Army Corp Of Engineers deny's permit and shuts down Pipeline!

a reply to: Caver78

Thank you Protectors, thank you Veterans, thank you all involved and everyone who prayed or sent smoke up etc... for the cause.


-Alee

a reply to: NerdGoddess



Well the pipeline will still go through the white house doesn't have the legal ability to overturn courts and permits. So the celebration is premature considering the company all ready put out a statement there plans are not changing and the pipeline will go through. Its very difficult to tell a company what they can do on land they own. The best they can do is use the army core of engineers in a court fight to prevent further construction. But even that is a long shot I personally think its time to compromise or the protestors will lose everything.

a reply to: dragonridr

they need to compromise.... lol... ya!!
no, they don't, when the native tribes in NY had land claim issues involving major cities and thousands of land owners, they needed to compromise.... and they did!!
this land doesn't have any major population centers on it and is basically undeveloped, no the need for them to compromise isn't there, just change the track of the danged pipeline or they might be far less willing to compromise in the future when it comes to those claims that include major population centers like syracuse ny, long island, ect.
we should be the ones compromising this time, for a change and give them back this piece of land!!!

a reply to: dragonridr

They are ProteCtors, and also, land the corporations and government STOLE. That is treaty land.

-Alee

found this interesting... it seems that the tribe isn't the only ones unwilling to allow the pipeline going through their land...

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: Blaine91555

I can't argue that and it did happen. It happened long before any of us were alive however, which makes it irrelevant to today, unless of course you think those alive today are guilty of things done by people long ago dead?

It is very relevant today to all those people that are alive today. Just like it is relevant to the Jews, Armenians, Syrians and all those other peoples that had ancestors die at the hand of those guilty people that died long ago.

It is very relevant that the Native American suffered at the hands of those that strong armed them, slaughtered them through genocide and are still attempting to destroy their people and lands.

I think that I am very much on topic with my comment, and the dangerous precedent has already been set. That is why the Native Americans know they have to stop the DPL from destroying more of the their culture and land. The have learned a very important lesson from those guilty people that died a long time ago.

It's relevant only in a historical sense. Unless of course you actually are saying that people who had no part in it should be punished for the actions of people long ago dead? That would be irrational, not to mention immoral.

I highly doubt anyone is still trying to destroy their people and lands. Remember none of this is taking place on their lands. Distorting facts just weakens an argument and a nation without the rule of law is nothing. If anarchy is the order of the day, it would work both ways. Only a truly crazy person would want that IMO.

This has nothing at all to do with what I said about how this will lead to more environmental damage, not less, by increasing oil production in countries where our strict environmental laws are not in place and will also enrich countries that have no real human rights as a direct result.

livestream.com...

This is happening now.

Amazing Veterans March!

a reply to: Blaine91555

I highly doubt anyone is still trying to destroy their people and lands. Remember none of this is taking place on their lands. Distorting facts just weakens an argument and a nation without the rule of law is nothing. If anarchy is the order of the day, it would work both ways. Only a truly crazy person would want that IMO.

You obviously haven't talked to the people that are actually involved in this mess. Nowhere have I distorted the facts, and your statement only weakens your argument. A nation that changes the laws under eminent domain due to greed, and places corporate interest above the interest of the people, is not a Democracy or a Republic or a corrupt one.

The people being affected are being affected today. The only thing historical about what is happening is the fact that it is history repeating itself.

a reply to: dawnstar

I've never seen a map showing the location of these burial grounds and where the pipeline goes through it? Do you have a link to one to help me understand? I'm suspicious of that to be honest. The courts would not have approved that as readily as they did.

If that's the case simply moving the route slightly would solve that would it not? I doubt that would satisfy the activists though. Would it satisfy you?

Eminent domain to do something like build a shopping mall or a hotel is very wrong, but that does not mean it's wrong when used for highways, power lines, pipelines and other things that serve the broader public good as long as the owners are compensated fairly. When everyone say's no, it's a tool that must exist. Imagine the chaos if it did not exist?

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

I only know what I get from news sources I trust.

How is energy to heat homes, fuel vehicles and provide electricity not in the interest of the people? Do you use it? Do the protesters use it? Of course they and you do and it is in your interest and theirs.

Again, remember, they are protesting on other peoples land. Would it be OK if a group of people went to their land and staged a protest, committed crimes and acts of violence? Same thing, right?

I give up on the other thing I wanted to discuss since it's ignored. We can agree to disagree. The companies involved went about this legally through the courts and without the rule of law, there is no country, only chaos.

a reply to: Blaine91555

Eminent domain to do something like build a shopping mall or a hotel is very wrong, but that does not mean it's wrong when used for highways, power lines, pipelines and other things that serve the broader public good as long as the owners are compensated fairly. When everyone say's no, it's a tool that must exist. Imagine the chaos if it did not exist?

Funny how that only works in the favor of the wealthy, and at the expense of the poor.

We just recently had over 100 working poor families lose their homes to eminent domain. They bought up their land for pennies on the dollar. Now this corporation is building new homes in the area for 4 times what the original owners were paid, and selling this land starting at 2.5 million an acre for businesses.

