North Dakota holdout landowner refusing to sell rights for Sandpiper oil pipeline
So, aside from the fact that these people have an environmental agenda, which is ok in my view, I wonder how does the government of a state get the right to take private property just so they can give it to a private company? A couple other articles suggest this company is an LLC in Delaware that just happened to get permission to function in SD as an public entity, entitling it to use a law made for use on public projects (such as water, electricity etc). It seems that they should not have the right to take it from one to give to another for a purely business purpose. Am I wrong here?
There are cases from the western Washington case where the government wanted property to build data centers and the farmer that owned would not sell. They changed the zoning codes so that it could only be wilderness land and then after a couple of years force the sale at the wilderness land prices (about 100 an ache verses the 10,000 or so it was worth before.) which hit the supreme court and the supreme court (state not federal) ruled that the state had paid for the land and thereby meet the requirements for imminent domain. Another case hit the supreme court in which the government won imminent domain and the farmer in this case stopped appeals as there was little hope of getting it overturned. He had something in the thousands of aches, thought I cant recall the exact amount.
Property taxes, and the ability to confiscate your land if you do not pay makes the land belong to a state and you paying a lease on land you have all ready purchased.
There are so many ways in which we no longer have property rights its frighting and it is left up to the person to prove that the value assessed by government to your property for them to buy it is less than it should be for fair market value most of the time.
We don't "set the base reason aside"; the context cannot be dropped. Focusing on property rights of viros while ignoring what they are doing is like the "libertarians" who, missing the entire philosophical point, cynically savaged and sneered at Ayn Rand for praising the achievement of the Apollo flight to the moon and denouncing the "private" human trash hippies at Woodstock for what they were.
"Before the construction of the park could start, the area had to be cleared of its inhabitants. Rossi states that part of the impetus to schemes such as Central Park and others was to remove shanty towns and their denizens, who consisted of free African Americans and English/Irish residents, most of whom were poor, but some of whom were middle-class. Most lived in small villages, such as Harsenville, the Piggery District, or Seneca Village; or in the school and convent at Mount St. Vincent's Academy. Approximately 1,600 residents were evicted under the rule of eminent domain during 1857. Seneca Village and parts of the other communities were razed to make room for the park."
Then later the corruption of Robert Moses: The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York http://www.amazon.com/Power-Broker-Ro...
Regulatory takings are not an aspect of eminent domain. Eminent domain specifically requires paying for what they take; regulatory takings take control leaving you with the paper deed and the tax bill. Both are implementations of the anti-private property rights philosophies.
What you think of the criteria for eminent domain doesn't matter in the face of a government that has already established in its own precedents the power it has assumed.
Rights are in no way conditioned on beliefs or actions (except tort). They all must be enforced in each and every case, or they're not rights any longer. It's the right that's being defended, not the people.
In this case the viro activists have been trying to prohibit the pipeline through "wetlands", which government designations are themselves destroying private property rights. They claim to be for "safety" and fear "leaks" while ignoring that shipment by railroad as the alternative is less safe. But the viros have been trying to ban that too. In the name of "safety" from any industrial risk they want to shut down civilization through de-development and restrictions to "renewable energy". This is the politics of the eco "sustainability" sacrifice people to nature ideology.
The Botsfords in particular say they are opposing “trying to suck the last oil out of the Earth” and are only opposing the eminent domain because they don't like the particular planned use of the land. They are also voluntarily in a "Federal conservation program", most likely also meaning that they are getting government money for it.
No sympathy for these clowns, not without dropping the political and philosophical context. It's the chickens coming home to roost. "Poetic justice" by an unjust means.
The viro ideology is not an "angle"; it is a fundamental assault on civilization, including all of our rights, and is central to this story because Botsford has made it central, both in his own mind and in a public display.
Botsford doesn't just want his land left as it is. He is a viro preservationist who hates the industry for drilling for oil anywhere. He is renting some of his land for farming and the rest is in a government "conservation" program. The pipeline is an underground easement that does not affect farming, or doing nothing -- ironically, it only prevents development over the right of way, seeming to be an ideal way for a preservationist to be paid to do nothing on his land. But he doesn't want a pipeline anywhere on or under the surface of the earth. He is an anti-industry activist using government "wetland" regulatory takings to try to stop the pipeline on other land. He is aligned with Indian tribalist activists and wants excess legal fund donations to go to "Plains Justice" and "Honor the Earth". He does not oppose eminent domain, he wants his viro beliefs to make him exempt from it because he hates the pipeline company.
