Full Version: A new twist in the Eminent Domain debate
I was reading the paper the other day, the Anchorage Daily News- and there was a letter to the editor, that said "The ED ruling is old news- it has been done already here in Alaska, with corporations kicking poeple off thier land- when the pipeline was built, the goverment used ED just to turn it over to oil companies, but nobody in Alaska worried about ED and thier rights then"
Which was a very good point- this is almost exactly the same situation- private land was siezed to make way for the pipeline- which is owned by a consortium of Oil Companies- a company called Aleyeska Pipeline- for the direct profit of the oil companies.
I wish I had more documentation on the actual siezures, but talking to an actual oil company executive that lives here local, he says they siezed land just so they wouldn't have to go around it with the pipeline, that each additional foot of pipeline cost "X" dollars- and these properties were siezed to save the oil companies some money!
Wow, not making the oil company spend too much of it's gazzillions of dollars LOL
In light of the fact that it has been a practise of corporate entities for decades to influence local and state goverments to give them eminent domain- I will post the following questions.
1) The pipeline is obviously beneficial to Alaskans as a whole, and the state of Alaska derives ALL it's revenue from oil, however, like in the (Conneticut?) case, there is no blight, no reason other than penny penching to takes folks land, and it only serves the actual profit of the oil companies- Do we need federal level laws created to protect us from Eminent domain abuses?
2) If you don't think these cases are similar- please state why
3) Is it ever okay for a private corporation to PROFIT from Eminent domain?
4) Which do you think protects property owners rights more, Eminent domain standards being left up to state and local goverments, as the last ruling indicated from the SCOTUS, or do you favor a stricter federal law because you fear corporate influece on local and state goverments is too large? Or some other reason?
Which was a very good point- this is almost exactly the same situation- private land was siezed to make way for the pipeline- which is owned by a consortium of Oil Companies- a company called Aleyeska Pipeline- for the direct profit of the oil companies.
I wish I had more documentation on the actual siezures, but talking to an actual oil company executive that lives here local, he says they siezed land just so they wouldn't have to go around it with the pipeline, that each additional foot of pipeline cost "X" dollars- and these properties were siezed to save the oil companies some money!
Wow, not making the oil company spend too much of it's gazzillions of dollars LOL
In light of the fact that it has been a practise of corporate entities for decades to influence local and state goverments to give them eminent domain- I will post the following questions.
1) The pipeline is obviously beneficial to Alaskans as a whole, and the state of Alaska derives ALL it's revenue from oil, however, like in the (Conneticut?) case, there is no blight, no reason other than penny penching to takes folks land, and it only serves the actual profit of the oil companies- Do we need federal level laws created to protect us from Eminent domain abuses?
2) If you don't think these cases are similar- please state why
3) Is it ever okay for a private corporation to PROFIT from Eminent domain?
4) Which do you think protects property owners rights more, Eminent domain standards being left up to state and local goverments, as the last ruling indicated from the SCOTUS, or do you favor a stricter federal law because you fear corporate influece on local and state goverments is too large? Or some other reason?
Do we need federal level laws created to protect us from Eminent domain abuses?
That very thing may happen sooner than we think.
I read an article in the LA Times with great interest on this very issue. It would seem that the eminent domain issue is creating some mighty strange bedfellows. As the article states, what other issue could bring Tom DeLay, Maxine Waters, Bill Frist, Bernie Sanders, Rush Limbaugh and Ralph Nader together?
Per the LA Times article, the House voted 231-189 on a bill that "would prohibit expenditure of any federal housing, transportation or treasury funds to 'enforce the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kelo v. City of New London.'"
Almost makes you want to give a great big hug and kiss to your representative, huh?
I did say "almost".
That very thing may happen sooner than we think.
I read an article in the LA Times with great interest on this very issue. It would seem that the eminent domain issue is creating some mighty strange bedfellows. As the article states, what other issue could bring Tom DeLay, Maxine Waters, Bill Frist, Bernie Sanders, Rush Limbaugh and Ralph Nader together?
Per the LA Times article, the House voted 231-189 on a bill that "would prohibit expenditure of any federal housing, transportation or treasury funds to 'enforce the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kelo v. City of New London.'"
QUOTE(LA Times Real Estate Section 7-24-05)
In effect, the House told the court: You may have approved the Connecticut city's eminent domain seizure of homes for a privately developed and owned urban renewal project, but we have a weapon in this fight, too. If the appropriations amendment passes the Senate, New London will not be able to use key federal funds to move that project forward. No transportation money, no housing subsidies, no aid from the U.S. Treasury.
Almost makes you want to give a great big hug and kiss to your representative, huh?
I did say "almost".
Strange bedfellows, indeed - I carry no brief for oil companies, but I feel a need to weigh in here.
The oil companies did spend a lot of money building the pipeline, no doubt about it. A lot of the cost involved safety or environmental considerations - for example, in some places the pipeline is elevated six feet above the ground to permit unobstructed wildlife movement.
The pipeline should be as straight as possible, with as few joints (bends) as possible. Not only do changes in direction (bends, corners, etc.) increase the pipeline's vulnerability (that is, it's at those joints that the pipeline will be most likely to breach), they'll also slow down the flow of oil flowing through the pipeline.
Thus, the oil guy's anecdotal evidence notwithstanding, I'd suggest that stronger security and economic issues than saving an oil consortium a few bucks were at work in the decision to lay the pipeline over some folks' property.
I'm wondering - except for those cases where the pipeline's route took it right through someone's living room - admittedly rare in a wilderness - wouldn't (or shouldn't) pipeline access have been provided for more through the use of easements rather than out-and-out condemnations?
The oil companies did spend a lot of money building the pipeline, no doubt about it. A lot of the cost involved safety or environmental considerations - for example, in some places the pipeline is elevated six feet above the ground to permit unobstructed wildlife movement.
The pipeline should be as straight as possible, with as few joints (bends) as possible. Not only do changes in direction (bends, corners, etc.) increase the pipeline's vulnerability (that is, it's at those joints that the pipeline will be most likely to breach), they'll also slow down the flow of oil flowing through the pipeline.
Thus, the oil guy's anecdotal evidence notwithstanding, I'd suggest that stronger security and economic issues than saving an oil consortium a few bucks were at work in the decision to lay the pipeline over some folks' property.
I'm wondering - except for those cases where the pipeline's route took it right through someone's living room - admittedly rare in a wilderness - wouldn't (or shouldn't) pipeline access have been provided for more through the use of easements rather than out-and-out condemnations?
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.