Opinion ID: 1496482
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Ad Valorem Taxation

Text: SBC also argues that if its facilities are property for purposes of ad valorem taxation, they are property for purposes of a takings claim. See City of Fort Worth v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 80 F.2d 972, 975 (5th Cir.1936) (concluding that [i]f the right to maintain the company's poles, wires, and conduits ... is property for purposes of protection, it is property for purposes of taxation). The court of appeals, however, correctly noted that City of Fort Worth involved taxation, not inverse condemnation, and that the case expressly recognized that the predecessor to section 181.082 at issue in that case reserved `a supervision through the municipality as to the placing and alteration of the [utility's] fixtures.' 263 S.W.3d at 68 n. 13 (quoting City of Fort Worth, 80 F.2d at 976); see also W. Union, 450 S.W.2d at 766 (holding that telegraph company had to relocate at its own expense; authorities cited regarding ad valorem taxation were inapposite). Thus, while SBC has a property interest in its facilities, that interest is subject to the terms of the original grant. When, under a valid exercise of the police power, the facilities inconvenience the public, they must be moved at SBC's expense. While our answer might be different if SBC faced the complete removal of its facilities, rather than their relocation, that is not the case here. See, e.g., 2-5 NICHOLS ON EMINENT DOMAIN § 5.03 (Where the change requires not merely the relocation of the facilities, but the complete removal of the facilities from the right of way, compensation must be made.); City of Louisville v. Cumberland Tel. & Tel. Co., 224 U.S. 649, 659, 32 S.Ct. 572, 56 L.Ed. 934 (1912) (It is claimed that in consequence of these laws the street rights granted the Ohio Valley Telephone Company have been withdrawn, or at least made subject to municipal revocation.).