PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum - Keystone Pipeline.... Common Carrier?

PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/)

- Off-Topic Discussion (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/off-topic-discussion/)

- - Keystone Pipeline.... Common Carrier? (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/off-topic-discussion/335670-keystone-pipeline-common-carrier.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel (Post 3111002)

You talking about Kelo v. City Of New London in CT?

In that case, although the land was developed by a private firm, the transfer of property from private citizens to the private firm was done by the city of New London.

To the best of my knowledge, private people/corporations have no right to eminent domain.

WalMart has used eminent domain and eminent domain was used to get the last land owners of their property to build Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emmerich (Post 3111016)

Kelo v. City of New London, Case citation|545 U.S. 469 (2005)[1], was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development. The case arose from the condemnation by New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property so that it could be used as part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan. The Court held in a 5-4 decision that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The decision was widely criticized by American politicians and the general public. Many members of the general public viewed the outcome as a gross violation of property rights and as a misinterpretation of the Fifth Amendment, the consequence of which would be to benefit large corporations at the expense of individual homeowners and local communities. Most in the legal profession construe the public's outrage as being directed not at the interpretation of legal principles involved in the case, but at the broad moral principles of the general outcome.[2]

Exactly.

My moral remains outraged.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst (Post 3111078)

Exactly.

My moral remains outraged.

I was surprised this came out of a conservative court.

Definition of "eminent domain": Law which allows the government to RAPE individuals legally.
This is a sore subject for me. We have had 2 older people RAPED by "eminent domain". One was a POW in WWII. The other was a veteran of WWII. The first one, they took land that had some old cars on it (yes they were junk to anyone else) because people in a new complex complained. He was in his 80s. The cars were his life. He had collected them over many years. The second had his farm taken for the town to use as a park. They gave him 1/2 of the tax value set by the county. The town later sold the land to a company that was going to build condos, at a profit. Nothing could be done because they used "eminent domain" to take it in the first place. I will remember next election.
Paul

The government knows what is best for you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emmerich (Post 3110974)

Jeez people, EMINENT DOMAIN....

Good point. I never bother to write anything down, or to really read any contracts.

That's what the Legal Department was for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emmerich (Post 3110982)

Jerry Jones had homes condemned under eminent domain so he could build Cowboy stadium. People were forced out of their homesteads. I think there was a court case in the northeast (maybe Supreme Court) that said eminent domain is no longer used only by government entities, but private parties can as well. The rationale is increased tax revenue, which would also apply to a pipeline.

As a rule, pipeline companies seeking right of ways treat surface owners right. They know the value of good blood between people and how it makes everybody lives much easier. But some people are stubborn no matter what.

Some court will have to decide the big picture cost/benefits of crossing this guys land. I bet in the end when the money gets big enough, he will cave.

I visited Jerry World a few months ago after not having been in that part of Arlington for years. I was stunned at how many structures had been wiped out. At one point very long ago I lived in an apartment house across the street from Vandergriff Buick so I used to deal with a lot of businesses in that area.

And the Candlelight Inn has closed down as well. Nothing last forever.

But on the subject of landowners and ROW.... When we would deal with landowners we tried to be as fair as fair could be. Putting a line across someone's property is not a one time thing; it is a long term commitment. Someday the land would sell and we wanted the new owners to hear from the seller that the pipeline company crossing their land was a good bunch of folks to work with.

We also would tell landowners to call us 24/7 if they thought there was a problem. 99% of the calls we checked out turned out to be false alarms, but false alarms are the best kind in that business.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pmckechnie (Post 3111096)

This sounds like a inside deal to me. When you are big enough fish in a small enough pond you hear about this kind of stuff from those that were cut out of the deal.

This sort of thing was common 50 years ago.

On the flip side.... I know of a case where some homes were torn down by a city and the lots were given to a charity that provided stand alone homes to needy individuals. The old homes were wrecks, so no one was upset about that, and the folks that received the homes had to buy them but they were given a good deal on the price. This was not Habitat for Humanity, but the group used their model of homeownership since it worked.

Then a big company came to town and wanted to buy the entire city block for a new business. The deal the new homeowners had was that if they sold with-in three years they had to give up everything they had in the home, but since no one could have foreseen this turn of events the sponsor decided to let the new owners reap the benefits of location, location, location.

So the homes sold for about what everyone else got, which was 150% of appraised value.

I am only telling this story because it is so rare that a government/private partnership results in some really good results for those on the receiving end.