' the taxpayers problem ... it sounds like they're trying to find a workaround through some beautification money (sometimes these are straight up grants), but with government it could take two or three years to make that happen.
Breason All properties are paid for by taxpayers including the so called city property !!! The city caused damage to taxpayers property paid for by taxpayers therefore the entity called the city is liable for destruction and/or endangering the citizens and/or citizen of said property or properties. Immediate repairs are therefore required to avoid litigation and the loss of taxpayers money which funds the city !!!
"His property, his problem" only accounts for issues HE created. This particular one was 'created' by the City when they cut down the tree's which were acting like a fence, rather than trimming them down.
So the city spent city money to throw up tposts and construction safety fence then spent city money to take it back down? Seems it would have been more intelligent to left the tposts up and claim removing would be more costly than leaving them.
@@Gwydion_Wolf : The power company cut what was on “their property”, the trees, and bushes didn’t belong to him.. That’s like if your neighbor takes down *his own fence* , and now you want the city to put one up at their cost..
Here in Australia, the power company cannot remove the trees, but they can cut away the parts that affect the powerlines. All the power company had to do was cut the tops off and leave the base. The trees while living also hold the bank stable, now that they are gone the stumps will die and rot and the sloped area will start to crumble and eroding will cause more damage to the area. A fence is not going to stop the eroding that’s going to happen to his drive way. As for the lawyer well it is there to help ALL of the citizens be it just 1 person, 10 people or 1000 people. Why should the guy pay for the cities stuff up the trees should have only have been trimmed not removed.
I don’t condone chopping down trees for the sake of manmade convenience; how long to shift utility lines vs. how long to grow a tree. However, he does have an enviable view.
@@raymondturpin3265 oh thank you ... I guess I didn't pay attention with my blood boiling over the fact they won't give this man some type of protection from accidentally falling and rolling down into the highway into oncoming traffic 🤦🏽
@@cheeptrick5464 I know. They have cut my trees back for years and yes they never took any down without my asking. Its obviously something they should fence off.
I don't know how I feel about the city needing to foot the bill to have a fence installed on his property, assuming that it is indeed within his property line, however one thing that did just occur to me is that for that steep of a drop, the trees served an additional purpose of its roots maintaining the incline, as roots are excellent at erosion prevention. Now that the trees are gone, the roots will soon dissolve which could cause foundational/erosion issues long term. So in that case, wouldn't the energy company/city be liable for removing the support structure of his land?
@@bobroberts2371 Not necessarily. Every road has a certain amount of easement on each side for utilities. That entire hill is most likely all part of the easement, and I would bet even a tad bit above the hill is part of the easement and none of that easement is likely on his property.
@@marcuslinton310 An easement means that there is a legal document allowing utilities and such to be present on property owned by the person whose name is on the deed. Look at your cities regulations if you are in a snow area, it should have a requirement that the property owner keep the side walk free of snow or face a fine.
@@bobroberts2371 That is not a neighborhood road, it's a main city road which means it has city owned easements on each side of the road for utilities. These city road easements will never be located on private property. The road in front of his house likely has sidewalks and an easement located on his property, those will have to be maintained by him. But nothing on the city owned easement will be his responsibility.
our hydro company trims trees...some are cut in the middle split ( which isn't ideal or good for trees but they do it)... not clear cut. that is a hazard. trees benefit everyone... IF they had such unethical pull the trees would have been still there.
@@Gwydion_Wolf.He was required to keep them trimmed and he didn't, so the power company cut them down. The city and the power company are not a joint venture. The city doesn't owe him squat.
Who's property is this, his or the city. If it is his property and this section is a utility easement, things get complicated. If the property is city owned, still complicated.
Every road has a certain amount of easement on each side for utilities. That entire hill is most likely all part of the easement, and I would bet even a tad bit above the hill is part of the easement.
I think the tree area is actually public property since the home owner wasn't billed for the tree removal and they did put up a temporary fence, temporarily. I think if it was his trees, they would have mentioned that in this story.
@@peterkn2 It's a utility easement so even if it was part of his property, being an easement allows them to do whatever they want on it. They technically wouldn't be his trees. However, this easement is clearly not even on his property at all.
