$100 tower lease

[bosox801]

Not sure if this is a Sprint site but interesting non the less.

http://www.kutv.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/Cell-tower-lease-term-costs-landowner-future-earnings-49615.shtml#.VDjSOnPnbqC

 

Sent from my CoziBlurred4.3 gN2

[Yuhfhrh]

Funny thing is, a lot of us here would let Sprint to throw a tower on our property for free. 

[maxsilver]

Apparently tower lease agreements are extremely confidential.

According to Schmidt's database (of tower leases nationwide), the average tower lease in Utah is $1,072 per month. His records show that only one lease in Utah is less than $100 per month

So, tower leases are so "extremely confidential" that lawyers have a database of nearly every tower lease in the nation, including "steals" like Elna's that we're poorly negotiated.

 

 

Sweetheart tower leases individually negotiated like that may have some psuedo-confidentiality. But in general, site leasing companies are fairly open about things. American Tower, for instance, has been really upfront with me about sites and costs. (And what I would need to do to get the lower pricing they offer the Big 4 carriers)

[z250kid]

Funny thing is, a lot of us here would let Sprint to throw a tower on our property for free. 

I would as long as i get to help!!

[JeffDTD]

The only reason it keeps her up at night is because she's thinking about all the money she wishes they were paying her. If she inherited this property, at 100+ acres, you have to ask "what is the lease value of the acreage the tower is using?" Its clearly not stopping the majority of the land from being used for other purposes. Her brother, like many of us, may have been fond of the telecommunications company and saw $1200 a year as a win for him. Who knows. I'm less inclined to say it was greed at the time it was signed. Taking this to the media now reeks of desperation

 

Sent from my XT1096 using Tapatalk

[S4GRU]

You have to be an idiot to sign a lease in perpetuity.  Lessors should want as short of a term as possible to guarantee their ability to reevaluate the market as often as possible.  And lessees should want one as long as possible if they get great terms.  Her brother was a complete idiot.
 

Tony: It's no use, the man is a complete idiot.
Village Idiot: If only! Now my father, he was a *complete* idiot. I'm still a half-wit.

[richy]

IIRC there are or at least were limits on 'in perpetuity' contracts and clauses.

 

At the end of the day theres little recourse beyond hiring a fine lawyer and chasing them over it being a grossly unbalanced contract although that only normally works if one party is in a position to exert undue influence to extract unfair clauses. If someone really did sign a lease for a long term without increments etc and was under no pressure to do so then it's just idiot tax. Unless the law has changed, if it is in perpetuity then it should be limited to X (maybe 20) years after the death of the person signing it.

 

As this is the land of the lawsuit : I am not a lawyer and this does not constitute legal advice nor am I entering into any kind of client attorney relationship with anyone.

[centermedic]

You have to be an idiot to sign a lease in perpetuity.  Lessors should want as short of a term as possible to guarantee their ability to reevaluate the market as often as possible.  And lessees should want one as long as possible if they get great terms.  Her brother was a complete idiot.

 

I actually support the broadcast company on this. 100 dollars a month was a premium 34 years ago. Its not their fault that the owner was dumb enough to sign a perpetual contract. The land owners only recourse is arguing that there should be a perpetual agreement is not an agreement in good faith and that there should be a time limit on it. Unfortunately, I think that if a limit is placed on it it would end up being 99 years. Any lawyers out there?

[jegillis]

IIRC there are or at least were limits on 'in perpetuity' contracts and clauses.

 

At the end of the day theres little recourse beyond hiring a fine lawyer and chasing them over it being a grossly unbalanced contract although that only normally works if one party is in a position to exert undue influence to extract unfair clauses. If someone really did sign a lease for a long term without increments etc and was under no pressure to do so then it's just idiot tax. Unless the law has changed, if it is in perpetuity then it should be limited to X (maybe 20) years after the death of the person signing it.

 

As this is the land of the lawsuit : I am not a lawyer and this does not constitute legal advice nor am I entering into any kind of client attorney relationship with anyone.

 

 

Its the rule against perpetuities, all interests must vest if at all within 21 years of the end of a life in being at the time the interest was created.

 

*I am not a lawyer I failed the bar exam, this should not be construed to be legal advice for your particular situation. Please consult your own attorney.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illustrations_of_the_rule_against_perpetuities