You support Obama's fight against the Keystone Pipeline project. Yes, even you.

You: A somewhat rational, decent human being
You: Think Kelo is one of the worst decisions in SC history
You: Cannot believe there is a galaxy where eminent domain for private companies is enforced.

You: support the Keystone pipeline project.

...

You: probably haven't realized that the Keystone pipeline project is going to be built and owned by a foreign company that is forcing landowners from Canada to Texas to sell their property.

Quote : The coalition says TransCanada has filed over 80 eminent domain cases against landowners in 18 Texas counties.

And that's just Texas.

Can't have it both ways guys. If Kelo is as bad as we all say it is, Keystone is the worst thing imaginable.

What say you?

Unless the government step in, how are they going to force anyone from selling anything?

Quote from Genos : Unless the government step in, how are they going to force anyone from selling anything?

A private company is using eminent domain as made possible by Kelo. In the Kelo case, a couple of owners were forced to sell their property to a private company. In this case, hundreds will be.

And yet I haven't heard anyone make the eminent domain argument.

I don't wish to enter this argument (it doesn't interest me), but I think the difference is the intended use of eminent domain. And that a pipeline has a more obvious public benefit than the redevelopment in Kelo.

Here's some general info on ED (about New York, but also applies in many ways here):

http://publicauthorities.wordpres...-new-york/

And some notes on pipeline ED in Texas:

http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/about/...domain.php

Note the quote:

Quote : Q: Do all pipeline operators have the power of eminent domain? A: Generally speaking, common carrier pipelines in Texas have a statutory right of eminent domain. Common carrier pipelines are operators that transport oil, oil products, gas, carbon dioxide, salt brine, sand, clay, liquefied minerals or other mineral solutions. For example, a pipeline transporting hazardous liquids would be a common carrier, and would have the right of eminent domain. A ‘common carrier’ pipeline transporting natural gas would be a ‘public utility’ (more commonly referred to as a ‘gas utility’), and also would have the power of eminent domain. The Railroad Commission does not have the authority to regulate any pipelines with respect to the exercise of their eminent domain powers.

I see how this works now. Even if Obama accepted the pipeline, the Republicans can still bash him for allowing a foreign company to use eminent domain to steal land from Americans.

Gotta give it up to the Republicans for coming up with this one.

ED sucks pretty bad, but the problem is that there is no free market for a road, pipeline, or other infrastructure projects.

It should be built as straight and convenient as possible. Those people that sit along the optimized path cannot be out-competed by other land owners. The land owners essentially have a monopoly. By declining all reasonable offers they can drive the price well above the free market value (if the property was being purchased for other purposes and nearby land owners could compete). I have little objection to ED for infrastructure. I do have a problem when it is used for shopping malls, industrial parks, or residential developments. You can simply build them somewhere else.

Quote from loop610bob : A private company is using eminent domain as made possible by Kelo. In the Kelo case, a couple of owners were forced to sell their property to a private company. In this case, hundreds will be. And yet I haven't heard anyone make the eminent domain argument.

Yeah, like I said, unless the government step in. As I understand it, the government have to step in, seize the property and then give it to the private company to exploit.

I don't necessarily have a huge problem with the idea of a pipeline that will help us increase our energy independence but from everything I've read the oil that will be refined won't actually be sold in the US. Now if that's true no way would I support something that could potentially pollute our environment while not providing all that much of a benefit (well, apart from the jobs and the cash for the investors).

Quote from Xygonn : Those people that sit along the optimized path cannot be out-competed by other land owners. The land owners essentially have a monopoly.

My head spins at all of the awesome socialist arguments I can make based solely on those two sentences.

Quote : I do have a problem when it is used for shopping malls, industrial parks, or residential developments. You can simply build them somewhere else.

Why? All of those things create jobs and add value. You think a pipeline going through Kansas is going to create jobs once the 3 months it takes to lay the pipe is done? Hellz no. At least Kelo could point to continuing economic impact. Keystone will do virtually nothing for anyone outside of the beginning and end of the pipe.

Quote : And some notes on pipeline ED in Texas:

Texas's dirty little secret is that we are complete and utter whores when it comes to resource extraction. Drinking your milkshake here is not only legal, but encouraged. Don't like the terms being offered to drill on your land? They can just buy the plot next door and push a straw over to your land. Completely legal. Property rights mean nothing here.