Duke Energy doesn't have the right to remove trees, only trim for a safe distance from the lines. They should be responsible for correcting the mistake. They have now weakened the soil, risking erosion.
I'm also here to write another comment as someone who lives on a hill and have friends who have (unfortunately) experienced similar things tree roots work to anchor dirt in place and keep it from moving, trees take time to grow and take root, this is not the first time and won't be the last that a company worried about their power lines comes to take our trees it's quite frankly terrifying, it could rain, the soil loosens....you could lose your home. it's scary. very much so
It's called city right of way and they have the right. He knows his limits and shouldn't be out there in the first place. You want power sacrifices have to be made sometimes. You want privacy and trees move to the country. You'll never get it in the city. He is owed nothing. Read the fine print on county and city regulations. He has a big enough yard without ever needing to go near that slope. He is making a mountain out of a molehill as they say. Hell I'm a physically fit individual and I wouldn't go near it simply because it is not necessary or wise.
It's called an easement. You can't build a fence there because it's illegal. The city has rights to the immediate 8 feet off the road for sidewalks, power lines, light poles etc. and the power company has right of easement under the power lines and railroads have similar easement rights. It used to be alot worse. When they first did the intercontinental railroad the Feds granted land permits to the railroads that extended 2 miles to either side. A lot of people lost their land to that land grab.
I don't think it would matter if it was him or grandkids or whoever if there's an 18 ft drop in the city cut down trees that would have cut them and now they fall and can actually cause a death the city would be responsible because they could have trimmed the trees and left them all about 5 ft to keep you from actually falling taking the tops out of the trees so that they don't get in the power lines is one thing but they didn't have to take the whole trees down that was completely stupid on the city's part !!!
Don't enter city property in the first place and there is no problem. If there were a volcano next to my land I would stay out of said volcano. He is at zero risk if he stays on HIS land and doesn't go near the slope. Not hard. Why should anyone else gift him a fence? He's an adult and has zero reason to be on their property in the first place. I stay on mine. It's not difficult.
just because it's one property... all it takes is one person to fall... maybe it's the property owner.. maybe it's the power/water meter reader and the lawsuit that follows and suddenly... oh wait, it was more than one.. worse if a car hits the person or maybe an object that falls below... that attorney should be disbarred.
O.m.g really this is a complete non-issue the hill has been there forever the guy fell before they cut the trees down all they did was cut the trees down on their property the family needs to shut up and move on with their lives
Honestly, I don’t see how this is the city’s problem. They cut down trees in their property. Just because he doesn’t have a fence or guardrail on his property doesn’t mean the city should put one up….
The money that will be spent on city personnel, lawyers and consultants in dealing with this will definitely cost more that just installing a fence, but I can see that their should be no obligation either. No one paid for my fences but me and my neighbours.
Im not saying that people are made of money, but between this man and his family, cant they come up with $1000 and a weekend to help put up a chain link fence along this? Im sympathetic to those who lack resources, but I think people need to step up more to address issues.
Here is the argument that needs to be made. Without some sort of barrier, either foliage or manmade, the hill side will deteriorate and begin to collapse. Thus the need for shrubs being a more cost effective and green resolution to the issue. That or just have the power company pay for it lol
It's not hard at all to install a fence and super cheap if you do the work yourself. Or should've got a company to install it and you'd feature them on your story for free advertising.
the stability is gone with the trees... you can't just put in a fence.. the fence will head down the hill as well.. you need to have the slope reinforced with a retaining wall.
If it’s private property then why can’t the son go to Lowe’s or HomeDepo and buy some 4x4 posts and lumber and build a 4’ high fence/rail? Why is an 89 year old man cutting his lawn and not his son? There’s no way I would have or let my father cut his own lawn especially at the edge of an embankment.
So if you're endangering the public by not putting up a sidewalk or a rail you can be sued by whoever is injured for negligence because you are obviously now aware of the problem that one person has fallen down that Hill. And there will be others. You should not have cut the trees off so close to the ground because now you've got any erosion problem. This must be Erlanger Kentucky up near Cincinnati. They spend their money on flying pig statues to decorate the river.
