“We peacefully coexisted with AT&T until recently when they started work to bring U-Verse programming into West Davis,” they wrote in a letter to the city.
The Vanguard spoke to Bob Clarke, interim Public Works director, who reassured us that this was an underground cable system that will be completely unobtrusive.
“The State approved a franchise agreement with AT&T for this upgrade,” he informed the Vanguard. “AT&T has referred to it in their dealings with the City as Project Lightspeed. This upgrade to their network will allow them to provide competitive services to Comcast. AT&T received Planning approval last year and PW issued permits for the construction activity.”
He assured us that the neighbors will not notice it. “The proposed work out in the Stonegate area, as I understand it, affects their underground system and they are performing work in their vaults on Marina Circle,” he said. “When the work is complete, other than the USA paint markings that will fade with time, the public shouldn’t see anything different in the infrastructure.”
However, when we were invited out to Secret Bay Street, we got a very different picture. In addition to the utility box that had been there for years, there were two others large boxes. To make room, AT&T cleared out a huge amount of bushes. At one point, the entire area had been concealed by bushes. Now it is open and bare.
“The new configuration on our property is an eyesore for us, the neighborhood, and was not built as planned/permitted by the City of Davis,” they wrote. “The mature plants that once concealed AT&T’s work were cut down.”
The situation has produced what they consider a blight on their property. “AT&T agrees the configuration is unattractive, but blames the subcontractor for the situation – a blight we live with on a daily bases and which has undoubtedly lowered our property value,” they wrote.
However, AT&T has been extremely unhelpful in terms of fixing the problem that they have caused. They have told them they can plant ground cover, but in digging a six foot hole, they have taken out most of the previous top soil where the bushes grow. In addition, the ground cover is insufficient to cover the unsightly boxes.
The other solution is a fence. “AT&T has offered to fence the utility boxes with the stipulation that we are responsible for maintenance of the fence once it’s built,” they wrote. “They’d also require a signed statement saying we relinquish the right to complain about the situation again – the fence would, in fact, permanently seal the deal.”
In fact, it is worse than that. City zoning only permits a four-foot high fence. The city would grant a ten percent variance which would get it close to five feet. Obviously the city could agree to waive that requirement, but that would likely require council action and the neighbor believes that this should be AT&T’s problem, not theirs.
The other problem is that they are liable for the box, or so AT&T tells them. So any damage that occurs would be their responsibility. Already AT&T has had to come back to put locks on the boxes due to the previous ease of access that any passerby would have to high voltage lines.
A further problem is that the red lights on the box, which do not show up that well in the pictures, are bright enough to be a nuisance, and also a potential hazard as it appears at night that a car may be backing out of the driveway. One neighbor described it as “glaring high intensity red LED lights (brighter than the brake tail lights of an auto), that are especially disturbing after dark.”
Apparently, AT&T is not the best of neighbors either. For years, the neighbors have complained that the workers have used tthe spot to have cold drinks or to sit in the air conditioned trucks, motors running, waiting for hours for a call or sometimes standing by the box and using the phone service.
Now it is even worse. “AT&T trucks are in front of the house by 7:00 am on most days including weekends. The privacy and quiet we once enjoyed are gone,” they wrote.
Another neighbor complained as well, “The ATT service trucks (as many as six at a time plus their trailers) start arriving before 7 AM . . . they play their radios or music when they are not talking on their phones (on Sunday we were serenaded by an ATT technician singing Hawaiian-sounding songs). So our enjoyment of a quiet residentiallly-zoned neighborhood has been disrupted and converted into a de facto commercial zone.”
“AT&T is essentially running a commercial business from the front of our home in a residential neighborhood. Somehow they missed that we’re part of a homeowner’s association – and claim there are stations like the one outside our home all over town,” the first neighbor wrote. “I disagree. When I see boxes like the ones in front of my house it’s always in commercially zoned areas.”
Apparently other communities have done more to protect homeowners from this kind of intrusion. “A simple Google search reveals entire cities have lobbied to keep U-Verse from entering their communities for the reasons I’ve mentioned here,” the neighbor wrote. “Davis should have done the same.”
As the other neighbor wrote, “Many cities have refused to let ATT deploy their “nodes”, but again Davis was either asleep at the switch or was bullied into submission, or saw this as a revenue generator.”
What recourse the neighbors have is unclear. They do live in a homeowners association, and that may give them some recourse. The city council could at least provide a variance. AT&T at the very least should be required to control their workers who are making excessive noise early in the morning. At this point, the neighbors are frustrated and feel their property has been violated.
The worst part is that AT&T controls a ten foot easement and could actually tear down the fence at some point and tear into their neighbor’s property as well.
Will the city step up as they did with NewPath and protect the rights of residents to their own property? We shall see.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
DMG: “The other problem is that they are liable for the box, or so AT&T tells them. So any damage that occurs would be their responsibility. Already AT&T has had to come back to put locks on the boxes due to the previous ease of access that any passerby would have to high voltage lines.”
Now why would the homeowners be responsible for AT&T’s equipment – that doesn’t make sense?
To me either, but that’s what AT&T told them multiple times. Think about it, PG&E runs powerlines and poles through people’s property, are they responsible if that powerline goes down? No. So this is something the city needs to look into.
Let’s get back to the apparent disconnect between what Public Works said and reality. Have the neighbors pursued complaints to the city?
Were the homeowners notified before the work was begun? “Direct action” by homeowners to prevent these unsightly boxes in front/on their property is certainly an option that would effectively halt AT&T’s work if the city does not take action.
