- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 34,951
- Reaction score
- 16,311
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Oh, that the latest excuse?
It's a distinction without a difference IMO. Bottom line is landowners are being ordered to allow a purely for profit entity to seize their land for private use. What's the public benefit? The private benefits flow primarily to Canadian oil companies and Keystone. Some refineries in Texas will benefit. For what public purpose must a landowner in Nebraska be forced to make that happen?
Again, no, it's not a private entity seizing land for private use. It's a local government seizing land to be used, by way of lease and tax payments, by a private entity. The local government determines it's in the public interest to lease the land for such uses. It provides revenue to the local communities that would otherwise not be available.
I can appreciate you don't like eminent domain laws, but Trans Canada Pipelines didn't invent them, legislate them, or enforce them. If you've got a problem with them, you've got a problem with your political leaders and your court system.
The point was whether it's the private entity seizing the land or the government granting the private entity the right to seize the land isn't a distinction worth quibbling over. The end result is the same.
That's right - eminent domain is to be used for "public use." And I don't really understand conservatives who have historically championed private property rights cheering on this project with little to no concern over the fact eminent domain is being used to condemn private property to benefit Canadian oil companies, Keystone, and Texas refineries. I'm not sure what the alleged public purpose even is?
And IMO we should all have a problem when all it takes for a private entity to seize our property is a majority vote by some legislative body.
It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it's still not true. Private entities are not seizing property. In this case, and others, the jurisdiction - that's government - takes control of the land, pays the landowner, and then leases access to the land to the private entity. The private entity at no time owns the land so your claim that they seize it is nonsense.
Secondly, jurisdictions don't agree to do this for no benefit to their community. They gain revenue from leases and taxes for the life of the pipeline, which is around 30 to 40 years, and in many of the jurisdictions, they gain employment which also generates wealth for individuals in the communities and economic activity and tax revenue that springs from that employment.
I appreciate that you may think politicians are utter idiots, and some are, but I don't know of a single politician who would agree to such a project without garnering some benefit to the community they serve. Don't you find it strange, if you believe what you post, that politicians in all the jurisdictions directly affected approve of this project and a large majority of the populations in the affected jurisdictions approve this project, but those who aren't directly affected, perhaps like those in Tennessee or Hollywood, don't approve of the project?
You're deliberately missing the point. At the end of the day, there is a pipeline owned by Keystone across that landowner's property. How that happens - which party exercises the power of eminent domain - makes no difference to the landowner or affects the outcome.
But by that standard, then there is really no restraint on the use of eminent domain for any private purpose at all. My mother in law owns a small piece of commercial property on a corner that, 10 years after she bought the place, turns out to be directly across a planned major new shopping and entertainment complex. Whose decision should it be to sell that property to, e.g. Best Buy? Hers or the local county commission - maybe the state legislature?
OK, so if the Tennessee state legislature decides some farm outside Lenoir City would make a great place for a manufacturing plant, it's fine if they pass a law giving the private entity the power of eminent domain to seize that farm. I just don't agree.
Well, you are trying to equate a multinational project with the building of a plant in a small town. There is no way to equate the extent of potential public interest override between the two. To prove that point, a poster previously in this thread indicated that Hyundai wanted to build a plant in a Kentucky jurisdiction and one landowner put the kibosh on the whole deal by refusing to sell and the plant went to Alabama instead. Not all projects and not all jurisdictions resort to eminent domain to actualize their plans.
Because they can force the Dem candidate to either stick with BHO's decision and get hammered as anti-growth and anti-jobs, or abandon BHO's decision and turn off the environmental base. It's a great wedge issue for the Repubs. I would not be surprised if Repubs are hoping for a veto.
Again, I don't agree. If we're using a "public interest" standard, it's seems simple to argue that the public benefit to Nebraska and the local community of a major car plant FAR exceeds, by orders of magnitude, the public benefit to Nebraska of a pipeline across the state transporting oil from Canada to Texas.
And saying not all DO isn't a defense either. The only barrier, then, to the state seizing that property and selling/leasing it to Best Buy is the ability to buy enough votes in the legislature, with the rationale that Best Buy will pay more in property taxes than the current farm and our little commercial building.