I'd like to point out that they got the legal facts COMPLETELY wrong in this case, to the point that i doubted if this story was even taking place in the US, under the US constitution there's a taking clause that says "PRIVATE PROPERTY SHALL NOT BE TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION" even if there was a city ordinance in place that says public funds can't be used if it only benefits a private property owner, that would be considered unconstitutional (illegal) in court -a boring person who watches videos about case law for fun
The bigger problem is that the trees root system was acting as a retaining wall of sorts. Now that the power company killed all the trees, his land is going to erode into the road. He’s going to need a retaining wall.
Hold on. The City cut down the trees and says they can't address the issue because funds can't be used for private property. If it's private property, who gave them permission to come onto his land and cut down trees? Most cities, including my own, trim trees near power lines. No one would be foolish enough to just cut them down. Then the city says it isn't liable for cutting down the trees?! I smell a lawsuit, and more power to him if he decides to pursue one.
So it can be done if it benefits the public... but I like their response, "what defines the public" ... he's the public. As for the vote, his participation on the council should not be a factor... perhaps make it so his daughter can't vote?
Sue them, they made this mess by cutting those trees when in truth if it was a worry about wires they could have just trimmed the necessary branches or even cut the trees off below the wires and left the trunks for safety. Isn't it funny how they do something like what they had across the road that serves no purpose and nobody gives a crap what it looks like over there but yet they probably funded something like that and claimed it was millions to do a $500 dollar job but the officials have to make sure they get their share of that money to. If they want to argue that that was an eye sore to the people then it would now be the same on the old guys side because it's the same or perhaps they think people can only see on one side.
They don't have the man power to come back every spring to trim trees. I am sure all of you concerned Conservatives will grab some tools and put in a fence for the Old Timer.
@@skydivingcomrade1648 Who is liable for injury for the fall? Like a swimming pool. You need a fence. Is there a hill or ravine law? Does he have to buy a fence? Now I don't know. Better call Saul!
Bull to you, Sir. Why should Daddy Government build him a fence. There was no fence before. The trees had to go. 58 seconds into the video shows the trees on the power lines. Everyone has their hands out, begging.
it was dangerous before, nothing changed, why would ANYONE bother with this now? NOTHING needs to be done, beautifying? a house next to the tracks... yea... no story here but BS no one is going to or can do about it.
The City attorney is wrong!!, you are using taxpayer money for a TAXPAYER! SIMPLE AS THAT! Again the City attorney thinks it's City (government) money, which means [ACTUALLY] taxpayers money. A government funded it's ACTUALLY TAXPAYERS FUNDING IT!!
58 seconds into the video shows the trees in the power lines. The trees had to go. People pay for their own fence. If we paid for his fence, then every Republican would have their hand out, asking where is their free fence. You Conservatives always want the Government to bail you out.
What are they talking about its protecting city property, they hill will run off this is a slick move by the attorney. Not only that the RR should give him a sound barrier if he so choses but it look like he enjoys the trains.
When you cut down trees like that it increases the noise level. And that lowers the property value. The city's already in a position to be sued and as is the power company.
Are you asking why the government hires private contractors? Because the city doesn't have enough people in the public works department to handle all of the public work. We would need a Works Progess Administration department like in the 1930s. Unemployment is not high enough to have an army of workers.
typical government answer. We'd like to help but unfortunately our hands our tied, goodbye!
@@user-om2uo1ys9t He's the father of a current councilmember did you watch the video? That's why they initially said yes, then they realized the law prevents them from doing this to avoid council members paying for personal projects with city funds.
So long so there! 🥴🙏🙏🙏
This is 100% a private issue, and the family can pay for the fence on their property. He even admitted he fell with the trees there, so it really has nothing to do with the removal of what was there. He is older, and his family should be taking care of his safety needs.
For once I agree with the Government
The city has the authority to make improvement's to city property regardless of who benefits. There are attorneys that do nothing else in their career than to sue other attorneys for "legal malpractice". The city attorney is an idiot, I have worked commercial real estate from the dirt up for 36 years, I recognize idiots at work!
A bet his driveway isn't city property.