They are pushing the bull that the new village will bring in jobs, schools, commerce, increased financial stability for the State and will serve the broader public good.

I am sure you would not be taking this stance if it was your house and your land they were bulldozing over.

You silly gooses. Trump and the Republican led house/senate/judiciary will approve this faster than you can blink once he's in office. Whether it be by executive action or some other form, this whole situation ends by these people being forcibly removed and thrown in jail while the pipeline is finished. The ONLY good thing from this is the pipeline company will have to renegotiate the contract prices with the oil suppliers since it's unlikely to be finished by Jan' 1 and any new pricing will be a fraction of the original contract value (on account of low oil prices currently), so the company is going to take a substantial bath (though I suspect Trump will graciously bail them out of it, so in the end it will likely be the taxpayers that will pay the difference).

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

What you describe is very wrong and not even remotely the same thing.

If I were compensated fairly and it was for something like a pipeline or power line, I'd have no issue with it since it's for the benefit of everyone.

Imagine if there were no way to put in say power lines because a single landowner could stop it? If you can't see the difference, we are at an impasse. You could keep coming up with unrelated cases where eminent domain is abused to counter me, which would lead nowhere since its a specious argument.

Also, if a poor person is paid more than their place is worth, enabling them to buy a better place they are not hurt, they instead are helped by it. But as I said, I only agree with that when it's something to do with critical infrastructure and energy is critical infrastructure that serves us all.

If the road and power line to your place ran across the neighbors land on both sides and they said no and you could never drive to your land or be connected to the power line as a result, would that be right? Specious argument right?

a reply to: Blaine91555

If the road and power line to your place ran across the neighbors land on both sides and they said no and you could never drive to your land or be connected to the power line as a result, would that be right? Specious argument right?

In property law, ingress, egress, and regress are the rights of a person to enter, leave, and return to a property, respectively. It does not give my neighbor the right to destroy my property.

You are right about one thing. We have reached an impasse. Until you actually have something to lose you will never understand. It is easy to speak of what benefits the common good when you have no skin in the game.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

What you describe is very wrong and not even remotely the same thing.

If I were compensated fairly and it was for something like a pipeline or power line, I'd have no issue with it since it's for the benefit of everyone.

Imagine if there were no way to put in say power lines because a single landowner could stop it? If you can't see the difference, we are at an impasse. You could keep coming up with unrelated cases where eminent domain is abused to counter me, which would lead nowhere since its a specious argument.

Also, if a poor person is paid more than their place is worth, enabling them to buy a better place they are not hurt, they instead are helped by it. But as I said, I only agree with that when it's something to do with critical infrastructure and energy is critical infrastructure that serves us all.

If the road and power line to your place ran across the neighbors land on both sides and they said no and you could never drive to your land or be connected to the power line as a result, would that be right? Specious argument right?

What I find disturbing about your argument is that you're taking for granted that another oil pipeline is NECESSARY or needed at all.

This is corporate greed plain and simple.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Actually it does give your neighbor and the community the right to have an easement and build a road or power line. Easements are part of that.

How do you loose if you are overpaid, which is usually the case in eminent domain? If you can then buy more or better land or a better house, how is that being harmed? It's not. People generally use that argument to try and get more money than they should, not because they will be harmed by accepting fair payment.

a reply to: CajunMetal

That bring us back to becoming more reliant on energy sources from other countries, which leads to more environmental harm, enriches governments who do not give their citizens human rights and does far more harm in the end.

Yes it is "necessary", but if we don't increase production here, it will be bought from other countries instead. Shipped in oil tankers, then moved by rail which is far more risky for the environment.

As to corporate greed, you are aware that oil companies make less profit as a percentage than a grocery store and far, far less than say the manufacturer of your cell phone.

People demand higher wages and at the same time lower prices which is irrational to say the least.

I think we are headed down the path to not ready for prime time energy sources and the poor being badly harmed by having it shoved down our throats and prices skyrocketing. People will suffer to accommodate the crazy idea you can have alternative energy without doing real harm. Is that not also greed of a sort?

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Actually it does give your neighbor and the community the right to have an easement and build a road or power line. Easements are part of that.

How do you loose if you are overpaid, which is usually the case in eminent domain? If you can then buy more or better land or a better house, how is that being harmed? It's not. People generally use that argument to try and get more money than they should, not because they will be harmed by accepting fair payment.

What you have posted is not true. You obviously have never been involved in a case of eminent domain. I am not going to argue with you.

You are going to believe what you chose. For whatever reason.

Oil production cannot compete with clean energy production.

I have the components to run lights out in my shed that I paid for once, I can leave the lights on 24/7 and not have to pay another electric bill...unless a component happens to fail.

I could buy a whole array of solar crap and a grid tie-in that the electric co. would pay me for...

I'm just one household.

Oil is so last century, isn't it?

a reply to: loveguy

I could buy a whole array of solar crap and a grid tie-in that the electric co. would pay me for...

Depends on where you live. FPL will not pay for self generated electricity, even when they benefit from it and use it.

Had that battle with them over 5 years ago when I wanted to put in my windmills.