Shhhh. Don't tell anyone with a 10 gallon hat.

Quote from loop610bob : Texas's dirty little secret is that we are complete and utter whores when it comes to resource extraction. Drinking your milkshake here is not only legal, but encouraged. Don't like the terms being offered to drill on your land? They can just buy the plot next door and push a straw over to your land. Completely legal. Property rights mean nothing here. Shhhh. Don't tell anyone with a 10 gallon hat.

But but but but..... I thought having GUNS was suppose to protect you from all that...

Quote from loop610bob : My head spins at all of the awesome socialist arguments I can make based solely on those two sentences. Why? All of those things create jobs and add value. You think a pipeline going through Kansas is going to create jobs once the 3 months it takes to lay the pipe is done? Hellz no. At least Kelo could point to continuing economic impact. Keystone will do virtually nothing for anyone outside of the beginning and end of the pipe. Texas's dirty little secret is that we are complete and utter whores when it comes to resource extraction. Drinking your milkshake here is not only legal, but encouraged. Don't like the terms being offered to drill on your land? They can just buy the plot next door and push a straw over to your land. Completely legal. Property rights mean nothing here. Shhhh. Don't tell anyone with a 10 gallon hat.

I'm sure you'd love to make those arguments. To make them you have to prove the land could not simply be purchased elsewhere by buyers. Why does a mall HAVE to be where someone's house is? While we are talking about Kelo... how is that dump treating the residents of New London? I bet it has the same economic impact the mall promised!

There is some pliability in the path of a pipeline, but it may not extend sufficiently to allow free market competition. I admit freely that pure capitalism does not result in a perfectly free market. Government actions should be performed to improve market efficiency. Most socialist takings are not meant to improve market efficiency. They are made, as you have said, for "positive economic impact on the community". What a bunch of hogwash.

Onto drilling:
People often confuse drainage with directional drilling because There Will Be Blood used the poor metaphor from the old Teapot Dome hearings. In fact, directional drilling didn't start until two decades after that hearing. He's not actually using a straw to reach across the room. The milkshakes are connected at the bottom. This is competition, and I have no problem with it. The more land owners that have access to a single oil deposit (straight below them), the better the free market will work. I do disagree with directional drilling to reach a well that isn't directly below your land.

Quote from Xygonn : It should be built as straight and convenient as possible.

But it doesn't have to be. That's just a cost trade off.

Quote : Those people that sit along the optimized path cannot be out-competed by other land owners.

They can. At the expense of higher building and operating costs.

Quote : The land owners essentially have a monopoly.

Not even close. They only have the ability to price the project out of feasibility.

Quote from 124nic8 : But it doesn't have to be. That's just a cost trade off. They can. At the expense of higher building and operating costs. Not even close. They only have the ability to price the project out of feasibility.

No, no, no. The guy with the best path will sell for price resulting in the same total cost as the guy next door. That total cost is higher because the pipe has to jog over and back onto the optimal path. That guy will only sell for the price for the guy next door. Etc. It passes down the line. The price would be the price to go the absolute worst possible path (minus some small fraction). So perhaps you are right, they just price it out of feasibility.

However, it doesn't cost more to put a mall ten miles over. The land is being competed for in a fair open market.

If we ask what constitutes a necessary infrastructure project, that's where things might get tricky.

Quote from Xygonn : No, no, no. The guy with the best path will sell for price resulting in the same total cost as the guy next door. That total cost is higher because the pipe has to jog over and back onto the optimal path. That guy will only sell for the price for the guy next door. Etc. It passes down the line. The price would be the price to go the absolute worst possible path (minus some small fraction). So perhaps you are right, they just price it out of feasibility.

Which is it? No, no, no, or perhaps I am right?

Quote : However, it doesn't cost more to put a mall ten miles over. The land is being competed for in a fair open market.

It might cost less or more. And the result may be fewer customers. Location!

Quote : If we ask what constitutes a necessary infrastructure project, that's where things might get tricky.

Seems like ED would be a subsidy to energy which requires distribution networks. IE. not distributed production like solar and wind.