Accurate

I know 😂 Clearly we struck a nerve

I hear you. I just can’t imagine it not being cost effective to bury the lines. Yeah it would be expensive upfront, and it wouldn’t all be able to be done, let alone at one time. And it would be even more expensive to dig down there and figure out where the issue is coming from than it would be to physically see the issue from above ground.

But how much would we be able to save on emergencies services (whether it be the on-call GMP folks or the fire dept because of a live wire during a storm) — plus having to replace old equipment anyway? If we can’t reuse the above ground equipment and have to get new stuff anyway, wouldn’t that put us in better standing in the long run too?

How many years would it take to level out and we start profiting from the underground systems?

Everyone in this comment section just wants to point fingers about how expensive everything would be but where are the actual numbers? Has anyone even thought that far ahead?

This is the kind of breakdown I was thinking about, but it seems like everyone in this comment section is so afraid of change that they can’t even have a friendly conversation about it.

I’ll have to look into that, I didn’t know that.

weird, it’s like I posted on a public forum about it. what the sleuther you are!

Yeah I’m on your side here. Aesthetically more pleasing, less damage done when major storms happen, and yeah it costs a lot for upkeep and to get things started but then if it’s done correctly, the amount of times someone is gonna have to dig it up for repairs becomes minimal.

yeah except they had to make that payment once, not yearly, multiple times a year.

it’s definitely more expensive to have to annually fix these things and send out the manpower from other agencies to deal with the emergencies. Not sure why Vermont hasn’t gotten on the ball yet either.

trust me California has rocks and bedrock lol. look up “high desert California”