@@rhettbaldwin8320 I'll take that as a "you're stupid" my comment is the truth. First dumbass no one said his driveway was or is city property. Next, real estate isn't your strong subject. Has your tiny mind ever heard of an "easement"? Public utilities are run on easement property typically 8' wide from the curb of the street that the city, county or state owns and it's clearly identifiable on "plot maps". Removal of those trees is ABSOLUTELY going to start the soil erosion process and his driveway is going to slide down the embankment. Again, the city is responsible for easement property has a vested interest in improving their easement so that they aren't rebuilding this driveway in the future. Congratulations, you won your own bet.
It isn’t city property hellooooo
@@suraceryan The city would claim it quickly enough if they wanted to widen the road. They could fix this problem ... hell, the orange retainer fence was better than this!!
Put your own fence up and then you painted a rainbow color for the city to look at 😂
Well there you go, cant fast track your free fence just because you used to work there and have family on council😂
Erlanger is a place best driven around rather than through.
Why doesn't he plant a hedge row for sound dampening. Then when they cut it down sue for noise.
Hes old man. He just wants his peace and be left alone.
Can he on public land?
They are just waiting on his demise.
With a drop that steep, there has to be some ordinance requiring a safety barrier. Usually any thing over four feet in communities that I am familiar with. The steepness of the bank seems to be a man-made, not a natural feature. It looks like there was a cut to lessen the steepness of the road. Typically a bank that steep would have some kind of retaining wall to protect the abutting driveway from collapsing. With the removal of all those trees, I’d be just as worried about his driveway collapsing as about him falling. Using city money to ensure the safety of city roads and their associated grading is never an inappropriate use of public funds. It protects the public from a much larger cost of a lawsuit. The city needs to get a new layer if they aren’t focused on protecting the city from negligence claims.
Your the reason they put fire warnings on lighters.
@@tim2024-df5fuand it’s idiots like you that ignore the warnings
@@tim2024-df5fu trees look like they were there for at least 100 year. So the government has to put up fences on every mountain it owns?
WE ENERGY trims the trees near power lines here. They only remove deadfall and diseased trees. They ruined this man’s view and made it more unstable. They could at least put up a sound deadening wall there ? He could plant trees behind it ?
That would make sense if trees were on old man's property
Without the trees, water wont be soaked up, the roots will breakdown and that land will start sliding. That's a public safety concern, the city has grounds to build a retaining wall and fence if they actually wanted to.
@@ttomkins4867 Roots take a decade to rot away new trees will grow before that
One of the first thing I learned when I served on a government board was that you cannot make a gift of public funds. If the property is his, it's his problem ... if the property belongs to the taxpayers, its' the taxpayers problem ... it sounds like they're trying to find a workaround through some beautification money (sometimes these are straight up grants), but with government it could take two or three years to make that happen.
Breason
All properties are paid for by taxpayers including the so called city property !!! The city caused damage to taxpayers property paid for by taxpayers therefore the entity called the city is liable for destruction and/or endangering the citizens and/or citizen of said property or properties.
Immediate repairs are therefore required to avoid litigation and the loss of taxpayers money
which funds the city !!!
"His property, his problem" only accounts for issues HE created.
This particular one was 'created' by the City when they cut down the tree's which were acting like a fence, rather than trimming them down.
@@donaldreason5664 Don't run for office son. Your solution would lead to even more theft by city councils.
@@Gwydion_Wolf The city didn't cut them down. The power company did.
In the meantime just watch your step, everything is a disaster today
family cant pitch in for a fence?
So he wants a fence on HIS property because HE can't look where he's going? How about HE pays for it?
Not his property. The trees were city property. Not hard to understand.
So the city spent city money to throw up tposts and construction safety fence then spent city money to take it back down? Seems it would have been more intelligent to left the tposts up and claim removing would be more costly than leaving them.
If we paid for this man's fence, then everyone would want a fence. I am sure he can afford 30 feet of fence.
How about the old man pays for a fence ?
how about his daughter she is on city council she should help her dad out not make the city.
But he is a ex politician that expects extra freebeez
He 'had' a fence. The Trees.
The Power Company / City cut down the fence he had.
Now you want him to pay to replace what they destroyed?