“but that’s what AT&T told them multiple times”
I wonder if they are not hoping that this empty threat will prevent “attacks” on these boxes by anonymous actors as 24/7 security is not a viable option.
Even if they were notified, they were misled into the nature of the device being installed.
DMG: “To me either, but that’s what AT&T told them multiple times. Think about it, PG&E runs powerlines and poles through people’s property, are they responsible if that powerline goes down? No. So this is something the city needs to look into.”
AT&T should be made to PROVE that the homeowners are responsible for AT&T’s equipment. Otherwise, I don’t see how they are, regardless of what AT&T says. Furthermore, a letter to AT&T demanding they show the homeowners are responsible that goes unanswered is a paper trail that later can be used in court on behalf of homeowners…
Companies like AT&T are so large they are difficult for the average person to deal with, the city really needs to become an advocate for these residents.
I doubt very seriously that the homeowners are responsible for the boxes.
Have them build the fence and/or re-plant the bushes.
If the home owners are responsible for the equipment, then paint the boxes a different color, such as green to blend in with the bushes.
There is a anti-loitering law in Davis, I believe. Call the police and have them move the workers along. Call every morning that they come. Park a car in the location so they can’t until they find another place to hang out. Point your sprinklers and turn them on so the area is sprayed with water every morning.
A little nail polish over the lights would hid them.
Get the association to intervene on the homeowner’s behalf to get all of this done.
I don’t think there are any anti-loitering laws anymore.
The owner of the property should request a copy of the encroachment permit. If it is within the city’s easement, they should request to see the documentation that the city provided to allow the box. No permit, no documents? Initiate a request that the box be removed.
The utility box in front of our business was located way into the lot when we purchased the site. There was no encroachment permit. Thus we were able to force PG&E to move it. Perhaps if there is no paper trail, AT&T will become more accommodating.
Again, I think an important part of this story is what the city said (Bob Clarke said it would be not intrusive, underground, etc. etc.) and what has happened. Smells a litle like New Path’s MO and the city’s lack of citizen protection. Do we know whether the neighbor(s) has gone to the city after Public Works said this and complained. WHAT is the city doing about it?
Besides ‘elsewhere’, where would AT&T place their equipment?
“Besides ‘elsewhere’, where would AT&T place their equipment?”
Maybe you can volunteer your front yard.
I would suggest not on someone’s property, certainly not to the point of ripping out bushes. When I met with them, they would have been okay if they had left the bushes up and shrouded the boxes like the original box was before, but that’s pretty drastic.
In East Davis… We Love Our Attractive Super Size Utility Strong Box
1. It makes a great curb barrier in case any car veers out of control, over the curb headed for precious lawn.
2. It makes a wonderful “Lost Cat/Dog” poster, neighborhood bulletin board.
3. It attracts wonderful punk wannabe gang graffiti… after all there are not enough rail cars accesible for youths in Davis…
And did I mention it is an attractive metal box?
rusty49: Maybe you can volunteer your front yard.
Pass. Over here in ordinary-people land, we are already blessed with pole & wire installations, including those on my property.
[quote]A further problem is the red lights on the box, which do not show up that well in the pictures, are bright enough to be a nuisance[/quote]David:
Sorry for the off-topic post.
Regarding obtrusive lights, there is a proposal before the County Board of Supervisors to build a 365 foot radio tower at the landfill northeast of Wildhorse and Mace Ranch. The tower will have obtrusive lights at the 200 foot level and at the top.
During the day and at dusk, the intensity of the lights will be 20,000 candelas. At night, the intensity will be 2,000 candelas. As I understand the science, 1 candelas is the intensity of light from a single candle at a distance of one foot. 20,000 candelas is twice the intensity of the sun on a clear day.
This is the same proposal that created all the hoopla when it was proposed south of El Macero. It’s now in a new set of back yards – further out but impacting more people.
On the bright side (pun intended), nothing like a giant bright beacon planted on the dump to make one appreciate the new (nonluminescent) water tank.
The link to the Planning Commission staff report is:
http://www.yolocounty.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=13100
The link to the prior Vanguard article (when the issue was impacts were on El Macero) is:
https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3115:Proposed-radio-tower-in-south-davis-generates-controversy&catid=76:land-useopen-space&Itemid=99
I don’t know when the Board of Supervisors will take up the issue.
As far as having the right to encroach on private property to do such installations and modifications, there is probably an easement stipulation with the property site that allows this to be done. AT&T, however, does not have a legal right to require a homeowner to provide ANY maintenance of the intrusive box or boxes owned by AT&T. If AT&T was quoted correctly, the argument is so absurd it’s laughable. AT&T is bluffing and bullying.
This controversy has abundant political and legal mileage. Try the political first. Remember, AT&T is in a fierce fight with other communication and entertainment providers (cable companies)for the hearts, minds, and wallets of consumers. The last thing AT&T would want would be for this issue to become more public and thereby alienate existing and potential customers. It’s a loser in the public relations arena.
Go up the corporate AT&T chain with this grievance and include those telling photographs. Start at the top. Threaten to get the whole neighborhood to switch to cable. You will then have their attention.
Come this Fall, when the Council is seated, if you have not been “made whole” yet, take this to the City Council. This issue is a winner and the new council members would love to posture for their constituency on this controversy.
Note the weasel words of the acting Public Works Director (assuming, again, he was accurately quoted). In fairness, keep him in the loop and give him a chance to fix it. If this gets to the Council, he’s in real trouble.
If all this fails, take it to Small Claims Court. Your chance of success is extremely good.