1
Alpha!

2
beta!

3 So, will the left now repudiate Kelo?

4 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

5 I don't think a pipeline that serves the entire nation wanders into the personal eminent domain issues that Thomas was concerned about.
Same thing with the Interstate system.

Shopping malls, on the other hand ...

6
Question: Exactly how many residents, if any, will be displaced by this project?

Or are we talking about mostly barren, undeveloped land?

7 All your lands are belong to us!

8 With the billions of dollars that the project represents i would think that they should have the petty cash required to bribe out buy out some property owners along the way. Not exactly the densest population swath of the country.

9 smelly sock

10 If TransCanada wants to build the pipeline, they should do it without eminent domain.

Hmmm... that's an interesting conundrum.  If it's a purely private project, then, yes, I agree that it should be done without eminent domain.  So the question, in my mind, is "does this fit the mold of a purely private investment, or is this something truly for the public good in the same way that roads and other power infrastructure are?"

If the former, as I've said, I'm in agreement that this shouldn't use eminent domain.  If the later, than it probably should.

So... hmmm... where do I come down on that question?  My gut says "public good, in the real sense."  It's quite often right, so I'll stay there for now.  But I might be willing to change my mind.

11 I come down where Greg does at the end of the day: If TransCanada wants to build the pipeline, they should do it without eminent domain.

As it always should be done.

That's possible in this case, no?

12 Realistically, environmental, safety, and cost concerns should keep the pipeline in some fairly low density areas. I understand they want to use the threat of eminent domain to control costs - but that is an an abuse of eminent domain. Perry should be the expert on the political pain associated with this.

13

I come down where Greg does at the end of the day: If TransCanada wants to build the pipeline, they should do it without eminent domain.

That would certainly make it easier for the greens to block any pipeline, power line, road or communication line. All they would have to do is buy some property in the proposed route instead of spending millions on lawsuits and lobbying.

14

Hmmm... interesting. 

Comparing this situation to Kelo, though, isn't quite fair.  Kelo was development of a commercial property. 

This is construction of an oil pipeline.  Oil is as important to cars as roads are.

15 i would think that they should have the petty cash required to bribe out buy out some property owners along the way

The thing is, there has grown a whole extortion industry around this kind of thing.  People who live in shanties and would love to move anyway, but "couldn't bear to sell this house..." until the pay-day is high enough.  And there are some (much fewer, but some) who really, truly, don't want to move.

So if it's going to get done, it may, indeed, require eminent domain.  Which still doesn't answer (for me) whether eminent domain would be appropriate in this case.

16
Can't believe we're at a point where we're poo pooing private sector expansion.

17 Oil is as important to cars as roads are.

Not to mention: Air planes, Boats, Power-plants, tanks, and a whole host of other things.

I really think I'm leaning toward "this is what eminent domain is for."

18 Not to mention: Air planes, Boats, Power-plants, tanks, and a whole host of other things.

Yeah, like MASCARA, damnit and you'll pry my mascara from my cold dead hands!

19
from the piece (the part from Canada):

"The eminent U.S. leftist Alexander Cockburn (no friend of global warming greens) wrote that..."

Okay, I understand this was written by some Canadian, who is barely 4/5 of an American, but who is Alexander Cockburn?

AND, owwww.

His name makes me cross my legs.

20
I have never heard of Alexander Cockburn.

Or Dick Cockburn. Or Peter Cockburn.

Or Alexander Cockbite.

21
brbr, checkin twitter

22 Eh. Could the lefties view this as a poison pill that they can point to and say "Look, you wanted Keystone XL and that implemented Kelo all along, so you can't bitch about" (insert whatever it is they want to seize). Or, maybe I'm overanalyzing.

23 During WWII, the US built a whacking great pipeline from Texas to Ohio, in a matter of months, because the U-boats were sinking our tankers and the great refining centers were at Chicago, Whiting, and Toledo.

There is a vast wasteland along the Sanitary and Ship Canal, within sight of Joliet Prison, where Chicago's refineries used to be. Northern Ohio has fewer refineries now, but with more capacity, and several have spent a lot to be compatible for Canadian crude, while no one was watching. 

In short, there is enough capacity within the reach of existing pipelines to absorb the entire output of Alberta. Some other crude that now flows to the northern Midwest would need to go to Lousiana and Texas instead. Existing pipelines and refineries would need to be improved and enlarged, and restrictions eased. That's hard to do, politically, and not very dramatic, and it sure as hell won't happen in Michigan or Illinois.

But it can be done.

24
I'm sorry, but we're talking about land in South frikkin Dakota.

Gimme a break with this emminent domain shit.

25 I too lean towards Eminent Domain for infrastructure as opposed to strip malls. Funny how the leftards are even using those words now.

No wait, it's not.

26
but the "eminent" leftist Alexander Cockburn says...

27 Could the lefties view this as a poison pill

Could they view it that way?  Certainly.  But, if we're certain in the philosophical ground of using eminent domain for the XL project, then that's just more lefty fantasy.

28 Cockburn. What a troll. He runs a joint called CounterPunch. Pure, grade A marxism down the line.

29

 who is Alexander Cockburn?

AND, owwww.

His name makes me cross my legs.

Tabasco?

...and remember, you aren't jerking it if you go side to side.

30 But I'm sure they're going to manage to find some sort of sentient fungus or something on the planes that needs protection anyway.

31 plains.

Jeebus.

32

We're talking South Dakota and Nebraska here.

33
Whoa.  Good info, Andy.  I had no idea there was eminent domain issues.  I just assumed they were using the massive amount of federal govt land.

That definitely changes things.  So I would have to think about whether this is similar to a hospital or other good true public use and we certainly could use it.  But I think I remain on the side of the landowners here, and have changed my mind about this pipeline.

34

How many of the eminent domain confiscations have failed to materialize. Oh, that's right, it was the ones for the development of strip malls, condos, and other pressing issues.

At least I have places to bury the bodies, now!

35
He runs a joint called CounterPunch.

Ahhh, now CounterPunch I have heard of. What a joke.

36 30 But I'm sure they're going to manage to find some sort of sentient fungus or something on the planes that needs protection anyway.

Posted by: Clutch Cargo at December 21, 2011 12:36 PM (Qxdfp)

Save the Prairie Smelt Darter!

37 I don't agree. This is no different than a utility company using eminent domain to run a transmission line. This is not like Kelo in which a city took private property and gave it to a crony developer for a shopping center.