@@Gwydion_Wolf : The power company cut what was on “their property”, the trees, and bushes didn’t belong to him.. That’s like if your neighbor takes down *his own fence* , and now you want the city to put one up at their cost..
Here in Australia, the power company cannot remove the trees, but they can cut away the parts that affect the powerlines. All the power company had to do was cut the tops off and leave the base.
The trees while living also hold the bank stable, now that they are gone the stumps will die and rot and the sloped area will start to crumble and eroding will cause more damage to the area. A fence is not going to stop the eroding that’s going to happen to his drive way.
As for the lawyer well it is there to help ALL of the citizens be it just 1 person, 10 people or 1000 people.
Why should the guy pay for the cities stuff up the trees should have only have been trimmed not removed.
I don’t condone chopping down trees for the sake of manmade convenience; how long to shift utility lines vs. how long to grow a tree. However, he does have an enviable view.
of what? Train tracks and a road.
@@JohnGee123 Train tracks and trains, of course.
So that house you live in you don’t condone? Or does your need for convenience trump that of others as is the case with most hypocrites…
60 BILLION dollars given to Ukraine and this poor man can't get a fence
AND WHY THE HELL DID THEY CHOP THEM TREES DOWN !
Powerlines.
@@raymondturpin3265
oh thank you ... I guess I didn't pay attention with my blood boiling over the fact they won't give this man some type of protection from accidentally falling and rolling down into the highway into oncoming traffic 🤦🏽
@@youwish378 Understandable.
@@raymondturpin3265 Typically in that case they will cut below the power lines , not all the way to the ground.
@@cheeptrick5464 I know. They have cut my trees back for years and yes they never took any down without my asking. Its obviously something they should fence off.
The energy company should foot the bill for new fence, since they dug up the trees to protect the overhead power lines
I don't know how I feel about the city needing to foot the bill to have a fence installed on his property, assuming that it is indeed within his property line, however one thing that did just occur to me is that for that steep of a drop, the trees served an additional purpose of its roots maintaining the incline, as roots are excellent at erosion prevention. Now that the trees are gone, the roots will soon dissolve which could cause foundational/erosion issues long term. So in that case, wouldn't the energy company/city be liable for removing the support structure of his land?
Okay so put a sidewalk the public can use, a retaining wall, and guardrail/fence/sound barrier.
Be aware that the guy would be responsible for keeping it clear of snow in the winter.
@@bobroberts2371 Not necessarily. Every road has a certain amount of easement on each side for utilities. That entire hill is most likely all part of the easement, and I would bet even a tad bit above the hill is part of the easement and none of that easement is likely on his property.
@@marcuslinton310 An easement means that there is a legal document allowing utilities and such to be present on property owned by the person whose name is on the deed. Look at your cities regulations if you are in a snow area, it should have a requirement that the property owner keep the side walk free of snow or face a fine.
@@bobroberts2371 That is not a neighborhood road, it's a main city road which means it has city owned easements on each side of the road for utilities. These city road easements will never be located on private property. The road in front of his house likely has sidewalks and an easement located on his property, those will have to be maintained by him. But nothing on the city owned easement will be his responsibility.
Most cities have exceptions for the disabled. He’s obviously struggling to get around and would likely be dismissed for that responsibility.
The city's explanation makes sense.
our hydro company trims trees...some are cut in the middle split ( which isn't ideal or good for trees but they do it)... not clear cut.
that is a hazard. trees benefit everyone... IF they had such unethical pull the trees would have been still there.
It is his yard, build your own fence.
He 'had' a fence. The Trees.
The Power Company / City cut down the fence he had.
Now you want him to pay to replace what they destroyed?
@@Gwydion_Wolf.He was required to keep them trimmed and he didn't, so the power company cut them down. The city and the power company are not a joint venture. The city doesn't owe him squat.
@@tim2024-df5funope the power company is responsible for keeping them trimmed dumbass but they cut them down because they are lazy
Who's property is this, his or the city. If it is his property and this section is a utility easement, things get complicated. If the property is city owned, still complicated.
City will say it is his, and hes in violation and needs to plant grass
Every road has a certain amount of easement on each side for utilities. That entire hill is most likely all part of the easement, and I would bet even a tad bit above the hill is part of the easement.