Viros often own property -- from primitive camps to mansions -- but oppose private property rights. They see their own "approved" use of private property as more of a feudalist entitlement, the opposite of rights. Their ideology is not just "politics". Atlas Shruged is not about supporting these people in the name of subjectivist "libertarianism".
Want to know what is especially disturbing about the Kelo case? The land was taken, but still sits there undeveloped. All that has been done is to rip out the houses that were there.
I was not supposed to be that way.
But after the Founding Fathers came the canals, the railroads, automobile super highways, shopping centers and, yes, now pipelines.
I'm sure that's true of some other of our now bloated big government's alphabet soup of agencies.
Under the new system. Simple confiscation is sufficient.
But your main idea is correct if the purpose is purely business the action lacks any moral value. I would agree but it didn't hold water under the old constitution and it there is no bottom in the pail under the new system.
By the way it didn't just happen to get permission. Delaware based LLC's and full Corporations have been common for multiple decades.
The sequence will be refusal to sell (unless a high enough amount is offered) or if they are smart retain ownership and get a slice of every barrel pumped with provisions to protect liability. Or a request for the use of Eminent Domain and that is up to the people of North Dakota first.
Like anywhere else land ownership only means the amount paid for the privilege of paying property tax and assuming liability.
Nothing new there. The old concept disappeared along in the early 1900's.
New London, Conn. (And on Plessy vs. Ferg-
uson). But what we need is a Constitutional a-
mendment abolishing eminent domain nationwide.
(but for the fun of it define 'just compensation.' You can google it and should come u with a bunch of Supreme Court decisions.
OK I give up they won their revolution. When does the counter revolution start? i'm ready to enlist.
It goes something like this:
"I know that it is yours BUT I don't like that."
"I have been eyeing this up for a long time."
"You have enough and you don't live near here anyway."
"Besides, I have more money, prestige and power than you do, therefore I can do what I want to you and by the time I am done playing my games, you won't have anything left anyway therefore: GIVE UP NOW!"
This won't end well for the landowners (sadly).
That would come under my own personal favorite excuse: "I have 4 children and you don't have any, therefore the REAL future belongs to me." (Context dropping and concept swapping.)
Their big time guru is a UC Berkeley pimp that likes to be called Yoda but some of us pointed out that was offensive and demeaning. he works for George Soros directly. You want to undersand them a little better look for a book called Framing the Debate or how to frame those whose property and freedoms you want.
I'm having too much fun insulting them but another way to think of them is enemies domestic.
Yes...typical jargon and behavior of people who seek to re-create reality.
The weak-minded are their first target and, unfortunately, our political system is filled with the weak-minded.
Incidentally:
My mother was very weak-minded.
The owner claims he would never sell, but the company only made a token offer of $50k and apparently decided to let the state steal the land from the owner on the company's behalf. I'd hate to be in the position of the manager that has to do this deal, but he apparently hasn't tried to find out what the seller really wants. Maybe a $250k donation to an environmental charity plus $25k for the seller would move them along (with NDA contract.) The buyer is a lazy looter who doesn't want to deal with a free market solution. The property rights of a small land owner are just as important as the rights of a well connected conglomerate.
Scratch ND off the relocation list. (But it has lots of govt nuclear targets and a lousy climate anyway.)
A typically misleading aspect of the article is the statement, “Using eminent domain is always a last resort... We strive to reach amicable [sic] agreements with all of the landowners along our pipelines” and the statement or implication that all the other landowners are expected to be willing sellers after "negotiation". Government agencies, including the National Park Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service, always claim that property not taken under direct court order is bought from "willing sellers".
In fact, the "negotiations" rely on holding a gun to the property owners' heads (or at least an obvious bulge under the coat stuck in their ribs). Ordinarily the only legal issue in a condemnation case is the amount to be paid, not whether the property can be taken, and the amount paid must legally be only "fair market value", not what it is worth to the owner even if he is willing to sell.