38 Gimme a break with this emminent domain shit.

There are people who live in South Dakota, after all.  Some of them might have property where the pipeline will need to run.  If they're offered a fair price (emphasis on "fair" say, greater of mortgage payoff or market value + 25%) and refuse, the options would then be: scrap the project or have the State invoke eminent domain.

Again, I think I'm on the side of "actual infrastructure" on this one, and therefore would be okay with eminent domain.

Though it surprises me they wouldn't have done this legwork first.

39 sentient fungus

Our trolls live in South Dakota?

40

I come down where Greg does at the end of the day: If TransCanada wants to build the pipeline, they should do it without eminent domain.

Agreed.

41

Comparing this to Kelo is the kind of insincere argument the left makes.

Kelo went into an urban neighborhood and forced people to sell them their homes so they could build more homes and retail. This pipeline requires them go sell an easement for an underground pipeline through undeveloped prairie and some farm land. Nobody has to move, it doesn't go through a subdivision and it supplies energy to the entire country.

If it was one of the thousands of electric transmission lines would it still be a problem for NRO?

42 We're talking South Dakota and Nebraska here.

Jesus I hope that's a joke. Two of my favorite places. Nice people, too.

43 But I think I remain on the side of the landowners here, and have changed my mind about this pipeline.

Why? How is this different from a road expansion, or a power transmission project?  In what way is it more similar to a strip mall or sports venue?

And I'm being serious here: all I've got is my gut on this one.  It opposes you, but I normally try to let my head over-rule my gut when my head has enough information.

44
There are very few people who live in SD.

And the land is mostly undeveloped.

Come on, it's not like they're trying to build something foolish like high speed rail. We're talking about piping in energy, here.

45
Let me tell you if it was my land, my response would be F U.

46

As an aside, Rush is leading his show with the same WSJ editorial Gabe covered this morning-- and he's taking the exact opposite position from Gabe.

 

Weird...

47

 Two of my favorite places for other people to live.

FIFY.

48
It's a pipeline, for pete's sake!

We're talking about a swath a few hundred feet wide, if that.

49

It's a conundrum to be sure.  Of course, TransCanada wants to keep costs down.  But this isn't a shopping mall either.  So, of course, a land-owner should be able to ask for whatever amount of money he/she wants to build over their property.  Or perhaps choose to say no to any amount of money.  But at some point, there is the potential for costs to exceed the benefits of building the pipeline here, from which we would all benefit.  What if the landowner simply says there is no amount of money and there is no alternate route that wouldn't entail potentially billions of costs.  Should one homeowner be able to derail the project like that?  Or what if they hold ask for 10M for land that is worth 100K.  What if a bunch of land-owners do that.  The likelihood is that the pipeline would be built through Canada and the oil sent to China instead while we continue to send our petrol dollars to the Middle East, where they love us so much.

It's not an easy question and there is no easy answer.  I would say at a minimum, if emminent domain is used, it should be as a measure of last resort.

50 I hear prairie dogs are almost extinct. We must save them from the pipeline.

51
They probably only need less than a hundred feet...in South friggin Dakota.

God save all those prairie dogs that will be displaced.

52 Otherwise known as eminent domain, not *emminent domain*.  I hate typos.

53

I've been involved in the planning of pipeline easements and some of the squirrely, twisty detours we have to do to get around uncooperative landowners is insane.  At some point all the extra mileage becomes budget-breaking and we invoke ED.  If we didn't, building pipelines would be cost-prohibitive and our energy situation would be even worse.

54 These seem to be the exact same kind of takings that Justice Thomas warned about in his Kelo dissent:

Not really.  Transportation of oil does not really fall in the same handbasket as a shopping mall.

Pipelines have availed themselves of eminent domain for decades.

55 Let me tell you if it was my land, my response would be F U.

Why, though?
Especially if, as Soothsayer is suggesting, it's not even the whole house, it's just your easement (which I don't think it can be: in virtually all states and municipalities your easement is essentially pre-eminent-domained).

It it just because it would be your house (therefore: NIMBY) or do you have a philosophical argument that says that eminent domain shouldn't be used for this particular project?

56

Weird...

I know, right? It's almost as if Gabe Malor is wrong about everything.

57 There is a very large refinery 500 feet from me as we speak, and I love it. I have an oil well on my property. So whatever point  you're trying to score there, fuck you, you lose.

58 I'm sorry, but we're talking about land in South frikkin Dakota.

We're talking South Dakota and Nebraska here.

And don't forget Kansas, Dorothy!
If you're talking about fringe East and fringe West South Dakota, there's a lot of area that could be screwed up (Black Hills on the west, east side is where the 'main commerce' is).  Same is largely true for Nebraska.  Believe it or not, Western Nebraska Sandhill area is one of the main flyways for ducks and geese, and yes, you could screw up an ecosystem without trying hard.

If the pipe goes mainly down the center of the states, I think it would be a commercial boon for everybody involved. 

59
Let me put it this way.

From space, you'll hardly even see it.

60

I never understood why they didn't approach an Indian Reservation in Montana or the North Dakota, and build a fucking refinery just over the border...

It would remove a majority of the concerns, and it would provide much needed jobs, investment and infrastructure for a depressed and impoverished tribe.

61 God save all those prairie dogs that will be displaced.

Posted by: Soothsayer Cockburn, the eminent AoS commentor at December 21, 2011 12:43 PM (sqkOB)

Wrong, Reichwinger!

That's up to us! No pipeline for you!

62 This isn't the worst case of emminent domain in recent history by far.  Ask the people who used to live where the new dallas cowgirls stadium is.

63

We're talking South Dakota and Nebraska here.

----

Well I got the shit kicked out of me in South Dakota and Nebraska once. Forget it!

64
a 36" pipeline will destroy an ecosystem?

65
Should one homeowner be able to derail the project like that?

Yes.  but if you disagree I have a pipeline to build thru your house, sign it over.

The answer here is to make the landowner the offer up to the cost it costs to go around (and newly issued stock can be cheap in comparison).

66 Well I got the shit kicked out of me in South Dakota and Nebraska once.

If you're an Eastern Conference football fan or a West Coast pussy, you probably deserved it.

67 The pipeline is, surprisingly enough, a line of pipes that stretches from Canada to the Gulf coast of Texas, and people are surprised that it involves the taking of private land?  Wow.

I have more more news:  all those jobs being created in reality means about 5,000 people digging ditches, for however long that takes.  Which would include Canadians.

68

Eminent domain, or not (or Imminent Domain, as our empathetic SCOTUS gennyus would say) the real key is that the landowners are fairly compensated for their property (which was not the case in Kelo, not even close).  I don't see why a gas pipeline wouldn't have enough money to buy the rights-of-way they need.  People used to love to sell their land to gas pipelines, since it was good business (and many took the opportunity to hot tap into some free gas, but that's a whole other story).

