Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Al Funderburk on January 24, 2015 at 5:10

Yep, That's the way it works. My grandfather granted an easement of similar size to South Georgia Natural Gas in 1955 for $57.97. I paid $5.79 in taxes on that same land last year. Back then there was no natural gas in South Georgia and everyone was glad to have the additional resource. Not the case today. I have a problem with a private, for profit enterprise having the power to condemn my property, prohibiting me from operating my business on that property forever, operate their business on my property for as long as they wish and stick me with the tax bill and compensate me based on FMV. The pipeline operator benefits, the gas and electricity customers in central Florida benefit and the landowner gets screwed, all with the government's blessing. If I wanted FMV for my property, I would put it up for sale. It seems to me that the pipeline company should be willing and able to compensate land owners in Georgia at the same rates as they do in other states. They do not enjoy any less benefit from pumping gas through Georgia than they do in Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, West Va., North Dakota or wherever. Any differing opinions?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by P.G. on January 24, 2015 at 5:43

One would think the government would not like this. I mean imagine if all businesses could avoid large property taxes by just making a one time lease payment for their land and use that location forever tax free, huh?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Al Funderburk on January 27, 2015 at 8:35

Government does not care. They will get the taxes from the landowner, not the easement holder. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by P.G. on January 27, 2015 at 10:43

Would a private landowner be assessed a higher value for commercial usage like a business would?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on January 27, 2015 at 12:38

Though they don't own the land they have to pay taxes on their assets like pipelines and oil & gas wells.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe Aldridge on January 27, 2015 at 22:50

P.G.

No, You are not assessed a higher rate. I have several pipelines that cross one of my properties North to South on my West property line, an Entergy power corridor on my North property line that runs the entire length of the property and a 48" sewer line that crosses the front of the property on the East. I still own the land except the sewer line right of way. The Parish bought that from my parents for a road and they contend they can use it for anything. So I'm surrounded by servitudes and my property tax rate has not gone up. So the property tax issue is moot. I can use the property for agriculture where the servitudes are but not commercial development. I might add one of the pipelines crossed my property without permission and to settle they pay me a yearly rental for the servitude. 

Hope everything works out with you. It is a battle you can't win with their ability to sue you for right-of-way.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on February 2, 2015 at 10:58

Al:

A couple of other items to consider re: ROW grants:

Typically a permanent pipeline ROW will not affect crop and/or harvesting operations unless your property is used for orchard or timber.  Consider other advice given here in this thread re: minimum depth of cover (4' / 48" and 5' below all ditches / sloughs / other bodies of water (streams, branches, creeks, etc.).  Losses of timber are usually paid at salvage value or current market value (not full future value).  Crop trees represent a more substantial investment and should be value based upon an aggregate loss unless trees are immature - then you may have to fight for crop value.

Do consider one-time temporary workspace for initial construction only.  Limiting of line size in GA can be somewhat problematic; limits to number of lines to be laid generally is not.  Any company pursuing condemnation proceedings would have to specify the type of use and system(s) to be installed, so unless the initial plan involves multiple lines to be laid, the usual is to permit for one line / one system.

Be specific as to use: general ROW contracts allow for multiple uses which may be "associated" with the primary use, which then becomes an alternate use by the utility.  For example, GA Power was sued a number of years back for attempting to run fiber-optic along their ROWs.  In those areas where use was specifically limited to the transmission of electrical power, they lost as to their right to lay or hang those lines that were not incumbent upon operating and monitoring an electrical system.

Consider establishing an access route for grantee to use for ingress and egress to the ROW strip.  Many generic ROW agreements allow for access "across the lands described" as a means of ingress to and from the strip.  This should be limited along the permanent ROW only.  Such access should be non-exclusive, maintained solely by Grantee, and should future use on the part of grantor warrant, the access should be available to be paved over without additional cost to grantor should grantee or other regulatory body require additional protection to grantee's facility (this would especially be important as to possible future residential or commercial use; if the property is long-term farmland, relent as to paving).

Unless something has changed in the last few years, (and unlike in LA) any common carrier registered with the Ga. PSC could condemn property using "quick take" procedures.  In other words, once the property was assessed, reasonable attempts to contact and convey a FMV offer and/or negotiate a reasonable offer were made and failed, and proper legal notices sent, the carrier could obtain judgment and permission to construct across lands condemned with the only issue to be resolved is the compensation to be paid / awarded by the court, less all legal and permissible fees.  OTOH, in LA, the only entity that can invoke "quick take" proceedings is the Highway Department (DOTD) - everyone else has to go through a lengthy court procedure prior to construction.  Because of the potential loss involved with a delayed project, many owners in LA fare much better on negotiation than in other states.  Not so much in GA.

One other thing to mention - you state that this line is planned to be installed parallel to an existing utility route.  This makes a negotiation for reroute much more difficult, in that courts and the PSC prefer adhering to existing utility "corridors" where established (surface impacts are better consolidated / less impact to property / minimization of "landlocked" properties beset by multiple easements traversing large swaths of property rendering entire tracts unusable, etc.)  Hence, in a condemnation situation for a given set of facts, a court may be more likely to determine landowner's demand for reroute to be impractical / unreasonable.

Good luck to you.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe Aldridge on February 2, 2015 at 11:38

Dion,

The City of Baton Rouge and the Parish of East Baton Rouge also have quick take capabilities.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on February 2, 2015 at 17:38

Joe:

I don't think they do, at least to the extent that DOTD does. All DOTD has to do is file the suit and deposit with the registry of the court. The court, or plaintiff (DOTD) or its agent(s) can then notify the defendants of the expropriation, with defendant waiving all rights except as to compensation. I think EBR / City at least is required to convey an offer, but they have their own statute, as do the cities of Shreveport and Bossier City. I would respectfully aver to attorneys dealing with expropriation as well as annotations and case law pertaining to R.S. 19:1 et seq. and 48:441-460 et seq. in any event, the state or political subdivisions can expropriate property for any legitimate purpose with very little issue or defenses availed to the property owner.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page