I think the tree area is actually public property since the home owner wasn't billed for the tree removal and they did put up a temporary fence, temporarily. I think if it was his trees, they would have mentioned that in this story.
@@peterkn2 It's a utility easement so even if it was part of his property, being an easement allows them to do whatever they want on it. They technically wouldn't be his trees. However, this easement is clearly not even on his property at all.
Duke Energy doesn't have the right to remove trees, only trim for a safe distance from the lines. They should be responsible for correcting the mistake. They have now weakened the soil, risking erosion.
And in 20 years when hill starts to eroised he can sue
A lot of speculation here. When the guy bought the property the power company easement should have been listed in the legal description.
@@TokenTombstone he doesn't own hill.
Old guy wants the fence, then he has to pay for it.
I am sure the city could put up a fence for around 1 or 2 million bucks, or the family could put up a fence (on the property line for a few thousand.
call the Guerrilla Gardeners to plant some size-appropriate plants that won't grow tall enough to hit the power lines.
I suggest a *Go fund me* account. Let everyone in the county see it. Get contractors who are willing to lower costs for this project
Old man can either build his own fence or don't go near the edge.
That's what I say, stay away from the edge dillhole.
I'm also here to write another comment as someone who lives on a hill and have friends who have (unfortunately) experienced similar things
tree roots work to anchor dirt in place and keep it from moving, trees take time to grow and take root, this is not the first time and won't be the last that a company worried about their power lines comes to take our trees
it's quite frankly terrifying, it could rain, the soil loosens....you could lose your home. it's scary. very much so
It's called city right of way and they have the right. He knows his limits and shouldn't be out there in the first place. You want power sacrifices have to be made sometimes. You want privacy and trees move to the country. You'll never get it in the city. He is owed nothing. Read the fine print on county and city regulations. He has a big enough yard without ever needing to go near that slope. He is making a mountain out of a molehill as they say. Hell I'm a physically fit individual and I wouldn't go near it simply because it is not necessary or wise.
And of course he can’t put up his own fence because it’s under the powerlines
It's called an easement. You can't build a fence there because it's illegal. The city has rights to the immediate 8 feet off the road for sidewalks, power lines, light poles etc. and the power company has right of easement under the power lines and railroads have similar easement rights. It used to be alot worse. When they first did the intercontinental railroad the Feds granted land permits to the railroads that extended 2 miles to either side. A lot of people lost their land to that land grab.
I don't think it would matter if it was him or grandkids or whoever if there's an 18 ft drop in the city cut down trees that would have cut them and now they fall and can actually cause a death the city would be responsible because they could have trimmed the trees and left them all about 5 ft to keep you from actually falling taking the tops out of the trees so that they don't get in the power lines is one thing but they didn't have to take the whole trees down that was completely stupid on the city's part !!!
Don't enter city property in the first place and there is no problem. If there were a volcano next to my land I would stay out of said volcano.
He is at zero risk if he stays on HIS land and doesn't go near the slope. Not hard. Why should anyone else gift him a fence? He's an adult
and has zero reason to be on their property in the first place. I stay on mine. It's not difficult.
just because it's one property... all it takes is one person to fall... maybe it's the property owner.. maybe it's the power/water meter reader and the lawsuit that follows and suddenly... oh wait, it was more than one.. worse if a car hits the person or maybe an object that falls below... that attorney should be disbarred.
Nothing some glow in the dark solar charging safety lights wont fix
Don just needs to pretend he's an illegal immigrant, then there would be no problem using taxpayer funds to build a solid gold fence.
O.m.g really this is a complete non-issue the hill has been there forever the guy fell before they cut the trees down all they did was cut the trees down on their property the family needs to shut up and move on with their lives
😂 kicked out if you can’t fix your problem
Who wrote this piece??? Did you go to high school
Honestly, I don’t see how this is the city’s problem. They cut down trees in their property. Just because he doesn’t have a fence or guardrail on his property doesn’t mean the city should put one up….
The money that will be spent on city personnel, lawyers and consultants in dealing with this will definitely cost more that just installing a fence, but I can see that their should be no obligation either. No one paid for my fences but me and my neighbours.