Of course, a gas pipeline is far different, in terms of "public use", from a house in Connecticut being taken for nothing more than some 3rd rate office development or whatever useless thing it was just to squeeze a few more tax dollars out of the plot.  Apples and oranges. 

69 If the pipeline already exists, presumably the pipeline operator already has a legal right-of-way for the pipe, so how is this an eminent domain situation at all? They're not "building" a pipeline, they're "expanding" an existing one. Do they need President Obama's approval to put on a new coat of paint?

70

I don't suppose that pipeline will be going through any Indian lands now would it?

 

That domain is somewhat flexibly emminant....

71
do you have a philosophical argument that says that eminent domain shouldn't be used for this particular project?

Yes, its called private property rights.

72 We had a problem with Eminent Domain here in Texas with the TTC, Kelo really opened the doors for abuse.

73

Barack Hussein Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

I denounce myself.

74 a 36" pipeline will destroy an ecosystem?

Posted by: Soothsayer at December 21, 2011 12:49 PM (sqkOB)

Worms and nematodes hardest hit.

75 That's interesting and puts all the pipeline politics in a different light but...

How many of the folks - the good guys, supposedly, in the GOP - who voted to kill this deal had any part of this part of the issue in their minds when they voted no on the 2-month extension with the pipeline in it? Knowing Congress Critters, none of them had a clue about this aspect of it. They seem to have not much of a clue about anything, on either side of the aisle.

76

a 36" pipeline will destroy an ecosystem?

 

Fyi - a pipe that big can render the landscape to an all but useless state.

77 @60 , Seems to me a smart thing to do would be build the refinery as a cross border joint project where Alberta , Saskatchewan and North Dakota meet . Bakken .

78 As pathetic as Obama is Mitt Romney is afraid to call him a socialist.  Don't expect Obama to lose.  McConnell and Boner are useless.

79 Anyone else notice Carney's drymouth, while he's trying to bull-shit his way through blaming Republicans?

80 a 36" pipeline will destroy an ecosystem?

Given the water table (AKA Ogalalla aquifer) in Western Nebraska is about 8 feet down -- yes, it's entirely possible if you 'bury the pipe'.  If you put it above ground, you'd have to drill down about 30 feet or more for the anchors.  They don't call it "Sandhills" for nothing.

I doubt it would screw up the sandhill lakes, but the terrain invites movement and leaks, and leaks would go into the aquifer, which might piss off some of the farmers and ranchers who depend on the aquifer 'downstream'.

81 In invoking eminent domain they are required to pay fair market value before announcement of the pathway. No more and no less.

I'm sure a 100 foot swath of North Dakota farmland would not amount to a large cost in fair market value.

82 ...and many took the opportunity to hot tap into some free gas

Posted by: really ... at December 21, 2011 12:50 PM (meyVd)

Wow, really?  That must have been a residential gas line, it has to be processed first.  Either way, that's about the dumbest idea I've ever heard.

83 Emmmmmminente Dommmainneee. There.

I think that puts as many extra letters in there as you can. Need more "I"s?

Yes, a 36" pipeline, poorly routed, cheaply executed, laxly overseen, and generally fucked up, would certainly, when breached, destroy an ecosystem, and considerable private property as well. So you'd really want this done right. Now, imagine it as a federal project. Concerns?

84 We had a problem with Eminent Domain here in Texas with the TTC, Kelo really opened the doors for abuse.

Posted by: booger at December 21, 2011 12:51 PM (EjNp5)

And every time it's allowed to be abused opens the door a little wider. If it's allowed to slide long enough, you end up with no private property rights at all anymore. You'll have a home that the government allows you to live in...as long as your behavior suits the government.

85

Posted by: Bill D. Cat at December 21, 2011 12:53 PM (npr0X)

 

Yep. Not to mention that there are three Reservations that sidle right up to Canuckistan. 

Shit, now that I think about it... there might be as many as five between Browning Mt. and the Mn. Border.

86 I just looked up Texas law. In Texas pipeline companies have a statutory right of eminent domain. If they are carrying natural gas, they have the right as a public utility. If they are carrying oil or other materials they still have the right of eminent domain. Most people don't realize how many private entities have eminent domain rights.

87 Yes, its called private property rights.

But private property rights have always taken a back seat to eminent domain.  That's why it's called "eminent domain."  Your argument, in essence, is "just because."

Why does this particular project NOT live up to the same standard as, say, a highway expansion?

Also, reading the article, it doesn't look like they found anyone who's house will be taken- the article only talks about pasture land.  And if the NYT (who the article quotes extensively) had found anyone who's house would be taken, you know they would be front-and-center in the article.

So again: why do you think this is more like a Kelo-style, "investment opportunity" use of eminent domain than a "US Interstate Highway System" use of eminent domain?

88 OT: Hot Air is putting up a lot of Santorum threads. I swear to God, if Santorum is our next "not-Mitt" we deserve to lose. I am really getting sick and tired of this. Anyone who tries to make a case for Santorum will get punched in the nuts. ---- On the topic at hand: NO EMINENT DOMAIN. How is this even possible? Is there a case to be made for the use of ED ever?

89

56

Weird...

I know, right? It's almost as if Gabe Malor is wrong about everything.

Posted by: Soothsayer Cockburn, the eminent AoS commentor at December 21, 2011 12:44 PM (sqkOB)

Hey, quit picking on Gabe. 

It saves me a lot of time not having to click around to Outside the Beltway or The Moderate Voice to get his side of things.  Much more convenient seeing it here.

90 "I come down where Greg does at the end of the day: If TransCanada wants to build the pipeline, they should do it without eminent domain." Exactly right. No project, no matter how "conservative" is worth trampling property rights.

91

But private property rights have always taken a back seat to eminent domain.

An human rights have always taken a back seat to a bumper cotton crop, what's your point?

92

Posted by: jwb7605 at December 21, 2011 12:54 PM (+KHIt)

 

If Jesus had walked across the Platte, nobody would have been impressed.

93
I use to appraise takings for the state, and you would be surprised what you can not account for in the law as a cost.

If the pipeline or other crosses your view in front of your house or impedes or changes your access or many other things, they can not be counted.  These things will however lower your market value if sold.*

The pipeline should make the offer that entices the homeowner to sell.

^{*your state law may vary}

94 So you'd really want this done right. Now, imagine it as a federal project. Concerns?

Since it's a private company?  No, not many.