(9) Under the Court’s decision in Kelo, Justice O’Connor warns, ‘‘The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.’’.
(10) Justice O’Connor further warns that, under the Court’s decision in Kelo, ‘‘Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party’’, and ‘‘the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result.’’.
Repubs win either way. If BHO signs it he angers his environmentalist base and hands the Repubs a nice win. If he vetoes it he hands the Repubs a powerful issue for 2016.
Check out some of the comments from people in Nebraska if you don't think they see economic benefit to them from the building of the pipeline through their state.
And since you mention "buying votes", are you happy that Obama's dear friend, and financial backer, Warren Buffett personally benefits if the pipeline doesn't go through? You are aware that his Burlington, Northern, Sante Fe railroad transports millions of barrels of Canadian oilsands bitumen from Alberta and Saskatchewan to American midwest refineries and American gulf coast refineries right now, collecting great gobs of money doing so? And guess what? Eminent domain was used in laying track for all of these rail lines that are transporting oil in a more dangerous fashion.
I do not CARE whether the "people of Nebraska" see 'economic benefit.' What I'm discussing is property rights and whether the government should have the power to seize YOUR farm and transfer it to GE if, for example, enough of your neighbors think doing so would benefit them. I don't know why you're deliberately missing the point.
Buffett's not the issue, but nice try.
And you mentioned railroads. Sure, eminent domain is used all the time for such projects, roads, bridges, power lines. In fact my grandfather's old rural 10 acre home place had a major power line built right through the middle of it - ruined it for purposes of anyone putting another home there. A nice man met with my mother, said here's the check, we asked what our options were, he said "None - you can sue but you'll lose."
But the public benefit or use of a railroad or road or bridge or that power line is obvious and uncontroversial. Other than some lease payments, I'm not seeing the public benefit to Nebraska from a pipeline transporting Canadian oil to Texas refineries.
No.. WPA was a permanent jobs program. Led to the creation of 8.5 million jobs.
Two points:
1. This thread may not be about Buffett, but it's not about eminent domain either - you made it the issue by speaking against one and not the other.
2. Your position is hypocritical because you complain about eminent domain being used to support a private entity to build a pipeline but you don't complain about using eminent domain to support a private entity to build rail lines.
I think we've exhausted our views on this issue and we're never going to agree - and that's fine. Take care and have a good day.
And what were field were a majority of the jobs in?
Let those farmers/ranchers jump then.Many farmers/ranchers jump at the chance to have a pipeline built across their land, just like they do when a cell tower is built on their land. Good, easy money.
You agree that the supreme court's eminent domain rulings are "the darkest hours in the history of this country's Supreme Court"?I agree. Most people don't realize that it was the liberals on the court who ruled that eminent domain could be used for private enterprise and conservatives on the court dissented.
Because they can force the Dem candidate to either stick with BHO's decision and get hammered as anti-growth and anti-jobs, or abandon BHO's decision and turn off the environmental base. It's a great wedge issue for the Repubs. I would not be surprised if Repubs are hoping for a veto.
Hyperbole much?Yup, exactly right. I always wonder when Liberals scream about corporations stealing from the little guy and blah blah why they don't scream concurrently about the Liberals on the bench enabling it through that ruling.
BTW, what's a bit funny is this has long been a conservative issue. Here's legislation titled, "Protection of Homes, Small Businesses and Private Property Act of 2012." And some language:
One of the co-sponsors of this is Cornyn, who also enthusiastically supports Keystone. I'm not sure how to square those positions.
I have mixed feelings on this. Should one person be able to prevent a major project that could bring money and prosperity to a region with few resources ??
A few years ago, Hyundai announced plans to build a major plant near here. It would employ thousands of people directly, not counting the support plants that would employ even more. Everyone that owned land in the proposed site agreed to sell, except for one person. They refused. This was before the liberals on the SC ruled that eminent domain could be used for private businesses. Of course Hyundai decided to build their plant in Alabama instead of Kentucky. Thousands of high paying jobs and tax money were lost.
I don't think that person who refused to sell is a very popular person these days.
Infrastructure. Roads, bridges, parks, recreational facilities, hospitals, sidewalks, schools.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?