Willie_the_Wombat t1_j9s48fg wrote

I would imagine that depends on the terms of your lease. Does your lease specify that you have occupancy of the entire property, including outdoor spaces? You might make a case if you have responsibilities for upkeep of the properties exterior (lawn care, snow removal, etc…), that signage is under that jurisdiction, but that’s probably still a pretty big stretch. At the end of the day, the owner of the property is going to have the ultimate jurisdiction over what is or isn’t permissible. My advice, and keep in mind this is not legal advice, I’m not a legal practitioner, is to not start a fight with the properties owner. My understanding is that at the conclusion of your current lease, the owner can decline to renew/discontinue/ terminate (not sure of the actual legal term) your lease “without cause”, meaning they would not need any reason other than “I don’t want to” to not renew your lease.


Willie_the_Wombat t1_j9r4ekb wrote

Are you pouring your concrete into the bottom of the hole as a footing? Or are you going to pour it around the posts? If the second, are you going to use sono tubes to pour your concrete into? The reason I ask, is because frost needs to get under something to lift it, if you pour concrete directly into a dug hole it takes the shape of that cavity, giving the frost ample opportunities to latch onto all the inconsistencies of the rough surface. So even if the post is 4’ deep the frost could grab onto the rough concrete at 6” and still lift your post. If your assembly has a smooth outer surface the frost can’t lift it unless it can actually get under the bottom of it. All that said, I would not advise the use of concrete to backfill pressure treated posts to begin with. But if you’re going to do it, at least use sono tubes.


Willie_the_Wombat t1_j6llvvy wrote

Yeah, the problem here is that Vermont is obviously a rural state with no real cities. As a consequence almost everybody who has somewhere to go already has a car. Those folks who are already necessarily paying for a car along with all the associated costs aren’t going to want to pay for railways they aren’t going to use. Especially when those cost would be coming out of funds that go to the relevant departments/agencies that already can’t maintain the roadways to serviceable standards.


Willie_the_Wombat t1_j22vp1g wrote

I hope that’s not the real issue, because that would be recklessly irresponsible, but unfortunately I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised.

I have also noticed that road markings are markedly less visible, whatever policy caused this needs to be reversed immediately.


Willie_the_Wombat t1_j06wu6f wrote

Yes, back when I was an apprentice. We attached conduit to the bottom of a covered bridge at a winery.

You (or your contractor) will be responsible for installation of the primary conduit run in whatever path it takes. But your utility (GMP or others) will design that installation for you. Primary (before the final transformer) is outside the jurisdiction of the NEC and local inspectors if applicable. The utility will specify what conduit(s), cover, attachments, etc… for you depending on the particulars of your project.


Willie_the_Wombat t1_j06tqu2 wrote

That really depends on what you mean when you say “stream”. If it’s small enough that your driveway would cross it using a culvert, you would just continue the conduit underneath. If it’s big enough to require a bridge for the driveway, you’d probably surface the conduit on both sides and attach to the bridge.

As for the state getting involved, I believe that depends on the size of the watershed being collected. But I don’t know the exact regulations, or dimensions.


Willie_the_Wombat t1_j05s17q wrote

Most utility providers will require their primary conduits to have 36” of cover. If it’s not practical to achieve that depth, you could potentially work out a contingency with concrete encasement.

Edit: “primary” meaning from the last utility pole to the transformer location. From the transformer to the meter location and/or entrance of the structure is considered the “secondary”. In most cases secondary conduit will require 18-24” of cover, depending on material and use.


Willie_the_Wombat t1_ity2l29 wrote

35, so miss me with the boomer meme. Nobody is forced to work there, can’t speak to quality because I’ve not owned one. What else you got?

Edit: to add; Tesla jobs are competitive, and their vehicles sell en masse. So it appears the markets don’t agree with your evaluation.

Edit2: well done! You’ve decided you can’t handle decent to your opinion, unsupported as it might be. So you’ve decided to block my ability to respond to your response.

Well, okay. The following is my response to your response (that I was unable to post as a response, because you didn’t want to hear an antithetical opinion).

There you go again, calling me “boomer”. I just now told you I’m 35 years old, that puts me dead in the center of the “millennial” generation. Are you deficient in reading comprehension, or just obstinate?

If you’re going to make accusations about illegal activities, let’s have some sources showing violations of the laws respective to the jurisdictions under which the infractions were committed.

You don’t get to say “I don’t like this, so it must be illegal”, that’s not how the world works.


Willie_the_Wombat t1_itxq78c wrote

I enjoy watching leftist not know what to do with themselves. It’s comical to watch you all purge those who aren’t “pure” enough. We are killing the planet, right? So EVs are good, right? But the ceo of Tesla likes free speech, which is bad, correct? So Tesla must be bad because the ceo is bad, even though they produce EVs which are good. Do I have that about right?