You're acting like no one has ever built a pipeline for oil or gas in the US before.

95 Also, Obama is a SCOAMF

96

Why does this particular project NOT live up to the same standard as, say, a highway expansion?

Highways are public highways. I do not have to pay to drive on the interstate system.

Will the oil in the pipe be public oil? Public gas?

Will this Canadian oil company being paying rent, to send it's oil through our public pipe?

97 If Jesus had walked across the Platte, nobody would have been impressed.

I would have been impressed if he'd done it the first of June, especially if it was before the dam system in Wyoming was built.

98

Yep. Not to mention that there are three Reservations that sidle right up to Canuckistan. 

Shit, now that I think about it... there might be as many as five between Browning Mt. and the Mn. Border.

Posted by: garrett at December 21, 2011 12:56 PM (GUwij)

It's a nice idea but there is a reason we haven't built a new refinery in 40 years. It's impossible to do with the new regulations and lawsuits. If they started today they might get a permit in 20 years.

99 It all depends on whose ox is gored, doesn't it?

100 A pipeline requires a contiguous tract of land.

101

If the pipeline or other crosses your view in front of your house or impedes or changes your access or many other things, they can not be counted.  These things will however lower your market value if sold.*

So will a shitty neighbor.

102 One thing lost in the entire Keystone XL debate is that we’re really not talking about an entirely new project. The “XL” portion is the proposed expansion of the original Keystone pipeline that is, much to the amazement of some I would gather, currently operating safely while transporting oil from Canada to the United States. Thank you for this. What a great piece of ammo!

103 At certain times of the year, I have walked across the Platte.

Yes, the best way to handle Canadian crude would be new refineries in eastern Montana and North Dakota. I'm all for it. Let's run that up as a bill in Congress and see how it does. Want to start a pool?

There's a terrific rail line up there, but I think you'd still want some pipeline capacity added for finished product. And that shit is really dangerous. It gets more dangerous, the farther you are from any actual experience with it. Ask any greenie.

104

Will this Canadian oil company being paying rent, to send it's oil through our public pipe?

Posted by: Entropy, and if you don't agree you hate America and want Obama to win at December 21, 2011 01:00 PM (AuQqX)

There is no public money funding theis pipeline, what are you talking about? Jeebus now we have people on the right beleiving that gasoline magically shows up at the filling station, I guess all those pipelines it travels through weren't really needed.

105

Eminent domain is only justified in cases of public use.

How will the public be given access and use of the pipeline?

106

Posted by: robtr at December 21, 2011 01:00 PM (MtwBb)

 

They are a Sovereign Nation.  They should be able to avoid a lot of the Fed Regulations.  In my opinion, they could tell the EPA to go and pound oilsands.

That said...The court cases would be epic.

107

Jeebus now we have people on the right beleiving that gasoline magically shows up at the filling station, I guess all those pipelines it travels through weren't really needed.

Yes, officer, I saw him. He beat it savagely, and tore all it's straw out, and set it on fire.

108 It's a nice idea but there is a reason we haven't built a new refinery in 40 years. It's impossible to do with the new regulations and lawsuits. If they started today they might get a permit in 20 years.

That's why I favor Bill D. Cat's idea(s).
Make a deal with the Blackfoot tribe to build a refinery.  They already handle most of Montana's highway system, and frown on casinos.

109 I do not have to pay to drive on the interstate system.

Au contraire you pay quite dearly to drive on an interstate.

110

Will the oil in the pipe be public oil? Public gas?

Posted by: Entropy, and if you don't agree you hate America and want Obama to win at December 21, 2011 01:00 PM (AuQqX)

It will feed public utilities.  It's a necesarry resource.

If conservatives can't temper philosophy with prudence then we're just libertarians.

111

At certain times of the year, I have walked across the Platte.

I know!  The look of disappointment on a Duck when it lands in the Platte is palpable.

112

Wow, really?  That must have been a residential gas line, it has to be processed first.  Either way, that's about the dumbest idea I've ever heard.

Posted by: bernverdnardo at December 21, 2011 12:55 PM (xXhWA)

I did some surveys along some natural gas pipelines in rural New York and that's what the gas guys were telling us. 

113 How is this even possible? Is there a case to be made for the use of ED ever?

We need a (school, hospital, military base, road, whatever) built here.  So-and-so's house is in the way.  We can either not have the [whatever] or we can use eminent domain (because so-and-so refuses to sell) to get the land and build it.

No one here is saying they should just take the land willy-nilly.  Of course truly fair offers should be made for the land.  I don't know about other states, but in Texas you can even take that to court so the the courts can help review if the offers given were "fair."  And, if there's a way to avoid taking the land that isn't "don't build it," I'd prefer that be used than that eminent domain be used.

However, if those options have been exhausted, and the project is really in the public interest (along the lines of the items above, and even those with some qualifications), then I have no problem with eminent domain.

The pipeline should make the offer that entices the homeowner to sell.

Of course they should.  Now imagine they just offered 100K for a piece of property worth, say 60K.  And the homeowner refuses.  What then?

114

Again, I don't see the issue here. While the land value around the original pipeline has gone up specifically BECAUSE of the presence of the pipeline and the jobs it creates I don't see any land requiring the involkation of eminant domain.

In most locations the land the new pipe would require is available for sale at reasonable prices. Where it's not for sale at reasonable prices the new pipe can be routed OVER or UNDER the old pipeline, or where that's not an option the pipe can be re-routed to where land IS available at resonable prices.

Just as importantly, the actual scale of a project this large dwarfs the inflated land values in most cases. I mean once a project is over $100M then $100K here or there is a difference of .01%. You're gonna have political graft and corruption during the construction phase alone dwarfing that by a factor of 1000 to 1.

So anyone presuming that eminant domain is going to be a factor here is pretty much playing politics in advance. What *IS* a factor here that we're not discussing is the "George Soros told Barry he doesn't want it" issue. THAT'S the 800lb gorilla in the room.

115 How will the public be given access and use of the pipeline?

The law of supply and demand. You use oil don't you? All connections that may benefit your life are not direct

116 You're acting like no one has ever built a pipeline for oil or gas in the US before.

You're not learning, at all. I myself have built pipelines in the US before. Have a couple within a half-mile, and let me say it again, there is a major refinery literally in my back yard. Your line of argument is getting you nowhere. Now there's two of you who need to kiss my ass.

I'm not opposed to pipelines, refineries, or oil fields. Love 'em. 

117

It will feed public utilities.

If you follow any given good or service around long enough, eventually it all gets bought by something public. That's utterly meaningless.