That is the kind of coercion the property owner is under in the "negotiation". Most owners give up under that threat and sell without the expensive futility of a court case to try to stop the taking and the costs of legal fees to try to get more compensation. Yet we are constantly told the former owners were "willing sellers" if they aren't ordered by a court to sell. Using eminent domain as a "last resort" is the threat to take the land; it is eminent domain. Calling it "amicable" adds insult to injury.
But offering a $250,000 donation to a viro organization would only compound the injustice. The Botsfords have already said they will not willingly sell at any price. There is no such thing as a fair price for something that is not for sale. The issue is property rights, not pandering to viros by paying them Indulgences for evil pipelines contrary to the viro 'morality' of human sacrifice to nature.
There is more than enough of that already, for example with "wetlands mitigation" in which property owners must pay off government agencies or NGOs like The Nature Conservancy in penance for using their own property contrary to the viro creed. Another big example is the "carbon credits" scam, in which Indulgences must be paid for the sin of producing energy. And Federal land acquisition for preservationism is claimed to be a repayment to Mother Earth for the sin of industrial civilization, drilling for oil in particular (this is one of their arguments pushing for a Federal annual entitlement of $1 billion/year for land acquisition bypassing limits of Congressional appropriations).
Paying off the Botsfords with a distorted amount to a viro organization would ignore the moral issue of eminent domain, transferring it to martyrdom for a phony viro "idealism", while paying an outrageous amount of money for them to do more damage somewhere else.
http://constitution.findlaw.com/amend...
This indicates to me that the main problem, again, goes back to the term "public use". I do not believe any of our public entities is secure from corruption, and I am perfectly ok with believing that you will find a money trail a mile deep in this case, as well as some judges pre-greased to make the "right" decisions. The system as is, cannot afford a high profile vote against their ability to do what they want. The footnote to citation 164 (Missouri Pacific Railroad vs Nebraska, seems like it could be relevant.
http://constitution.findlaw.com/amend...
It is very difficult to take a case to the Supreme Court. It costs over $1 million and fewer than 1% of cases are accepted to be heard. Non-profit public interest law firms like Pacific Legal Foundation and Institute for Justice who have the financial backing to try to set precedents are the kind of organizations you need behind you in addition to local attorneys.
There are some "victories", but for the most part the courts are part of the same government driven by the same ideology. The idea that injustices are stopped by "going to court" is a myth.
A "revolution" would only cause more destruction. If you can't win votes how do you expect to win a war?
http://www.hh-law.com/puc-decision-su...
An oil or natural gas pipeline should not be treated as a public utility. It is owned by the oil or natural gas company. This case should parallel the Keloe vs. New London case, but because of incorrectly established precedent, it won't be.
I think it is reasonable that a utilities commission should have some oversight authority via the permitting process, although definitely governments have generally taken this way too far.
Let's not forget Edwin Edwards either.
Gas pipelines could reasonably be considered public utilities, as individual citizens generally buy their natural gas from the public utility. Oil pipelines, by contrast, go to Cushing, Oklahoma, and then eventually to Houston, Texas, before they are sold by non-utilities to the consumers. It really is a fundamentally different case than natural gas pipelines, but it is not being treated as such.
The reason why eminent domain was used for pipelines is that many people get natural gas plumbed directly into their own homes ... by a public utility. This is a case where a law that was reasonable has been bastardized by overreaching statists and cronyists.
Let's use an analogy.
You own a gasoline service station. The local government takes a few feet off of your property to expand the road an extra couple of lanes. It's an inconvenience, but not a fundamental overreach because you knew when you bought the property that the first six feet of your property might be subject to that.
Now an oil company wants to run a pipeline through or under your property. First of all, the time where your service station is inconvenienced is likely more (but perhaps not given the inefficiency with regard to road construction), but moreover the oil company is a private entity. You should have the right not to sell your property. This really should be fundamentally be compared to Kelo, but it won't be because Sandpiper has obtained eminent domain privileges (not rights) in the past for its natural gas pipelines. Sandpiper should not have gotten eminent domain privileges in North Dakota in the past because its pipelines are not being piped into individuals' homes. Now they are extending upon a previous incorrect court decision toward a further injustice.