Im not saying that people are made of money, but between this man and his family, cant they come up with $1000 and a weekend to help put up a chain link fence along this?
Im sympathetic to those who lack resources, but I think people need to step up more to address issues.
Here is the argument that needs to be made. Without some sort of barrier, either foliage or manmade, the hill side will deteriorate and begin to collapse. Thus the need for shrubs being a more cost effective and green resolution to the issue. That or just have the power company pay for it lol
It's not hard at all to install a fence and super cheap if you do the work yourself. Or should've got a company to install it and you'd feature them on your story for free advertising.
the stability is gone with the trees... you can't just put in a fence.. the fence will head down the hill as well.. you need to have the slope reinforced with a retaining wall.
Bet the law also states that they can't be a detriment to the public either.
Hopefully they install a fence
So, what about cities building roads and paying companies to build in their city?
If it’s private property then why can’t the son go to Lowe’s or HomeDepo and buy some 4x4 posts and lumber and build a 4’ high fence/rail? Why is an 89 year old man cutting his lawn and not his son? There’s no way I would have or let my father cut his own lawn especially at the edge of an embankment.
His daughter is on the council. Why can't she pay for it?
When the hill starts to slide because Nothing is holding it back it is the cities problem
A few posts, a couple rolls of fence wire and a few dozen thornless black berry bushes would be affordable enough for the homeowner.
So when he does fall on the city property and sues, tax payer money will be used to pay lawyers and the settlement? 👍
This old man has paid taxes his whole life, no doubt and THIS is how he's to spend his final days ... despicable!!
Why should the citizens pay to make sure a guy who should be in a supervised living situation can keep pretending to be an "independent adult"?
already fell when the trees were there. he knows about the hill its always been there. done deal
It’s your property build your own fence why should taxpayers have to pay 🤔🤔🤔.
So if you're endangering the public by not putting up a sidewalk or a rail you can be sued by whoever is injured for negligence because you are obviously now aware of the problem that one person has fallen down that Hill. And there will be others. You should not have cut the trees off so close to the ground because now you've got any erosion problem. This must be Erlanger Kentucky up near Cincinnati. They spend their money on flying pig statues to decorate the river.
What a wonderful place for public art. Maybe a mural on a fence?
All county/city councils do are take our money!!!
I'd like to point out that they got the legal facts COMPLETELY wrong in this case, to the point that i doubted if this story was even taking place in the US, under the US constitution there's a taking clause that says "PRIVATE PROPERTY SHALL NOT BE TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION" even if there was a city ordinance in place that says public funds can't be used if it only benefits a private property owner, that would be considered unconstitutional (illegal) in court
-a boring person who watches videos about case law for fun
The bigger problem is that the trees root system was acting as a retaining wall of sorts. Now that the power company killed all the trees, his land is going to erode into the road. He’s going to need a retaining wall.
will take 20 years for stumps to rot. In mean time others will grow.
Hold on. The City cut down the trees and says they can't address the issue because funds can't be used for private property. If it's private property, who gave them permission to come onto his land and cut down trees? Most cities, including my own, trim trees near power lines. No one would be foolish enough to just cut them down. Then the city says it isn't liable for cutting down the trees?! I smell a lawsuit, and more power to him if he decides to pursue one.
I think the city was saying that they can't use public funds to benefit one property. Probably because it could be considered favoritism.
So it can be done if it benefits the public... but I like their response, "what defines the public" ... he's the public. As for the vote, his participation on the council should not be a factor... perhaps make it so his daughter can't vote?
If he was a hoarder and had a hoard of cars and junk there would be a fence up so fast
So put up a wall, paint a mural on the public facing side and call it a public art installation.
jessica feffe didn't look pleased
The old guy needs to stay in the house
Gee whiz! Who gets taxed? Property owners....
If a fence or tree line only benefitted Walmart or some other business, you can bet they'd spend taxpayer dollars on it.