118 If being a libertarian means not violating the constitution where it's "prudent", count me in.

119 Will this Canadian oil company being paying rent, to send it's oil through our public pipe?

They're called "property taxes."  And, yes, they'll be paying them.  Not to mention other taxes and fees they'll be paying to each of the states to operate the pipeline.

120

Yep. Not to mention that there are three Reservations that sidle right up to Canuckistan. 

Posted by: garrett at December 21, 2011 12:56 PM (GUwij)

ItÂ’s an American birthright to fuck Indians out of their land.  They should be thankful weÂ’re using eminent domain instead of the cavalry.

121

The law of supply and demand. You use oil don't you? All connections that may benefit your life are not direct

Again, this happens for carrots.

Are they public carrots? Can we use eniminant domain so Archer Midlands can grow some carrots because eventually the public will purchase them?

It's not about benefiting my life!

Jesus! Did you read Kelo? You're endorsing Kelo.

Public USE, not public "hypothetical indirect benefit somewhere down the line".

122 I'm not opposed to pipelines, refineries, or oil fields. Love 'em.

Then you should know your argument is a complete strawman.  And you're holding a match.

Because it's just possible that maybe something will go wrong and "an ecosystem" will be destroyed is a good reason not to have the pipeline?

If that's not what you're saying, please correct me there.

If being a libertarian means not violating the constitution where it's "prudent", count me in.

Point out to me the clause where the Constitution Prohibits to the States the power of eminent domain.

123 105

Eminent domain is only justified in cases of public use.

How will the public be given access and use of the pipeline?

Posted by: Entropy, and if you don't agree you hate America and want Obama to win at December 21, 2011 01:04 PM (AuQqX)

Long as you walk everywhere, and don't need heat, light or electricity in your home, you win!

124

They're called "property taxes."

Rent is called property taxes? Really?

I've been doing it wrong!

125

 

entrohpy,

 

You might want to read the Fith Amendment.

126

Long as you walk everywhere, and don't need heat, light or electricity in your home, you win!

Because no one can provide oil to the market without an abuse of government authority.

127 Public USE, not public "hypothetical indirect benefit somewhere down the line".

But this isn't "hypothetical indirect benefit."  This is concrete direct benefit. 

This isn't some mall that may-or-may-not succeed.  This is a (much needed, actually) oil pipeline that has many, many direct benefits already noted (jobs, national security concerns, etc.)

128 As I said up thread, pipeline co panties have long had eminent domain powers, and its not that controversial. What people are really fighting about now is the CREZ lines, the big transmission lines used to carry wind generated power to the cities. Ranchers have been hugely pissed off by those huge fuckers crossing their land.

129 Rent is called property taxes? Really?

For a business that owns land?  Yes.  Also for homeowners.

Don't believe me?  Don't pay your property taxes and see how long you get to keep your home.  It's rent paid to the state.  Complete with their ability to change it.

130

Public use, 'not many direct public benefits' either.

131
Allen,

I am saying a couple of things.  I don't believe the public use argument of eminent domain trumps the private property rights in this case, YMMV.  Although I believe it is a close call here.

Also "fair value" as defined by the law is not fair value from my experience.  It is highly written for the benefit of the state and developers.

Of course they should.  Now imagine they just offered 100K for a piece of property worth, say 60K.  And the homeowner refuses.  What then?

Go around. or tough luck.  remember my opinion is it is not a "public use" rising to the level of government confiscation, and there are other options for transport.  This is probably where we disagree.

132 Oh jeez, fucking autocomplete. Co panties should be companies. I think my iPad must be a closet AoS moron.

133 "hypothetical indirect benefit somewhere down the line".

WTF it's a pipe line. So your saying If the govt were to build it then eminent domain would be fine but if a private company pays for construction it's not? Whats the difference in the public's benefit?

134 Public use, 'not many direct public benefits' either.

So... not a military base then, either?  They're not for public use.  At least, they won't let me on all by myself, just because I'm a citizen.

135

For a business that owns land? Yes. Also for homeowners.

Give up. Seriously.

You're going to double down on arguing that rent and property taxes are the same thing?

136

I look at this a something more like utility.  Utilities have eminent domain powers.   Pipelines and transmission lines have similarly had eminent domain powers - long before Kelo.  Pipelines are heavily regulated (though I'm not sure whether FERC would regulate here) like utilities and there is a general public benefit there isn't with most business ventures.  There is also the need to ensure that one person (or a few) landowner holdouts can deny the rest of the nation critical resources/facilities.  

 

 

137

Whats the difference in the public's benefit?

It's not about the public's benefit.

138

Because no one can provide oil to the market without an abuse of government authority.

Posted by: Entropy, and if you don't agree you hate America and want Obama to win at December 21, 2011 01:13 PM (AuQqX)

Because whenever there's a pipeline project, there's always someone willing to abuse the process by refusing a fair price for right-of-way (or even a more-than-fair price).  They generally are eager to have the line cross their property - at a highly inflated price; best way to get them to cave is threaten to detour around.  Pipelines - once buried - have very little effect on the ground-level property.

Yes - I know you'll argue that a property owner has the right to refuse to sell at any price.  And you have the right to pay $10/gal for gasoline. 

And we'll all get along.

139

There is also the need to ensure that one person (or a few) landowner holdouts can deny the rest of the nation critical resources/facilities.

Your choise of the word 'deny' implies you feel entitled to it or something, as if the XL pipeline was already your birthright and property owners were taking it away.

140 So... not a military base then, either?  They're not for public use.  At least, they won't let me on all by myself, just because I'm a citizen.

Little known survival tip:
If you break down in bad weather in Wyoming or Western Nebraska, go up to one of those Minuteman missile silos and rattle the fence.

Armed help will arrive in just a few minutes.
No shit.  True story.

141 Although I believe it is a close call here.

On that we agree.  I just happen to come down on the other side of that line than you.

Also "fair value" as defined by the law is not fair value from my experience.

And that's a problem with the law, which I'll agree should be addressed.  Though it's a sticky situation.  I'm not sure about current law, but I'm pretty sure that when Arlington did it to home owners on the new Cowboys Stadium sight, they had to do appraised (before the announcement of the stadium) value + something-or-other percent.  10% maybe?

I'm not sure why that's not "fair."

Go around. or tough luck.

Given your position that this doesn't rise to the appropriate level of "public good" then you're right.  I still disagree with that position.

142 119. They're called "property taxes."  And, yes, they'll be paying them.  Not to mention other taxes and fees they'll be paying to each of the states to operate the pipeline.