For the greater good, it also lowers oil prices.
Nonetheless, they make a few facts in error. A company like Enbridge builds a pipeline, which is really a transportation system like a railway, and charges other oil producers a few to move their oil through it. Much like a railway charges to move it.
The impact of using rail to move all the oil out of North Dakota (we're talking Saudi Arabia levels of oil reserves... not a few barrels... it's many billions of barrels). The extensive use of rail for example has eliminated all rolling stock & engines from availability to ship iron ore from the Minnesota iron range to Duluth for shipment to the Eastern US & overseas. The problem is so exacerbated, that there is no more room to stockpile it on the Iron Range, and without the money from sale, the mines are now shutting down, putting entire communities out of work (yet again). Its not a lack of demand or market, it's a lack of resources to ship it. Railways are generally regional, and the oil pays better than rock ore, so they are completely ignoring the market.
We're also moving huge quantities of petroleum through urban areas...the railways were designed to move product to people, not product 'around' the people. So a few thousand gallons in a leak here & there is pretty inconsequential compared to some of the cases where there was a train vs. truck accident or something and burned a city to the ground.
Hence, their argument is likely false - this isn't about 'moving one company's product to market' - it's about moving the entire productivity of a region to market. And one that is very critical to national security.
I'll bet if the Sierra Club, Soros, and whoever else wasn't paying their legal fees, this would be done & gone. They don't even live there, it's 'farmland he inherited' - so, not being worked either I'd guess - at best, he is leasing it to someone else to farm.
So here's what I love about liberals... I live in a highly Republican community, about 75% red-voting... (I've looked at the numbers actually), over 90% own firearms, many have horses, etc. We're regularly demonized in the Sacramento area as "that place"... we don't conform. However, close to 50% have solar panels on their houses, we are a net-positive energy producer to the grid for the rest of the region, I see a hell of a lot of Volts, Teslas, and BMW EV's driving around (far more than others), and if you go to ... oh... someplace like Davis or Berkeley, it is completely the opposite. They never seem to practice what they preach, they want a gold star for hugging a tree in the buff on camera, but as with the political class - will always take a private jet while bitching about polluting tailpipes.
This is what is wrong with these people... "Do as I say, not as I do".
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetec...
But it isn't about pollution, it's about power and control over people.
I"m a little closer to the knowledgebase on that, have a lot of relatives that work in the iron range.. my cousin is an electrical engineer for one company while her husband is an electrician for another. Several mines have already closed down for lack of anyplace to stockpile anymore supply until the logjam starts moving again down the tracks.
http://bismarcktribune.com/mobile/art...
He says he's still trying to stop the taking, but he can't. He can only argue in court over the amount he is paid: "My point is I don't want to go to court and argue over how much they should pay me and get that settled by the court because I don't want to be doing business with them. I don't want their money." But he has lost that: "The trial, scheduled to begin Tuesday in Grand Forks, is only to determine the company's compensation for the land west of Emerado".
Botsford does not oppose eminent domain, he is trying to use the courts as a circus to promote his viro ideology as an exception: "Botsford said Enbridge's actions represent an 'abuse' of eminent domain. His unwillingness to allow them to use the property also stems from his concerns about fossil fuels' effect on climate change."
According to the other article Bosford is a "retired Indian law attorney" and Indian activists will be at his trial. Here is the bottom line from these loons, and it's not about private property rights: "Unspent donations will go to environmental groups Plains Justice and Honor the Earth".
I am not "hung up" on viros and this is not about frivolous cartoons on "UFO aliens". Their ideology is central to this story and to the rest of national and state politics attacking human civilization. Botsford wants it that way. Joining the viro trashing of energy production does not justify Botsford's political antics pretending to be the "martyred idealist". You originally wrote that his "environmental agenda... is ok in my view." It isn't ok and it isn't a frivolously irrelevant side-show.
He will most likely loose his legal adventure, but he isn't toast. The pipeline would be buried invisibly under his land, not affecting anything he wants to do or not do on it, only gnawing at his religious obsession, which he caused himself. He doesn't care about private property rights or eminent domain as a matter of principle. But the rest of civilization is "toast" if this viro movement is allowed to continue politically with the attack on private property rights and human civilization itself becomes progressively worse.