Judge Halts Use of Eminent Domain for Keystone XL in Nebraska

[Orbitus]

Or you could look at the oil that is sold as tax revenue for the country as a whole. If we become a major oil exporter it will help our prices at home stay low.

Its not our oil. It won't benefit us in the least. We are just going to be the ones refining it for Canada so the can sell it to the rest of the world.

[Rizendragon]

Not really hateful speech when its true. Repulicans were flipping shit when Bundy was being supposedly thrown off of "public" land that he wasn't paying for. Now Republicans, supposedly the people of the constitution, are turning their backs as a private company from another country is kicking people off of their land, including Native Americans, to build a pipeline that will ship oil to Texas from Canada. That oil will most likely not even be used for the US and will be sold to other areas of the globe.

The oil will be refined (essentially manufactured) here in the USA and will be subject to the USA's export taxes. Weather all of the oil will be used here or not isn't really the point. The point is more manufacturing jobs = good for the country. So many manufacturers have left already thanks to various free trade agreements that any source of jobs would be good at this point.

- - - Updated - - -

Unlawful deprivation of property. Does this really need to be explained?

Did you read any of the rest of my post or are you going to ignore the fact that the people that signed contracts are being financially compensated for the land that is being used? "Unlawful deprivation of property" assumes no agreement was entered by either party.

[Reeve]

You need to start somewhere, and I think it would be easier to stop one from being built than it is to remove one.

Why do we need to start at all? Pipelines are a normal part of the modern economy.

[Rizendragon]

If eminent domain needs to be enacted, clearly at least some people didn't. Eminent domain is only for public use, not private. Enacting it to benefit private companies is unlawful.

The power to take private property for public use by a state, municipality, or private person or corporation authorized to exercise functions of public character, following the payment of just compensation to the owner of that property.

I guess that depends on the definition you're looking at. Oh... I bolded the part I've been arguing all along btw...

[Garnier Fructis]

I agree with that sentiment, but I think you're missing the point. The hydro fracking has forced methane gas into the water supply in the western states it was done in because of the process that is used to extract the oil. This is an entirely enclosed pipeline being built to stringent environmental codes that has a low chance of spilling once it is erected. The people stating that this will destroy the water supply are playing on that fear.

We can look at hypotheticals or we can look at their record, and their record is that their Keystone 1 pipeline they built some 5-6 years ago had 12 spills in it's first year of operation.

Every company tells you they're building the safest and best thing ever. Doesn't mean it actually happens that way.

- - - Updated - - -

Why do we need to start at all? Pipelines are a normal part of the modern economy.

Because some of us want to change exactly that aspect of the modern economy.

[Rizendragon]

We can look at hypotheticals or we can look at their record, and their record is that their Keystone 1 pipeline they built some 5-6 years ago had 12 spills in it's first year of operation.

Every company tells you they're building the safest and best thing ever. Doesn't mean it actually happens that way.

In those areas what has been the long term fall out? Since they are 5-6 years old we can really start looking at that. You can also reasonably assume that those failures have been looked at and corrected. Environmental spills are bad publicity, expensive, and inefficient. They'd be wise to fix those issues for phase 2.

[Orbitus]

Has anyone actually taken a look at the map of the area this pipeline is going through? It isn't like this is going through Downtown Manhattan where millions of people live. The route was specifically chose to both reduce building costs and reduce private displacement. NE has one of the lowest populations in the country and most of the area is farmland. We won't be losing much in the way of farming production with this pipeline going in. This is basically the two sides arguing semantics.

The company that is building the pipeline is buying the land they are digging through according to the 3 articles that were posted. 90% of the people asked took large land buyouts. At this point it's the 10% that are saying "no way in hell big oil is buying me!"

And they have NO RIGHT to kick people off of their land. The pipeline is going through an important aquifer in Nebraska. Something that provides most of the water for the entire area.

That Aquifer apparently provides water for parts of 8 states. That pipe leaks and there goes those states' drinking water. Especially for a company that has a shitty track record when it comes to safety and oil spills. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...e-xl-pipeline/ 12 Oil spills in 1 year by 1 company isn't really all that good of a track record. Especially when they don't want to put in monitoring pieces on their pipeline. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-1...tion-tech.html

That is enough for me to reject the whole thing on principle right there. Saving the aquifer, especially because they don't wnat to put spill protection parts on their pipeline.

[Xargoth6634]

I haven't really kept up with this, but I'm trying to figure out how a foreign company is able to declare eminent domain in the US.

[Rizendragon]

You seem to have conveniently missed the "for public use" part.

public use

n. the only purpose for which private property can be taken (condemned) by the government under its power of eminent domain. Public use includes: schools, streets, highways, hospitals, government buildings, parks, water reservoirs, flood control, slum clearance and redevelopment, public housing, public theaters and stadiums, safety facilities, harbors, bridges, railroads, airports, terminals, prisons, jails, public utilities, canals, and numerous other purposes designated as beneficial to the public.

