This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
Also online at KELOLand.com!
SD Straight Talk's recitation of the TransCanada brochure sounds nice, but I'm still boggled that Republicans -- that any defenders of genuine free market principles and South Dakotans' rights -- would support a project that uses eminent domain for one corporation's private profit maximization. Higher tax revenues don't justify condemning one man's land and handing it to another for some more profitable use.
Of course, SDST's Joel doesn't even mention eminent domain, doesn't explain how eminent domain is "Good for America, good for South Dakota." Again, SDST follows the TransCanada playbook to a tee, trying to stifle any mention of TransCanada's clearly unneighborly behavior.
SDST's Joel tries to straw-man pipeline opponents as emotional, fearful reactionaries. Sorry, Joel, but you don't get to argue against the opponents you imagine. You have to argue against real people. And some of us opponents have a genuine political position, one based on defending the rights of small South Dakota landowners against the legal machinations of billion-dollar corporations. (And SDST has the temerity to suggest that pipeline opponents will use all sorts of legal trickery? Hmph -- TransCanada is the one with all the fancy lawyers strongarming landowners, serving them papers, and playing games with the PUC.)
SDST also deems it ironic that "At a time when farmers and politicians are screaming for transmission lines for wind produced electricity... there is opposition to petroleum transportation that is safe and willingly being funded by private rather than public interests." No irony there: some of us want wind power capacity expanded as fast as possible precisely so we do not have to give in the strong-arm tactics of TransCanada and the rest of the Big Oil interests.
Conservatives used to be about protecting individual rights and limiting eminent domain (which is a violation of free market principles... remember them? conservatives used to love them, too). Theoretically, conservatives ought to favor energy conservation (same etymology, right?). Somewhere along the way, conservative straight talk must have taken a sharp turn or two from its original principles.
F’ing USD
-
So a friend of mine made this rap a few years back, and I have to tell you
I have friends over the years who went there and tell the same boring
stories, LOL.
11 hours ago
Eminent domain is tantamount to theft, it's even worse thanks to the recent Cupreme Sourt ruling in Kilo V. New London. It was bad enough when they were paying a fraction of a piece of land's actual value to build something that would create a genuine public good (ie, a road or a park), but stealing land away from farmers so that a corporation can build an oil pipline, that's just sick!
ReplyDeleteDidn't the state pass some sort of legislation that was supposed to prevent state and local governments from abusing eminent domain in this manner?
Please explain to me your belief that this is eminent domain in the true sense. Don't these pipes get buried in the ground, covered, and then the land is used just as before for grazing, farming, whatever, while the oil company is paying the landowners yearly and the counties yearly for the privilege of "borrowing" their underground? They can come across my land anytime in this case!
ReplyDeleteI'd be more worried about our aquifer protection than eminent domain issues. Any pipeline will leak, and this firm has already applied to use thinner pipeline walls (which I hope doesn't happen). Why doesn't the State request that THICKER walls are used in South Dakota? When land is dug up for pipelines, its production level is never the same because topsoil and clay are intermixed forever. The paltry income a farmer or rancher receives for encroaching on their land is nothing compared to ruining the quality of the natural land. Also, when there is a leak, it will forever damage our aquifers and without safe drinking water, we won't be able to live here. That's the big picture. I say, go through Minnesota and leave South Dakota pristine.
ReplyDeleteEminent domain is any taking of property for public use, with compensation but without the consent of the owner. In a way, Anon11:03 is right, this isn't true eminent domain, since the easements are beign taken to serve a private company, not public use. You and I don't get to walk along the pipeline route. We certainly don't get to use the pipeline to ship any of our own oil or biodiesel or maple syrup.
ReplyDeleteAnd yearly compensation? Ha! That's not what the landowners under the gun (or the judge's gavel) up by Britton say. The folks fighting the pipeline wouldn't mind negotiating a yearly lease payment, just like they could get from a wind turbine company. TransCanada, however, is offering a one-time deal, one check right now and that's it.
I agree, it's not full-tilt eminent domain, since the landowners retain ownership. However, they lose use. They can't build structures on it. They can't count on the crops they plant on it remaining undisturbed; a TransCanada truck may come barreling through any day just to check on things. They can't subdivide a little acreage for an interested buyer. They can't expand their operation to put a feedlot or irrigation pipes across it. The landowners give up their control, and that's as vital a part of the concept of property as legal ownership.
Oh yeah, and pipelines can explode. My wife read (sorry, I don't have the source handy) that one landowner wanted to make a deal but asked TransCanada to move the pipeline back further from the house for safety. TransCanada said nope, we're putting it right here, and that's that.
Oh, and don't get me wrong: I'm plenty worried about the aquifer, too. One big spill, and we lose our aquifer. But at least we'll have plenty of Canadian gas so we can drive our SUVs to Wisconsin for a drink of water.
ReplyDeleteWater Quality's a huge issue, but there are plenty of people beating that drum. I'm just offering a second way for folks to go after these corporate Canadian thugs.