Sue them, they made this mess by cutting those trees when in truth if it was a worry about wires they could have just trimmed the necessary branches or even cut the trees off below the wires and left the trunks for safety. Isn't it funny how they do something like what they had across the road that serves no purpose and nobody gives a crap what it looks like over there but yet they probably funded something like that and claimed it was millions to do a $500 dollar job but the officials have to make sure they get their share of that money to. If they want to argue that that was an eye sore to the people then it would now be the same on the old guys side because it's the same or perhaps they think people can only see on one side.
Isn't this the plot to Parks and Rec?
Plant smaller shrubs there cheap fix🤗
So they said they would fix it? Then changed their mind?
Public - - - "Safety". I do believe would qualify??? Shalom
If only they would have just “topped” the trees😕
A fencing company could step up and build this guy a bit of fence and earn themselves a ton of karma and free publicity.
So they cut his trees down then proceed to say we will help. then came back and said no. what aa group of losers.
why can't his family pay to put a fence in why does the city have to pay for it
Why did they cut the trees all the way down why didn’t they just trim them at the top? Should be the real question
They don't have the man power to come back every spring to trim trees. I am sure all of you concerned Conservatives will grab some tools and put in a fence for the Old Timer.
@smokingjoe9864 dumbass. They could have trimmed the trees and not have to come back in 4-5 years.
Yet we have to pay for criminal cops🤷🏼♂️🤷🏼♂️🤷🏼♂️🤷🏼♂️🤷🏼♂️🤷🏼♂️🤷🏼♂️🤷🏼♂️🤷🏼♂️
It looks bad but I don't see how it's really any less safe, to be honest...
Why is the old man getting so close to hill. Just stat away.
Get the power company to do it because they took out the trees and now need to mitigate erosion.
They didn't take out stumps
Make Duke energy. Fix It.
BUT Y'ALL CAN PAINT SO DUMB WALLS
If it's a safety issue, then it's a law suit protection.
There was no fence before. Trees are not fences. He can put up a privacy fence.
@@smokingjoe9864 Spoken like a lawyer.
@@skydivingcomrade1648 Spoken like a Tax Payer. He can build his own fence. He should of done it when he bought the house.
@smokingjoe9864 the real question is who owned the trees in the first place
@@skydivingcomrade1648 Who is liable for injury for the fall? Like a swimming pool. You need a fence. Is there a hill or ravine law? Does he have to buy a fence? Now I don't know. Better call Saul!
Bullshif the people representing you are not representing you.
Bull to you, Sir. Why should Daddy Government build him a fence. There was no fence before. The trees had to go. 58 seconds into the video shows the trees on the power lines. Everyone has their hands out, begging.
“WELCOME TO AMERICA……”
Pay for play bbeeeches! Pay for play.
Maybe don't go over there?
it was dangerous before, nothing changed, why would ANYONE bother with this now? NOTHING needs to be done, beautifying? a house next to the tracks... yea... no story here but BS no one is going to or can do about it.
The City attorney is wrong!!, you are using taxpayer money for a TAXPAYER! SIMPLE AS THAT! Again the City attorney thinks it's City (government) money, which means [ACTUALLY] taxpayers money. A government funded it's ACTUALLY TAXPAYERS FUNDING IT!!
Move to a flat land, out of the city.
Doesn’t he pay property taxes on his house?
Wouldn’t the fence technically be paid pack over time from all the years of pay property taxes.
58 seconds into the video shows the trees in the power lines. The trees had to go. People pay for their own fence. If we paid for his fence, then every Republican would have their hand out, asking where is their free fence. You Conservatives always want the Government to bail you out.
What are they talking about its protecting city property, they hill will run off this is a slick move by the attorney. Not only that the RR should give him a sound barrier if he so choses but it look like he enjoys the trains.
Let's ask Norwalk California, put up block walls he'll of a quick...😉
When you cut down trees like that it increases the noise level. And that lowers the property value. The city's already in a position to be sued and as is the power company.
then why can a city, county, state declare property for a privet corp to build on?
Are you asking why the government hires private contractors? Because the city doesn't have enough people in the public works department to handle all of the public work. We would need a Works Progess Administration department like in the 1930s. Unemployment is not high enough to have an army of workers.
the power line has a right of way dont plant something under it
Looks like the daughter has money. Let her pay for it!