With the creation of jobs during and after the completion of the pipeline I can see the argument of public benefit.

[Orbitus]

I fucking love when people like you try to talk about the oil industry. You are so wrong.

Why? What am I wrong about? Everything has been proven to be true in there. Even the TransCanada CEO says it would be no more than 50 permanent jobs.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...will-be-built/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/1...ne-XL-Pipeline

Video proof of the TransCanada CEO even admitting that it will only be about 50 operating jobs and the rest of the jobs will only be temporary.

[Rizendragon]

Creating a handful of permanent jobs doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of the examples. Creating jobs in general doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of those, which have clear public benefit besides job creation.

And that is where political interpretation comes in. It's up to the court really at this point. No amount of bitching matters to people that have a life time term. They're simply there to interpret the law and hand down a ruling.

[Orbitus]

With the creation of jobs during and after the completion of the pipeline I can see the argument of public benefit.

50 jobs isn't really that good of a job creation from such a giant project.

[Aeno]

Not really hateful speech when its true. Repulicans were flipping shit when Bundy was being supposedly thrown off of "public" land that he wasn't paying for. Now Republicans, supposedly the people of the constitution, are turning their backs as a private company from another country is kicking people off of their land, including Native Americans, to build a pipeline that will ship oil to Texas from Canada. That oil will most likely not even be used for the US and will be sold to other areas of the globe.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Republicans as the supposed protectors of the Constitution. Unless the Democrats have decreed it to be unnecessary and Republicans are now backing it.

It's a pipeline from Canadian oil lands owned by China, to gulf oil refineries, most likely to sell to Europe. None of that benefits the US. And pipelines are ugly as fuck, and people's land is being taken for its cause. In fact, special interest groups are lobbying both Dems and Repubs, so it's not a partisan issue. It's just made to look like one.

Also, you can't hide contempt behind a reason like "truth". You might as well approve of this: "The backwards arabs don't give freedom to their women because they are barbarians." I mean, come now.

[Resies]

I got in an argument with my dad about this and he said they already had all of the land and eminent domain wasn't being used

I mean if Fox says so it must be true

[Brubear]

I fucking love when people like you try to talk about the oil industry. You are so wrong.

Since you're an expert on the matter then why don't you enlighten "people like us"?

[Rizendragon]

What exactly is your point again? Because you have utterly failed to make an argument that this is an acceptable use of eminent domain, instead simply arguing it's possible they'll rule in favor of TransCanada, which I didn't question.

And you have failed to point out why they shouldn't. So what exactly is your point. We both have valid arguments that cancel each other out. The fact of the matter will come down to weather a structure that is designed to transport a raw material from point a to point b to then be refined and sold to the entire world is enough to call it "public" or not. That really is the bottom line. You haven't made a strong enough argument to say no it isn't. It's strongly within the grey area.

I also find it funny that people claiming that "eminent domain" doesn't include financial compensation. The contracts signed already include compensation. But I guess "seizing" sounds better than "buying out" when you aren't in favor of something.

[Aeno]

Retarded argument+Retarded argument=2 retarded arguments...they didn't cancel. I revoke your math license.

[Rizendragon]

When you don't have a choice to decline, it's still seizing, whether they compensate you or not.

And my point is pretty clear, even your own links make it evident that this isn't within the limits of public use. It's private property and this pipeline is not for public use. Eminent domain cannot be applied.

You're ignoring portions of those definitions to come to that conclusion which is where political interpretation comes in which has been my point all along. The fun thing about sentences is that they are designed to be flexible. The word "or" is key here. The word or means "not including" in these definitions so the definition can be read:

The power to take private property for public use by a private person or corporation authorized to exercise functions of public character, following the payment of just compensation to the owner of that property.

and

The only purpose for which private property can be taken (condemned) by the government under its power of eminent domain. Public use includes: numerous other purposes designated as beneficial to the public.

I guess my point is that it isn't as cut and dried as you make it sound. Legally under eminent domain the nationality of the corporation makes no difference when it comes to eminent domain and as long as the government green lights the buyout then it is legal.

Also: these people have the right to negotiate their contract based on their yearly income from those parcels of land and the price per acre of the land itself. The people that are forcing the government to get involved are actually costing themselves money if they are ordered to take the buyout.

[Aeno]

as long as the government green lights the buyout then it is legal.

Just like Jim Crow! Suck it Brown v. Board!

[Rizendragon]

Just like Jim Crow! Suck it Brown v. Board!

Irrelevant, offtopic, and designed to discredit based on a completely unrelated issue. We're talking about land and a pipeline. Not the matter of people's free will to life liberty and pursuit of happiness. Bugger off please.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not ignoring anything. I just don't take the fact that there's technically room for interpretation to mean that there's a reasonable case for finding in favor of eminent domain here. Using eminent domain here clearly stands apart from all of the other examples your own link gave and flies in the face of what it's for. The court may very well rule in favor of eminent domain, but they are clearly abusing it if they do.

How is it an abuse when it clearly states "private person or corporation"?