So what is "this?"
Tree cutting - vegetation removal: As best as I can reconstruct things from that single late-in-the-process channel hop was that an item originally set for the consent agenda had been pulled from there, for discussion and debate; it being this resolution (with the accompanying staff memorandum thumbnail below the resolution thumbnails - click them to enlarge and read):
 |
| Online link - p1 |
 |
| Online link - p2 |
 |
| Online link |
In our neighborhood phone service is undergrounded, the Connexus power grid shares public road right-of-way above ground, and cable is strung on the Connexus poles, well below the power lines. Phone providers do not need to cut trees, the cable company never has, and that leaves Connexus, saying online the following (with highlighting added - and, again, click to enlarge and read):
 |
| Online link |
Our family experience so far has been okay. As part of trimming along road right-of-way that Connexus shares with Ramsey and other utility providers, within the past five years they rang the bell with a door hanger notice of tree trimming along the road. We got the office and CELL phone numbers of the Connexus employee supervising tree trimming, he visited the property and noted where a ten foot cylinder around the power lines would be, where branches would best be further trimmed to a branching point as best for the health of the trees, etc. He took about an hour or more, and when the crew came a few months later (working on contract for Connexus either from Otter Tail Power or doing all their contract trimming as a private contractor, I am unsure) they discussed what they'd do before doing it, and even trimmed the private service line area between adjoining properties on request, as a safety matter, gratis, upon having a homeowners' request. They did good work, and the initial doorbelling was done by a rep of the trimming people, on behalf of Connexus. In every instance somebody was home, it was not a property where owners all were at work during the day, and the Connexus rep was hard to reach. He did not return office voice mail, but the CELL number worked, and once we'd gotten through after several attempts, he was accomodating.
I am aware that others have had less satisfactory experiences with Connexus, fitting the Elvig statement noted earlier - and Connexus has the unjustified vindictive policy that they will not let anyone run to be on their board who has been in litigation with them for five years after litigation has ended. That is simply outrageous, since they are saying an owner cannot be on board and there's no reasonable basis for it. It sucks. Sue them for trashing your land, they take an ownership right away, or attempt to - I have not seen that policy litigated and I wonder if it would stand up in court if heard by a good and sensible judge.
That said, the highlighting in the Connexus item above is interesting. They must have a legitimate and enforceable "right-of-way," they cannot be trespassers, not lawfully, and that "deemed to consent" language begs two very big questions: deemed by whom, God, the Pope, the President, some pencil-headed pencil-pusher working for Connexus; and if Connexus wants to deem itself having the power to kidnap your children, that does not give them any lawful authority to take the brats, so extrapolate from that.
Some Connexus employee or worse, some hired-gun lawyer, deeming this-or-that, does not make it so, as a legitimate matter of law - not until a suit is filed and a judge makes a decision. Such language, by Connexus, falls under what I call "weasel words," where you can guess what I have in mind.
All of that is a prelude to what is or is not actually lawful. If you've a beef with Connexus, consult your lawyer and follow his/her advice, that's obvious, and I know the lawyer I'd pick for such consulting, one in practice in Anoka County for years, a top-notch litigator, and one who does not gouge or inflate the bill while being quite skilled at holding unneeded costs to a client down while still doing a quality representation.
I am not publishing any name, not advertising, but I will answer any legitimate good-faith email on the subject. We each have ways of making new choices, people we can talk to about choosing a lawyer if we've never hired one, etc.
I suggest there are two questions - first question, does Connexus have a legitimate lawful duly recorded right of entry, an easement grant, and you can look at your title policy that you should have gotten and kept from when you bought your property to see what easements of record then existed, while any you've signed off on while there should be something you remember where you hold a retained copy.
Second question, if there are easement rights, were they exercised reasonably.
Clearly, "reasonableness" and "reasonable necessity" for a power company to trim or remove trees and/or vegetation are debatable questions, and if you choose to sue Connexus you can expect to be deep-pocketed big-time. Barna, Guzy or an equivalent established firm likely will be retained, with an open account to do what is necessary to win or to force an adversary's capitulation by dint of activity and expense. That's at least my view of "deep-pocketing" the adversary in litigation -- you hold the by-far deeper pocket, and exploit it relentlessly. So, the faint-of-heart can like the City's resolution, but if it goes to court - BE READY ...
I am not a Minnesota lawyer, so I cannot give anyone legal advice; yet my opinions about what the law should be and how things should properly be arranged between a monoply service provider having power to enforce a contract of adhesion as far as judges might allow, are part of my inalienable First Amendment rights to think and speak freely.
That said, my belief is that Minnesota has one leading, definitive case on tree trespass, Miller-Lagro v. Northern States Power Co., decided in 1998 (online, here). It involved an actual right-of-way power, not a speculative one, and the Minnesota Supreme Court remanded for a determination of what degree of tree trimming [hence also other vegetation removal] was "reasonably necessary" for the utility to safely provide power within its public grid [there being no suggestion I could see in that case saying in any way that private stub lines off the service-grid and meant only to service an inland property would fall under a governmental road right-of-way assignment of utility routing rights]. The Court cited Minnesota's tree trespass statute:
Minn. Stat. Sect. 561.04 TRESPASS; TREBLE DAMAGES.
Whoever without lawful authority cuts down or carries off any wood, underwood, tree, or timber, or girdles or otherwise injures any tree, timber, or shrub, on the land of another person, or in the street or highway in front of any person's house, city lot, or cultivated grounds, or on the commons or public grounds of any city or town, or in the street or highway in front thereof, is liable in a civil action to the owner of such land, or to such city or town, for treble the amount of damages which may be assessed therefor, unless upon the trial it appears that the trespass was casual or involuntary, or that the defendant had probable cause to believe that the land on which the trespass was committed was the defendant's, or that of the person in whose service or by whose direction the act was done, in which case judgment shall be given for only the single damages assessed. This section shall not authorize the recovery of more than the just value of timber taken from uncultivated woodland for the repair of a public highway or bridge upon or adjoining the land.
History:
(9585) RL s 4449; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1986 c 444
Again, how that case, other precedent, the statute, guessing at how vigorously one suing Connexus might be deep-pocketed, and how far (i.e., whether a will to settle to avoid a possible adverse direct precedent exists, etc.) are matters that only a most seasoned lawyer can assess and discern, and even then with no absolute degree of certainty. If you sue Connexus, the better your lawyer and the stronger your will to continue as far as needed, the better your chances of prevailing. But that is true in any litigation position you choose to enter or into which someone else chooses to plead you into. In war you'd want better firepower and armor than the adversary, etc.
If you walk from a fight at the outset, you've lost, but sometimes that's cutting your losses in a rational way. Sometimes not. It is the hold 'em - fold 'em dilemma that is part of life and the human condition.