No good - the company is already not delivering on those promises in South Dakota and has applied for waivers elsewhere.  

143

That's why I favor Bill D. Cat's idea(s).

 

 I get no respect.

144 You're going to double down on arguing that rent and property taxes are the same thing?

Besides the party to which they're paid, tell me the difference.

The thing about eminent domain is that the original owner is compensated for that land.  You may not like the amount paid, but that's a different issue.  No one is "seizing" anything.  As the now owner of that land, they don't owe "rent" to anyone.

145

So... not a military base then, either? They're not for public use. At least, they won't let me on all by myself, just because I'm a citizen.

Military bases you may have a point with. That means military bases, not pipelines.

Who builds those anyway?

Are they private contractors? Are they competitive bid? Whatever - there's "national security concerns". Legitimate ones, with military bases.

Calling national security on a pipeline is disingenous. You want to say it's a matter of national security we don't get our oil from Iran - we already don't. That we produce our own - fine fuck the pipeline tap the Colorado oil sands. National security it is not.

146
Here is the way I see it.  A public utility is subject to govt regulations affecting price.  This pipeline is not.  The company will not have to ask the govt for a price increase concerning that oil.

Alternatively, if we allow this private company this, we must allow another company their pipeline right beside it or even in a different place.

147

Besides the party to which they're paid, tell me the difference.

One is compensation due, the other is taxes. Seriously I'm not going to bother arguing anymore against the assertion that property taxes and rent are the same thing.

148 1) I'm not concerned about Canadian ED rights 2) Probably 99.9% of the land has already been bought up by people in the know (I.e. politicians) for a song to sell to Transcanada for a hefty profit. Which Transcanada gladly will pay as part of the backroom dealing to get said politicians approval. You people need to get with the program.

149

I'm not afraid you might convince someone if I don't rebut it.

Go with that.

150 No good - the company is already not delivering on those promises in South Dakota and has applied for waivers elsewhere. 

And the only way they're getting those waivers if they're also proving net beneficial economic impact without the taxes.  That is- they can show enough economic impact just because they're there that the State is getting more in taxes with them there but not paying than the would without them there and whoever owned the land paying those taxes.

So, in effect, they're paying them.  Also, in Texas at least, I'm pretty sure those waivers are capped- they can only exist for just.

151 Armed help will arrive in just a few minutes.
No shit.  True story.

Posted by: jwb7605 at December 21, 2011 01:20 PM (+KHIt) '

I'd like to hear the unabridged version one of these days.

152

Here is the way I see it. A public utility is subject to govt regulations affecting price. This pipeline is not. The company will not have to ask the govt for a price increase concerning that oil.

Yup.

153 The company will not have to ask the govt for a price increase concerning that oil.

The difference between how electricity and gasoline are delivered to the customer is the reason we don't need the govt to control price increases. All products made from the oil will be taxed so Uncle Sammy won't have any trouble getting his cut here.

154 Here is the way I see it.  A public utility is subject to govt regulations affecting price.  This pipeline is not.  The company will not have to ask the govt for a price increase concerning that oil.

Finally- a philosophical reason other than "just because, that's why."

But the pipeline is subject to government regulation- just not on their price.  Is it your contention (and it seems to be, but correct me if I'm wrong) that they are not being regulated beyond any other private enterprise (say, a mall, or an office building)?  Perhaps more regulated in scope, but not in kind?  Is that what you're saying?

One is compensation due, the other is taxes.

So... just because.  Thank you.

155 So, Guy and Entropy: Are utilities good prospects for eminent domain?

If so, what is the difference- besides the fact that one is de facto run by the government (through Public Utility Commissions) and one is not- between the two?

156 If that's not what you're saying, please correct me there.

Okay. The most efficient thing to do with that crude would be to refine it right where it occurs. That's why I have refineries here, perched atop the largest oil field in the world, always has been, always will be, although Theo Roosevelt did his damnedest to render it useless.

"Every time you touch something, it costs a nickel." The first, and one of the best, lessons in industrial management I ever got. Once you absolutely have to pump crude, you get a certain distance where the costs and hazards are about the same. All the damn way to Louisiana is outside that circle. There's enough crude to keep the southern refineries busy, and we already have refineries, 'way closer to Alberta than the Gulf Coast is, prepared to handle that output. And there are good places to build new ones, now that they're all turnkey operations pre-assembled overseas, oh yes they are, look it up.

Pipelines have to be patrolled and maintained. Certain Canadian companies have a less than stellar record of that lately. Pipelines without security make a pretty decent target. Most of the infrastructure of the United States depends on the supposition of a loyal populace, helpful strangers, the rule of law, apple pie and the girl next door. Is there a plan to secure this extra thousand miles of potential target?

People in Nebraska and South Dakota tend to be pretty sensible (Check that map again and look at where the new right-of-way will be. It isn't those two states).  There's an excellent chance these lines can be expanded or extended on a cash basis. ED should not be a big issue unless outside interests get involved.

But snot-nosed adolescents in the sophistical states find it amusing to belittle how much a Nebraskan's property may mean to him. I'm not among that group, and I hate a man like that so badly I'm willing to push his face down in the mud and never let him up. There seems to be a lot of debate on just what emineminante doughmmainne means, but the ability to seize a man's land because you outnumber him does not make the cut.



 

157

So, Guy and Entropy: Are utilities good prospects for eminent domain?

Public utilities are public utilities. They are a class in and of themselves.

I am not convinced they must exist, will always exist, or are even ideal. But at the moment they are what they are, and TransCanada isn't.

158 There are work arounds. A state can set up a Keystone Economic Development Commission with ED rights as it is part of the state. Said commission can employ ED on wayward sellers, maintain possession of the land and rent its use to Transcanada. This type of arrangement is not unusual.

159

Pipelines get to use eminent domain to condemn private property for the same reason the telephone companies and power companies do.  But, only if they have "common carrier" status, which means they haul oil for other companies too.

Eminent domain condemnations doesn't mean the landowner doesn't get paid, and trust me they get paid well. All it means is a judge or jury gets to decide the value of the right-of-way across the landowner's land.

Pipeline companies don't run pipelines through established neighborhoods if at all possible because the price is too high. They pick the cheapest route possible.

In my business we get into disputes with irrational landowners that end up going to court, but most of the time we reach an extremely lucrative agreement with the landowner and only use a condemnation proceeding as leverage if the landowner pushes a little too hard.

