"These cases constitute strong precedent upholding pipeline companiesÛª right to enter property for surveying purposes in anticipation of constructing a pipeline. Although the separate issue of whether pipeline companies ultimately enjoy the power of eminent domain for pipeline purposes remains to be litigated, the reasoning of the cases weighs in favor of pipeline companies on that issue as well. "
what about private property rights? No mas?
No thanks, I get shot at enough. Besides, I don't like the eminent domain idea myself. Something about that whole I own it, I get to say what happens to it, you can't take it away from me.
Eminent domain for anything commercial is a travesty and cuts across the grain of our Nation.
Well, I'm going to guess that the large-scale use of condemnation of private land for quasi-public purposes began in the 19th century with roads and railroads. Roads were generally a no-brainer in a state without many of them and railroads squeaked in under the same tent on the theory that their existence would provide such an abundant common good as to be undeniably in the public interest.
On the other hand, condemnation for purposes which have no well-definted connection to any general public interest, such as condemnation for "redevelopment" or for interstate pipeline construction, are stretching things beyond the elastic limit, particularly when the private landowners do not enjoy full due process in the condemnation process and the entity seeking the taking is unable to identify the public interest served.
Mike Falk, post: 391708, member: 442 wrote: http://www.ralaw.com/media/alert/pipeline-companies-win-key-battles-in-war-for-eminent-domain-rights-2016-09-19/
"These cases constitute strong precedent upholding pipeline companiesÛª right to enter property for surveying purposes in anticipation of constructing a pipeline. Although the separate issue of whether pipeline companies ultimately enjoy the power of eminent domain for pipeline purposes remains to be litigated, the reasoning of the cases weighs in favor of pipeline companies on that issue as well. "
Jefferson set the precedent with his Lewis & Clark expedition. Of course he got it from English law which put him here to begin with.
The mayor of Pittsburgh tried to use eminent domain in the early 2000's to "redevelop" the downtown area.
https://ilsr.org/pittsburgh-businesses-fighting-massive-retail-complex/
That area is booming now, so apparently eminent domain was not needed.
I was totally against that. Now, a local municipality (next town south of me) is threatening to use it against a closed country club. A developer bought the property and now the township and the school district want it for a park and a school:
That is totally wrong as far as I am concerned. Highway, yes. flood control project, yes. Park and school, no way.
Gas pipeline? I am conflicted about that. One property owner could derail a pipeline by refusing to sell at any price. Same thing happens in fracking. A typical marcellus shale gas pad sucks gas out of a large around around the well pad, something like 1 mile diameter. One owner who is against fracking could affect the ability of the other surrounding owners to make some money on their mineral rights. So many states have "forced pooling", which is basically the same as eminent domain. I think it should be an absolute last resort in those cases.
I have an uncle (attorney) who makes his living getting more money for property owners in eminent domain cases. So I imagine he is more in favor of the process than I am.
There wouldn't be a decent public linear improvement in the United States without eminent domain.
Public entities using the power to condemn for shopping malls, urban renewal, etc. is just plain wrong and has made a portion of my professional life hell.
Steve
Mike Falk, post: 391708, member: 442 wrote: http://www.ralaw.com/media/alert/pipeline-companies-win-key-battles-in-war-for-eminent-domain-rights-2016-09-19/
"These cases constitute strong precedent upholding pipeline companiesÛª right to enter property for surveying purposes in anticipation of constructing a pipeline. Although the separate issue of whether pipeline companies ultimately enjoy the power of eminent domain for pipeline purposes remains to be litigated, the reasoning of the cases weighs in favor of pipeline companies on that issue as well. "
Key words in Ohio ruling: "...and may appropriate so much of such land, or any right or interest therein, as is deemed necessary for the laying down or building of such tubing, conduits, [and] pipes.Û"
Paul in PA
Here is the link.
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/9/2016/2016-Ohio-5771.pdf
I live a mile from the Bakken pipeline currently going in. Agree or disagree the issue was decided years ago. I'm amazed how many people are surprised to learn there are hundreds of miles of pipeline that have been laid and used for decades. Of course the news doesn't report that part of it so how would they know?
linebender, post: 391944, member: 449 wrote: I live a mile from the Bakken pipeline currently going in. Agree or disagree the issue was decided years ago. I'm amazed how many people are surprised to learn there are hundreds of miles of pipeline that have been laid and used for decades. Of course the news doesn't report that part of it so how would they know?
