What you are suggesting sounds good. When using wood posts, even the pressure treated ones will rot sooner in wet ground, so if you pour a cement footer and attach the post where it will be above the moisture, it will last a full life. Other alternatives are to use steel posts which will take much longer to rust away than wood posts will take to rot, or use cedar posts. Cedar lasts almost forever in difficult conditions, is nearly indestructible (and difficult to hammer staples into).

Thanks deep roots, I'll be using wood as it's in the upland portion of a wetlands, and retaining the natural feeling is a desired goal. I have gotten some furhter advice from my construction friends that concrete actually cures very well in saturated soils/groundwater. So I'll be putting in concrete piers with 4X4 metal post attachements on the top. The piers will be made using a sono-tube concrete form to prevent hole collapse in the saturated soils and to prevent phase separation of the cement components which may be caused by pouring them into standing water. The peirs will be constructed to be a few inches above ground level (in case of seasonal flooding), which will keep the post dry. These posts may actually last longer then the other posts installed above the groundwater level!!

Hi, I'm building a fence here in sunny southern California. I'm using con heart redwood 4x4 posts. I've found some conflicting theories about how to set the posts. Some say concrete, some say gravel... and I'm looking for some advice on what wood protector to use for the base of the posts. Because my soil is heavy clay and the drainage is poor, I don't think gravel is a good idea, it'll just create a cauldron of water for the post to soak in after it rains. Even though concrete doesn't seem much better, I think that's the way I'm going to go. I'm definitely going to use about 6" of gravel at the bottom of the hole, and make sure the base of the post is set in an inch or two of said gravel before the concrete goes in. Since the fence is going to be unpainted and I want the natural look of the wood, I'm avoiding using PT wood for the posts, and I've had recommendations to use either asphalt emulsion (Henry 107) or Woodlife Copper Coat green to coat the part of the post that's going into the concrete. The Henry seems like a waterproof coating, while the copper is more of a wood preservative. It doesn't rain very often here, but when it does the posts will get a good soaking, and the ground will take a while to dry out due to the poor drainage. Some say that the Henry 107 will cause water to get trapped inside the wood below ground, accelerating rot. The copper coat would at least allow the wood to "breath" a little and allow it to dry out during our long periods of no rain. I know no matter what I do these posts may only last 10 years or so, but I'm looking to give them the best protection to start with, so they'll last as long as possible. Thanks for any input!

Would a new, wood, privacy fence on one side only (all 3 bedrooms) necessarily be a selling point by which I could recoup the fence investment, or would it instead be a turn off and potentially lose me prospective buyers? I've been receiving tons of mail from as-is investors, so I wonder would they offer more, less or no different with the new fence in place? They will likely turn it into a rental, as most are around here now, and therefore won't care one way or the other about the fence, but I wonder whether bumping my price up to cover the fence cost would lose those potential buyers. For those curious, the reason for the single-side fencing is the rental property next door on that side. I've lived in this house for over 50 years, the owner of that rental property has owned it for decades, and the renters get worse with each turnover. The other neighbors don't intentionally cause me trouble, so I don't feel the need for more than the existing chain-link fencing on those sides. The last tenants were neighbor-from-hell, drunk & drugged out, criminal trespassers who habitually abused my property during all-night parties with numerous friends and relatives. They only escalated their terrorism after I called the cops on them. They were finally evicted after a number of years. These houses are very close together, and I don't want a repeat of that experience for the remainder of my stay here, no matter how short it may be. I've ordered new security lights and will get those up, hopefully before new people move in, and will likely install cameras as well (perhaps not if I put the fence up). I could have put security measures in place during the previous renters' stay, but I've no doubt they would have made good on their threats to stab me in the back, etc. (their relatives threatened to stab each other during one fight). At the very least, I'm sure they would have sabotaged my fence posts during the night while the concrete was curing. I'm not going to bother discussing a "joint" fence with the rental property owner, for a number of reasons – one being that my new fence would extend well beyond the existing chain link fence border, to cover the entire side of my house and well into my front yard, up to the allowed street setback point, and there's no way he would agree to share in that additional cost. So, I'm going to almost certainly have to build on my side of the existing chain link fence. Yes, a new $urvey would be performed first. I just need to know whether I'd be taking a big loss with the new fence. My peace of mind is worth something, but I'd like to put those multiple thousands of dollars into my new place instead of this old house that I'll be leaving behind in the not-too-distant future, especially since I won't be fixing it up. If I can be reasonably sure I'll recoup the investment with a higher selling price, I'll put up the fence. TIA, Gus