160 PS the pipeline will be buried below "plow depth".  So for most of the route, it's really just a right of way about 50 feet wide, not a complete takeover of the surface.  I have a nat gas FERC line running across my ranch and it's not a big deal, other than the fact that I can't put a building on top of that 50 foot corridor.

161 150.  And the only way they're getting those waivers if they're also proving net beneficial economic impact without the taxes.  That is- they can show enough economic impact just because they're there that the State is getting more in taxes with them there but not paying than the would without them there and whoever owned the land paying those taxes.

It's already happened in Kansas and the beneficial impact is not that clear-cut.  Keep in mind you're expecting best-case scenarios with a private Canadian co. and we're all assuming a benefit from the oil shipped.  But that company can be sold to anyone; that oil can be sold to anyone, anywhere.  

162 "Every time you touch something, it costs a nickel." The first, and one of the best, lessons in industrial management I ever got. Once you absolutely have to pump crude, you get a certain distance where the costs and hazards are about the same. All the damn way to Louisiana is outside that circle. There's enough crude to keep the southern refineries busy, and we already have refineries, 'way closer to Alberta than the Gulf Coast is, prepared to handle that output. And there are good places to build new ones, now that they're all turnkey operations pre-assembled overseas, oh yes they are, look it up.

Then why would they build this giant pipeline?

I can't imagine it could ever be for something like getting favored companies a leg up over the rest of the competition.

It's not like we don't have oil, and that's why we need the Keystone XL.  There are other sources you know. Why is this one so special?

163 Once you absolutely have to pump crude, you get a certain distance where the costs and hazards are about the same. All the damn way to Louisiana is outside that circle

So a better plan would be to pump it where it's going and build more refineries there.

Is that true after you factor in the regulation costs and such on new refineries?

Yes it may cost "more" to pipe it to LA than, say, Kansas (just to pull a couple out of the air here), but does it cost so much more that it would actually cost less to have the refineries built?

If your answer (and I'm guessing you know more about this than me) is, "yes," then I'll probably have to agree that this is a bogus deal.  In that case, though, it's a bogus deal because it's a bogus deal- not because eminent domain would have to be invoked.

164

If so, what is the difference- besides the fact that one is de facto run by the government (through Public Utility Commissions) and one is not- between the two?

Allen seems like a big fan of asking "Besides all the differences, what is the difference?" about stuff today.

Pineapples and brussel sprouts. Besides the fact that one is fruit and the other a vegetable, what's the difference? Both edible. Same thing.

165

Let's take this attitude toward your business. And your home.

From now on I own your home and pay property taxes, and you pay me rent. That's cool right, cuz it's the same thing?

Also, the government now runs your place of employment. No big deal right. You're a utility! Like GM.

Expect to notice no differences now that government runs your company.

166 The best argument in favor of eminent domain in such situations is the "hold-out" issue: 98% of the property is bought in the open market at a reasonable price, and then the owners of the last 2% demand extortionate prices or simply refuse to sell. This may be simple price-gouging, it may be a sincere emotional attachment to the property, or it may be strategic (e.g. the Sierra Club buying a 500' strip across the preferred route.) Where it is reasonably possible to work around the hold-out, that should be done. But in extreme cases of this nature I have sympathy for the use of eminent domain where there is a clear public use or purpose.

167 Both edible. Same thing.

When what you're trying to do is not starve, they are.  If, indeed, the ONLY difference were that one is a fruit and one is a vegetable.  Which it isn't.

The point is that all of your arguments, so far, have come down to "just because."  And, as a parent, I understand that some questions do eventually come down to "just because," but I don't believe philosophical arguments (the ones one which we build our Philosophy) can fall in that category.

What do Utilities DO that is any different from this pipeline?  Essentially, you're saying that one is a public good because it's run by the government, and the other is not because it isn't.  That doesn't make sense- if anything we should support the private enterprise over the government enterprise.  And I'm not sure we should do that, either.

Now, I will grant that Utilities having their prices regulated by the State are a different animal than the pipeline.  But that's nowhere near saying that one should enjoy eminent domain consideration, and the other shouldn't.  As far as we've brought the question to now, they're still fundamentally the same thing.

So I'm asking you to tell me why they are not fundamentally the same thing.  You said that utilities are "a class in and of themselves."  Okay, then that class should be definable.  Define it for me.  Is its only characteristic that its price is regulated by the government?  Would it be fair to say another characteristic is that it cannot have another identical competitor in the same market?  Define for me the class of "utility" and then show me where this pipeline doesn't fit.  I've already accepted that utilities' prices are regulated by the State- that the state, in fact, is telling private companies how much they can charge for the product they produce.  Give me something else.  Something that makes the pipeline less good for the public than a utility.

168 This argument is pointless. The 5th amendment allows for the use of eminent domain.

....nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The key there is "public use (not public purpose as Kelo said). It involves two major concepts. First it must be for public use. providing a right of way for transfer of oil is "public use" since the public at large will use that oil.  Second it must be "just compensation". This is the part that local governments so often try to stint on and what drives most court cases.

In any case, this is no different than a utility running a "pipeline for electricity" through the area.

169 Even moreso, eminent domain for a Canadian company.

170 I come down where Greg does at the end of the day: If TransCanada wants to build the pipeline, they should do it without eminent domain.

Nonsense. If that is the standard, we could not have privately owned railroads. The government didn't build the transcontinental railroad; private industry did with the help of eminent domain. There should be limits on eminent domain, but the bright line that some people are trying to draw at public owned vs private owned is not the right way. If it is in the public interest for a railroad, road, flight path, or a pipeline, then it is appropriate for eminent domain to be used.

I would agree with those who want to limit its use from things like taking someone's property merely because it is thought that the new owner will pay more taxes. That is an abuse of the concept of public use.

171 eminent domain is a canard.....all common carriers , pipelines, roads, phone lines etc.have had the right to use eminent domain for a hundred years. Move on.

 

172

If it is in the public interest for a railroad, road, flight path, or a pipeline, then it is appropriate for eminent domain to be used.

Who gets to determine what the public's interest is?

173

eminent domain is a canard.....all common carriers , pipelines, roads, phone lines etc.have had the right to use eminent domain for a hundred years

Black people have picked our cotton for hundreds and hundreds of years. The slavery issue is a canard. All farms have slaves. Move on.

Do you want us to all run around naked with no new clothes?

174 Thank you, MrBill, I was waiting for someone to say that in this ridiculous thread.  So much ignorance on display, I felt like I was looking at daily kos or DU.

There hasn't been a long distance pipeline built anywhere in this country without the use of eminent domain to some extent - and as someone else pointed out, the right to do that is written directly into the 5th amendment.  *and* the courts have always given a broad interpretation of "public use", as in it applies to anything that carries something the public will use, regardless of who actually owns it.

