The landscaping and other aspects of the property would be restored, but trees are not permitted there. Legally, the homeowner would still own that property and pay property taxes on it. But the utility company decides how to use the property, which raises the question — who is the true owner?
Saluda Dam Road homeowners have understood for years the possibility that the road may be widened someday. But that would not have nearly the adverse effects of having a barren front yard — 30 acres of property without any trees.
Easley Combined also wants a temporary 20-foot easement.
Easley Combined Utilities told the residents the prices they would pay for the easements: $17,000 per acre, or 39 cents per square foot for the temporary easement, and 8 cents per square foot for the 20-foot temporary easement.
When residents pressed Easley Combined General Manager Joel Ledbetter, he said they would also consider additional payment on a case-by-case basis.
As one property owner noted, the residents aren’t opposed to having a water line, but they are opposed to Easley Combined destroying their landscaping and trees.
At the end of a lively debate on Monday night, one ECU commissioner said he has been historically fair with people.
Now, let’s talk a little about fairness in this situation.
Easley Combined will not be acting fairly if they didn’t consider an alternate route, or sought to find a way to allow us to keep as many trees as possible. Preventing us from ever having trees in 30 feet of our property is simply asking too much.
Easley Combined will not be acting fairly by offering only $17,000 an acre. As one resident pointed out, he paid $24,000 for an acre of his property about 20 years ago.
Easley Combined will not be acting fairly if it does not discuss recompensing the value per tree.
Easley Combined will not be acting fairly by not recompensing residents for the devaluation of their property. A home without curb appeal loses much of its value, especially since many potential buyers will not consider the home without that curb appeal. If an appraiser rules that the home will depreciate by $20,000, Easley Combined should be willing to pay for the property value loss.
At this point, Easley Combined commissioners have told Saluda Dam Road residents that the water line is an absolute necessity.
Easley Combined General Manager said that Easley Combined would have the right through eminent domain to obtain an easement even without the homeowners’ approval. We understand that technically they are allowed to do that. We also understand the democratic process — if enough people speak out, they are more likely to act fairly.
At this point, we just hope that they will treat us appropriately and not try to rip us off.
In the end, Easley Combined must remember that these Saluda Dam Road homeowners and residents are customers, and that it is always important to treat your customers fairly and with respect — even when you’re a monopoly.
Unfortunately, I was not provided any information as to this recent meeting held by Easley Utilities and therefore I was unable to stand with you. I live along Olive Street where this proposed water line will completly destroy my "curb appeal" and sound deadening effect the trees I currently have in the front yard of my home provide. While I understand the need to provide water to other residents down line, I and my neighbors will NOT receive ANY benefit from the line. I'm sure most of us would not be against allowing the water line to be installed along the CURRENT easement. Why must you remove very high dollar landscaping I have installed yet will never to be recouped for? Is this fair? I would submit to you that it is not. This is my first letter on this matter and it will be followed up with many more to Senators and Congressmen. As a regestered constituant, I will make every effort that our voices be heard by our elected officials, representatives and delegates in power to affect change.
I implore the Easely Combined Utilities management and engineers to hold another meeting to explain WHY they feel they would need all 30 feet my property. I urge others like Mike Beeco to keep the rest of us informend on any of these meetings that we were not informed of by Easley Utilities and didn't know about. Again this is concerning the question of why 30 feet of land is needed for a 36-inch water line. Eminent Domain not withstanding this isn't fair to the residents nor well thought out by Easley Combined Utilities and its team of engineers.
What the residents along this proposed water-line route expect is to be treated fairly and provided honest answers to valid concerns. To date, neither of these actions have been acted upon.
Mr. Sam Cowell
Easley