It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: CajunMetal
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.
originally posted by: dragonridr
originally posted by: CajunMetal
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.
Actually they are needed to start fazing out the older ones already in use. Part of the deal with this new pipeline is it replaces an older one along that route. if we continue to attempt to use pipelines that have been in use for decades we are going to have more and more problems. The US infrastructure is in need of attention. As far as imminent domain these farmers has whats called easements. In fact every property does for utilities and in cities sidewalks. Because the utilities use these easements they pay the land owner but you have to realize by law that is not there property. If you build a fence on an easement the state can require its removal for example just went through that myself. I had to move a fence 4 feet on one side mind you its 4 and a half acres so it was expensive. however I do actually receive money from NES since they have underground lines for the housing development behind me. Now I so which I could have denied that since I don't want to deal with the traffic from the new housing development but guess what I cant stop it either.
originally posted by: intrptr
I don't believe it for a moment. They are only deflecting, peoples attention will wain, some of the protesters will leave...
then, on a rainy holiday weekend in the dead of night when nobody cares anymore, the gubment will pounce.
originally posted by: intrptr
I don't believe it for a moment. They are only deflecting, peoples attention will wain, some of the protesters will leave...
then, on a rainy holiday weekend in the dead of night when nobody cares anymore, the gubment will pounce.
Landowners in Iowa are suing the Iowa Utilities Board for granting the permit, in part because they argue that the Board didn't have the authority to take the land through eminent domain. One of the other issues at stake: The Utilities Board required the parent companies behind the pipeline prove that they have the funds to clean up a spill, and Sunoco Logistics hasn't provided that proof. The lawsuit goes to court on December 15.
In its 2015 annual report, Energy Transfer Partners, the main company behind the pipeline, says that it may not be able to pay for cleanup even for spills in pipelines that are already in use: "Accordingly, we cannot assure you that our current reserves are adequate to cover all future liabilities, even for currently known contamination."
The fate of the Dakota Access Pipeline is still unclear. On Sunday, the Army Corps of Engineers announced that it wouldn't grant an easement needed to let the pipeline pass under Lake Oahe near the Standing Rock Sioux reservation—and that alternative paths need environmental impact statements, which take time to prepare. The delays, and other financial pressures, could possibly jeopardize the project. The Standing Rock tribe also still has a pending lawsuit. But even if the route bypasses Standing Rock, the larger project may still continue, and oil could eventually start flowing through the new pipeline in Iowa.