Who determines what the public's interest is?  The courts do, always have.   There's an extensive body of case law on the topic that you're clearly ignorant about if you have to ask that.

give it up Entropy, you've already gone full retard.  Don't know where you can go from there.

175

No, pipelines, utility lines, railroads, and roads are the kinds of things that eminent domain is for.  Eminent domain has been used for centuries for long, long projects that cross hundreds of parcels of land.

"Economic development" means real estate development, or putting together land for some factor.  These are things that can happen in a variety of different areas (you don't have to build your factory in spot X), so land sale negotiations are pretty reasonable because if someone tries to extort too much money out of the developer, the developer can go elsewhere.

But pipelines are significantly constrained.  There are very limited reasonable routes between point A and point B.  Especially when you're talking about a line that goes across the continent, you will run into multiple extortionate or unreasonable landowners.  Eminent domain is inevitable.

 

176 Don`t know why eminent domain is even a factor.Big pipeline where I`m from, and has been there for years. It runs through fields and forest, people drive across it, mow hay, plant food plots for deer, more or less pay no attention to it. The only opposition I can see is someone being environmentaly sensative to it. "Run for the hills! it`s an oil bearing pipeline". OBTW the pipeline is in FL. not a very desolate area.

177 I don't understand the need for eminent domain if there is already a pipeline.  They can just build next to or on top of the existing one.  Even if they only piggy-back part of the way or most of the way then there are fewer eminent domain concerns or fewer people for them to buy out.

But I think you can make a better argument that a pipeline is infrastructure like a road than you can make for the devleopmen tin the Kelo case.  That was strictly a matter of wanting more tax revenue which should never be a justification of robbing someone of their property.  But if you can justify eminent domain for railroads, highways, utility lines etc... then I am not seeing a whole lot of difference with a pipeline.

178 On a local ND talk show that I listen to, a guest said that the pipeline would take app 100 oil tankers off highways, per day.
That alone should be stated over and over again to the environmentalists.
( I just went back and tried to find the segment, but, can't remember which guest said it)

This is the site for all the segments from the Scott Hennen  show.
He has had numerous guests that have shared  interesting info concerning the pipeline. If you have extra time it is well worth the listen. Just look for the podcasts that have Keystone Pipeline in the description line. ( skip if the guest is Ellen Ratner )
12/09/11 .... 12/08/11 ... 11/18/11 are interesting

http://tinyurl.com/6mn6o9e

179 Instead of arguing about a pipeline, why not build refineries in Montana and North Dakota?  We all know about the oil sands in the Western U.S. that have not been utilized.  With refineries in close proximity to our own sources, as well as the Canadian oil, it would be a "win-win."   Instead of transporting the oil to Port Arthur and Houston, TX (can we say gulf hurricanes?) the refining would stay closer to the point of refining/distribution. 

I know the question of building new refineries would "upset" the greenies.... screw-em.  The moment they go "Amish-oil-no" and forgo any use of petrol products, then we'll talk.

180 How many 100 thousands of barrels/day is this line to pump? maybe gallons? I do not believe building refineries close to the border and then trucking would be the answer. That would be a lot of trucks. Remember that you would also have that amount of trucks coming in empty to haul out, not very cost effective. A pipeline goes one way, that`s why they built `em. This goes a lot deeper, not going that far.

181 In other words, you build a refinery there, still going to have to pipeline a lot of it out.

182 This article is completely stupid and ignores economics entirely. Where is the DOOM guy? There would be no way to build the pipeline without eminent domain. This is because while the value of passage rights through the first property is small, the value for the last property is huge. Virtually the value of the whole pipeline. Thus it is in the economic self-interest of many potential last property holders to hold out to be the last and make the most money. By putting a cap on this lottery through the power of the State using eminent domain, once the value offered by the pipeline company is roughly equal to the expected compensation from the State, the economic incentive to hold out will be quashed. There will still be some holdouts who want to protect the family farm or grandma's grave site, et al. But those few can be sorted out through eminent domain and political compromise. The vast majority will settle for "just compensation". And that is the role the Court should fill -- to ensure that the compensation received through the eminent domain process is in fact just.

183 If this is, as I understand it, an above-ground pipeline like the Alaskan, then they wouldn't necessarily need title to the land on which the pipeline is built.  All they would need would be permission from the landowner.  I'm sure the landowners will charge rent, and a penalty clause for any damage caused, by construction, repairs, maintenance and any leakage, which would cost the Keystone Corporation cash.  But they wouldn't need to own the land.  Landowners could continue to graze cattle under it, or grow corn.  We've all seen the pix of grizzly bears in Alaska playing on the pipeline and caribou grazing under it. 

184
Wow i really found this to be an interesting read; thanks for sharing

185 Nice commentary. last thirty days I uncovered this internet site and desired to permit you be conscious that iÂ’ve been gratified, heading via your siteÂ’s posts. I should certainly be signing equally as much as the RSS feed and can wait around for another post.

186

@60, 77, 103, et al

I have been wondering for some time now WHY we don't just refine it up north. Pipe it to eastern North (or South) Dakota near some rail line. The Midwest has a huge fuel demand that can be met this way and more sent along via rail or pipe to Denver.

It never did make sense to me to send it all the way to the Gulf Coast. I think part of that might be the stupid moratorium on Gulf drilling. So in fact we have two issues and this is NOT the solution.

Open Gulf of Mexico drilling. Build refineries in North/South Dakota near a rail line servicing the Midwest and/or a pipeline serving refined products. duh.

187

I hate Kelo, too, but...

A pipeline is uniquely appropriate for eminent domain in a way that a shopping center or other commercial development (a la Kelo) isn't.  You can build a shopping center on any piece of property.  For a pipeline, however, you need the specific piece of property that connects two other pieces of property that the pipeline is going on.  If 3 properties are in the line and you already have 1 and 3, you need #2, AND ONLY #2, to complete the pipeline.  Some other property the same size and attributes somewhere else just won't do, unlike for a shopping center.

Remember, eminent domain doesn't mean confiscation.  It means taking at market prices.  The author says the company should do this privately.  But a private company can't compel the owner of lot #2 to sell at a market price.  Only eminent domain can supply that compulsion.  If #2 doesn't want to sell and there's no eminent domain, there's no pipeline, and the investment in lot #1 and lot #3 is wasted.  If a pipeline is in the national interest, eminent doman would seem to be the only practical way of actually accomplishing it.