Manhattan Beach Undergrounding Utilities

Earlier this month, Manhattan Beach City Council delivered the verdict regarding undergrounding utilities in the proposed District 13. After 5 years of getting signed petitions and cost assessments, those who were in favor of replacing overhead lines with underground lines were very disappointed to hear City Council dissolve District 13 with the 3-2 vote.

So what were the reasons for shooting down such an investment? Well the major downturn was the fact that the original 2006 cost of the project, approximately $3.6M, turned into $6.67M by 2009 due to inaccurate measurements for the required trenching. After the new estimated costs were presented, City Council decided they were not going to allow the project to continue. Good idea or bad idea?

The Pros vs the Cons:

Underground utilities can include electrical, telephone, and cable wires. Once overhead lines are sent underground, there could be a long wait to fix an outage if the lines are damaged…. but there is significantly less risk of damage occurring to the lines meaning outages won’t happen very often. Falling trees, wind, and earthquakes are a virtual non-threat to underground lines. The lines are also protected from water since they are run within conduits. With no telephone poles, there is also less risk of damage to other property (houses, cars, etc) from these poles falling in an earthquake or storm.

And a less-known safety reason….underground utilities also reduce exposure to electromagnetic radiation. Long term exposure to radiation is linked to various adverse health problems including adult and child leukemia and miscarriage.

So in addition to the health and safety advantages, undergrounding will also increase the value of your property. A home in an area that has taken the plunge into underground utilities will see a higher return in market value. For most homeowners, the return will exceed the cost.

So for the cons…when the original proposed cost of $3.6M was announced, there was a vast majority of residents in favor of moving forward. But the economic downturn in conjunction with the increase in price reduced the number of proponents. Many residents decided they did not want to move forward when the estimated costs per home were estimated now from $3000 to about $120,000. For some homes, this would require some financing options to pay it off, and opponents to undergrounding feel the methodology for allocating expenses was convoluted. In the end…the only real downside is the cost.

If you have been following this issue for the past few years, you may be aware that there is no legal way to have Southern California Edison (the electric company supplying the power and the lines) foot the bill. Though they own the lines, they are not legally required to put them underground.

With the economy in the early stages of recovery as we move into 2010, it is worth another look to find a way to make this work. District 13 should not be the end of undergrounding utilities. In the end, it is a great solution with only one obstacle.

www.RebeccaChambliss.com