That Sioux Falls paper reports this morning that Hyperion plans to seek a public vote its proposed Elk Point refinery. Hyperion will present a rezoning request to the Union County Commission on Tuesday. If the commission approves that request, Hyperion project executive Preston Philips the company will seek a referendum, an honest public vote in which everyone in the county can decide whether they want to host the refinery.
Phillips said officials with the company are confident that a referendum would be successful, but they won't hesitate to pull up stakes and look for another site if an election doesn't swing their way. Hyperion officials have said there are other sites in contention for the refinery, although they have not revealed alternate locations.
"With the depth of support in the community for the project, we believe the Energy Center will fare well in a referendum," Phillips said. "However, if the majority of voters in Union County do not want us here, then we will surely find a home where we are welcome." [Melanie Brandert, "Refinery Will Be up to Voters," that Sioux Falls paper, 2007.12.01]
Hyperion probably has plenty of corporate scheming up its sleeve, and I'll probably get some cranky e-mails from folks in Elk Point who may be able to point to less cordial actions on the part of the company. But compare Hyperion's approach to TransCanada's "We're coming through, like it or not, and we'll steal your land in court." Hyperion hasn't sworn off eminent domain, but at least they're turning first to a democratic process that involves all citizens rather than legal machinations to get their way. Let's see if Hyperion's relative respectfulness pays off... and whether it continues.
This whole Hyperion fiasco just seems to reak of excessive democracy to me. If Hyperion owns the land, they should be free to do what they want with that, whether it be rent it to farmers or create an oil refinery. The public has no business meddling with what businesses do with the land that they own.
ReplyDeleteIf I owned a piece of land and wanted to build a house on it, should it come to a public vote if my neighbors aren't happy about it? Of course not, because it's -my- land. The Hyperion situation is the exact same deal.
Interesting take, and in large part I agree with your respect for private property rights. That's why I'm so bent out of shape over TransCanada's eminent domain ploy. But if you were going to build a house that would slurp millions of gallons of water from area supplies, potentially pollute the watershed, and create other public health hazards, I'd appreciate having a little say in the externalities you'd like to impose with your house. Same with big hog operations: the farmer may own the land, but when the stench of a few thousand hogs is going to deprive neighbors of their right to use their land as they see fit, we need some social contract balancing.
ReplyDeleteZoning regulations are an imposition on personal property rights, just like taxes. Sometimes they go too far, but in general they exist to help us balance individual rights with the common good (neither of which can exist without the other).
I'm still not sold on a big refinery as the best basis for economic and energy development in South Dakota. But a project on this scale, impacting this many people, should have some democratic input.
Maybe some hard-core free-marketeers will say Hyperion is a bunch of saps for letting a bunch of yokels have a say on how and where the company does business. But even if the public vote is just a coldly calculated PR ploy by Hyperion's own hard-core capitalists, it's still better than TransCanada's legal machinations and laughable propaganda. Hyperion shows us that even capitalist motives can produce moral results.
I agree that there are definitely some legitimate concerns about the usage of local natural resources and potential pollution, but it seems that if Hyperion were to be a bad steward of the natural resources around them and caused monetary damage to its property neighbors (say a farmer with property adjacent to the land couldn't get enough water for their crops), there would be a legitimate cause for a civil suit.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's legitimate for area residents to get out of shape about some potential harm that has not been seen yet. Hyperion has a claer financial incentive to be a good steward of the land that they own. If they accidentally spill some oil, they'll have to pay to clean up pollution if it occurs, and it's a lot more cost effective to be safe ahead of time than to be dirty and clean up the mess afterwards. We don't need regulation and zoning laws to convince people and businesses to do what's in their best interest anyway.