There's a new crude line being placed just east of town here and I don't have a problem with it. Pipeline companies dot all their i's and cross all their t's. The R/W has been obtained for almost ten years on some of it, none by eminent domain. But it's a college town. And all the tree hugging self-diagnosed-gluten-allergy professors are trying to make a big stink. It makes fodder for the local news.
One of the more interesting aspects is a good number of property owners that stand on camera and act the victims. They swear they never talked to the pipeline company and now their land is torn up. What finally came to light was the fact the previous owners sold easement (along with a wider temporary construction easement) and the right-of-way was established prior to "the victims" ever taking title to the land. One misinformed (and toothless) Okie spouted on camera " they can't do that...WE own the land now ". I'm sure any attorney worth his (or her) salt took their money and then told them there is nothing they can do.
I just sit and shake my head when the evening news comes on every evening...
paden cash, post: 391959, member: 20 wrote: One misinformed (and toothless) Okie spouted on camera " they can't do that...WE own the land now ".
Okay, I call "redundancy" on that one. :>
That's funny Paden. I had dinner last night in our college town with a person eating from the gluten free menu.
linebender, post: 391961, member: 449 wrote: That's funny Paden. I had dinner last in our college town with a person eating from the gluten free menu.
see what I mean? hmmmmkay...;)
http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2015/06/23/10-years-later-heres-what-happened-to-the-land-seized-and-sold-to-developers-in-a-controversial-supreme-court-case/
If you remember the "Kelo" case, well this is taking was [SARCASM]Soooo worth it[/SARCASM]
A cafe in Dublin, Ireland has made a big splash on Facebook by requiring a doctor's note to be able to order gluten free.
It has been several years since the last pipeline upgrade went in around here, two 42in cross country line along side two existing lines.
If they were all combined into one, it could be declared a one way tunnel.
There were several decisions to reroute into new territory because residents and commercial wells and chicken houses were inside their original plan.
Afterwards the major beefs were the extent of difference that owners were paid for use of their land.
Some had hired a negotiator and received 10 times what the low end paid.
I am still surprised that the payout is still quoted in terms of $xxxx per rod.
@Karoly
I have blown my diet with the return of my amped version of Potatoes O'Brien cooked in a combination of breakfast sausage grease, olive oil and butter some times finished off smothered in cheddar cheese and an occasional addition of sour cream. I make it at a variety of consistency from soft fries to crispy taters.
paden cash, post: 391959, member: 20 wrote: But it's a college town. And all the tree hugging self-diagnosed-gluten-allergy professors are trying to make a big stink.
I lived and worked in a community that had a an organization called "friends of the hills" which challenged all new developments that were seeking planning approval in the foothills of the community. I always wondered who were the people that made up such an organization that had time and money to challenge all that development. Then one day a developer I was working for had me do some preliminary layout so the "friends" could visualize the future impacts. To my surprise it was a bunch of liberal professors from the local community university that made up a large part of the "friends". Who else is over paid and under worked and can claim community service as part of their paid work. It was eye opening to me. Jp
Jp7191, post: 392034, member: 1617 wrote: ...It was eye opening to me. Jp
I know. And don't get me started about academia...I quit HS in the 10th. grade because I couldn't stand their insolence.
A few years ago the EPA lowered the ppm's of chromium and arsenic allowed in "safe" drinking water. A good amount of our public water supply is augmented with municipal wells and being in the Garber-Wellington sandstone, there are elevated levels of both that occur naturally. But with the new numbers published, about half of the city's wells had to be taken off line. Those that remained on-line (out of sheer necessity) still had "close to the limit" levels.
One chemistry PhD at the local university began writing scathing articles in the local rag condemning the city for "poisoning" the populous. I wrote several retorts but the paper never published them (shocker...). I mean it's the same damned water you had in your tap yesterday. But because somebody in Washington lowered a couple of numbers a few parts-per-million; today we're being poisoned? Bullcrap. We've been being poisoned all along by simply inhabiting the surface of the Earth. Get over it.
I'd like to publish a "faux" report that glutens have been found in our drinking water and sit back and listen to the stupid mother-forkers cackle like hens. 😉
