Eminent domain by TransCanada for Keystone XL

[Anonymous]

"This week, TransCanada, the company proposing the pipeline, began eminent domain proceedings in Nebraska county courts, seeking to gain access to almost 90 properties where the owners have not agreed to terms. Many of those landowners have said they have no intention of allowing construction."

Why do conservatives usually extol private property rights but are sitting by idly as a Canadian corporation is seizing nearly 100 landowners' properties for a pipeline that will only export the oil to other countries? I am so confused about this.

"“Imagining all those big earthmovers coming in and digging this big scar down our heritage just feels wrong,” said Terri Harrington, the sister who owns a plot where the pipeline would run. She worries that a leak — like one that sent 50,000 gallons of oil into the Yellowstone River in Montana last week, contaminating drinking water — could endanger the land she loves." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/23/us/defending-family-farm-traditions-in-battle-against-keystone-pipeline.html?emc=edit_th_20150123&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=66410721

Pipelines spill. It's not a matter of if, it's when. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in_the_21st_century

It saddens me that the very people who theoretically should be on the landowners' side in preventing a non-US corporation from exercising eminent domain over a pipeline that will not really benefit the US (will not keep oil here) and will only create 35 permanent jobs (cite: US State Department study) are championing this pipeline as some holy grail.

[Anonymous]

I wasn't aware you could use eminent domain for private property transfers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wasn't aware you could use eminent domain for private property transfers?

I think this was established by a fairly recent Supreme Court case involving New London, CT. But it was not a foreign corporation. I'm sure someone else knows more than this and can add more thoughts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wasn't aware you could use eminent domain for private property transfers?

I think this was established by a fairly recent Supreme Court case involving New London, CT. But it was not a foreign corporation. I'm sure someone else knows more than this and can add more thoughts.

Here's the case: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"This week, TransCanada, the company proposing the pipeline, began eminent domain proceedings in Nebraska county courts, seeking to gain access to almost 90 properties where the owners have not agreed to terms. Many of those landowners have said they have no intention of allowing construction."

Why do conservatives usually extol private property rights but are sitting by idly as a Canadian corporation is seizing nearly 100 landowners' properties for a pipeline that will only export the oil to other countries? I am so confused about this.

"“Imagining all those big earthmovers coming in and digging this big scar down our heritage just feels wrong,” said Terri Harrington, the sister who owns a plot where the pipeline would run. She worries that a leak — like one that sent 50,000 gallons of oil into the Yellowstone River in Montana last week, contaminating drinking water — could endanger the land she loves." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/23/us/defending-family-farm-traditions-in-battle-against-keystone-pipeline.html?emc=edit_th_20150123&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=66410721

Pipelines spill. It's not a matter of if, it's when. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in_the_21st_century

It saddens me that the very people who theoretically should be on the landowners' side in preventing a non-US corporation from exercising eminent domain over a pipeline that will not really benefit the US (will not keep oil here) and will only create 35 permanent jobs (cite: US State Department study) are championing this pipeline as some holy grail.

Conservatives believe in private property rights but the private interests of influential corporations and wealthy people trump (pardon the verb) your interests. It's quite simple, really.

[Anonymous]

This is how Nebraska is able to allow a Canadian corporation to seize U.S. land:

"But the pipeline’s prognosis here is complex. Four of seven justices on the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled that the law giving Mr. Heineman the authority to sign off on the route was unconstitutional. The other three justices did not say whether they thought the measure was constitutional, and the law stood because five votes were needed for it to be overturned." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/23/us/defending-family-farm-traditions-in-battle-against-keystone-pipeline.html?emc=edit_th_20150123&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=66410721

[Anonymous]

By giving private, foreign corporations eminent domain rights to steal land from American farmers and ranchers, Conservatives are no longer allowed to EVER AGAIN claim they are the protectors of property rights.

What a bunch of hypocrites they are, for standing behind Keystone XL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:By giving private, foreign corporations eminent domain rights to steal land from American farmers and ranchers, Conservatives are no longer allowed to EVER AGAIN claim they are the protectors of property rights.

What a bunch of hypocrites they are, for standing behind Keystone XL.

If the rulings are recent, who says the change was a republican-driven one?

[Anonymous]

The bills and votes came from Republicans, and the court decisions came from the conservative judges. That's who says it was Republican driven.

They totally caved on property rights to pander to big polluting industry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The bills and votes came from Republicans, and the court decisions came from the conservative judges. That's who says it was Republican driven.

They totally caved on property rights to pander to big polluting industry.

Links

[Anonymous]

Eminent domain for energy infrastructure projects has been authorized by law for many years. See, for instance, the Natural Gas Act. I don't think any thinking person disputes the need for eminent domain in some cases, conservative or liberal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bills and votes came from Republicans, and the court decisions came from the conservative judges. That's who says it was Republican driven.

They totally caved on property rights to pander to big polluting industry.

Links

Keystone was always top of the list for Republicans. Democrats were fighting it. Now that the people have spoken we get what we get.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/16/us-usa-congress-keystone-idUSKBN0JU2GJ20141216

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bills and votes came from Republicans, and the court decisions came from the conservative judges. That's who says it was Republican driven.

They totally caved on property rights to pander to big polluting industry.

Links

Keystone was always top of the list for Republicans. Democrats were fighting it. Now that the people have spoken we get what we get.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/16/us-usa-congress-keystone-idUSKBN0JU2GJ20141216

Opposition to Keystone on environmental grounds was always silly. That stuff is going to be developed one way or another. The alternative to sending it by pipeline to the U.S. is to send it to China by tanker, with far greater environmental risk and an even worse GHG profile due too the energy cost of shipping it that far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Eminent domain for energy infrastructure projects has been authorized by law for many years. See, for instance, the Natural Gas Act. I don't think any thinking person disputes the need for eminent domain in some cases, conservative or liberal.

Except, TransCanada is not a "common carrier" in the United States and should not be allowed to seize US land under eminent domain. Also, how does the product passing through the pipeline benefit the community? It clearly only benefits a private, foreign corporation.

[Anonymous]

Corporations are people AND governments. They are one tort reform bill away from being above the law, around the law, and straight through the law at the same time.