Land Use and Property Rights

[KC]

Well, the Keystone XL pipeline is in the news again. Protestors were arrested outside the White House today for protesting the proposed pipeline and the President's lack of mention of it in his SOTU address.

Read more about that here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/activists-arrested-at-white-house-protesting-keystone-pipeline/2013/02/13/8f0f1066-75fa-11e2-aa12-e6cf1d31106b_story.html

In my opinion, the government has no business telling Trans Canada whether or not it can build the pipeline. Believers in property rights, however, may have some common cause with environmentalists when it comes to the pipeline. Trans Canada has been already been granted rights to build on private property in Texas (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-28/transcanada-s-keystone-wins-right-to-take-pipeline-land.html), using the state's eminent domain laws. The government has even less business telling property holders to step aside.

The pipeline should not be built at the expense of our rights as property owners, yet the government continues to arrest environmentalists for protesting-- a Constitutional right-- while denying the property rights the government exists to protect.

[Chris]

Depends on if the landowners are reasonably compensated. With the pipeline come jobs building and maintaining it and running a refinery.

[KC]

Depends on if the landowners are reasonably compensated. With the pipeline come jobs building and maintaining it and running a refinery.

There are benefits yes, but not at the cost of taking away a property owner's right to decide. Usually they can be bought. If not, Trans Canada should have to accept their decision.

[Chris]

We, I think that's long-standing law, we're only protected by guarantee of compensation:



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


(Just must be reasonable.)

[Chloe]

Depends on if the landowners are reasonably compensated. With the pipeline come jobs building and maintaining it and running a refinery.

I know I'm going to sound like a broken record but I still don't think that the money and jobs that will come from this are going to be worth the environmental impact and backwards direction that this will take the country. I'm not saying that new jobs is a bad thing, it's not, it's a good thing, but jobs in fossil fuels and the continuation and promoting of the construction of thousands of miles worth of pipeline to transport a dirty energy source is just not what we should be focusing on in my opinion.

Just because it makes money and gives jobs does not always mean its the best thing to do. People will support the pipeline because of the promise of cheaper gas for their cars and stuff but because of that they will ignore the actual meaning behind such a big oil pipeline. It's only going to continue us on the path we are on and make no more big advances in renewable energy, but as long as it means paying 50 cents less per gallon people will buy into anything they say. Sorry it's just disappointing.

[KC]

We, I think that's long-standing law, we're only protected by guarantee of compensation:


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


(Just must be reasonable.)

Who gets to decide what is reasonable? I realize that's the US law on eminent domain as established by the Constitution, but I disagree.

[Chloe]

We, I think that's long-standing law, we're only protected by guarantee of compensation:


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


(Just must be reasonable.)

Some things are worth more than money to a lot of people

[Chris]

I know I'm going to sound like a broken record but I still don't think that the money and jobs that will come from this are going to be worth the environmental impact and backwards direction that this will take the country. I'm not saying that new jobs is a bad thing, it's not, it's a good thing, but jobs in fossil fuels and the continuation and promoting of the construction of thousands of miles worth of pipeline to transport a dirty energy source is just not what we should be focusing on in my opinion.

Just because it makes money and gives jobs does not always mean its the best thing to do. People will support the pipeline because of the promise of cheaper gas for their cars and stuff but because of that they will ignore the actual meaning behind such a big oil pipeline. It's only going to continue us on the path we are on and make no more big advances in renewable energy, but as long as it means paying 50 cents less per gallon people will buy into anything they say. Sorry it's just disappointing.

Well, Broken Record ( :-) ), the benefits are known, you can count on the number of jobs, the income, the spending, etc, but your guessing the risks. For every source you could find saying it's risky I could likely find a source saying it's safe. Now if we knew the risks with some certainty, like the benefits, then we could weigh it, do a cost/benefit analysis, and decide. But we don't know the risks.

[KC]

Well, Broken Record ( :-) ), the benefits are known, you can count on the number of jobs, the income, the spending, etc, but your guessing the risks. For every source you could find saying it's risky I could likely find a source saying it's safe. Now if we knew the risks with some certainty, like the benefits, then we could weigh it, do a cost/benefit analysis, and decide. But we don't know the risks.

Even if we fully understood the risks and benefits, I just fundamentally think that's it's not any central authority's right to decide. That is the basis of central planning.

[KC]

Well, Broken Record ( :-) ), the benefits are known, you can count on the number of jobs, the income, the spending, etc, but your guessing the risks. For every source you could find saying it's risky I could likely find a source saying it's safe. Now if we knew the risks with some certainty, like the benefits, then we could weigh it, do a cost/benefit analysis, and decide. But we don't know the risks.

Even if we fully understood the risks and benefits, I just fundamentally think that's it's not any central authority's right to decide. That is the basis of central planning.

[KC]

I'm more strict in my feelings on eminent domain when it's invoked for the benefit of a private entity. I realize that without eminent domain it would be difficult to build up any kind of infrastructure. So you have to tolerate it at some level, but the decision makers should be dispersed, decisions made at the local level, and in all cases property holders should receive just compensation.

Eminent domain should never be invoked on behalf of any private project.

[KC]

Some things are worth more than money to a lot of people

That's why it should be left to property owners. Decentralize the decision making progress, let people decide based on what they value.

[Guerilla]

Considering that this pipeline would help the economy, is very short-sighted. These people haven't considered the environmental implications that will need to be dealt with in the long run after all the oil companies have made their quick buck. As for the land owners. Eminent domain basically says, we will take your land against your will if necessary as long as it benefits the economy. The compensation is almost never reasonable, and you shouldn't be able to take it if the person doesn't want to sell it. That's a direct infringement on individual freedoms. I don't see how keystone xl can honestly defend what they are doing.

[Mister D]

A little off topic but I was just thinking today about how land was essentially inalienable in traditional societies. In Medieval Europe, most men couldn't sell their land if they wanted to.

[Chris]

Even if we fully understood the risks and benefits, I just fundamentally think that's it's not any central authority's right to decide. That is the basis of central planning.

There's two issues, one weighing risks and benefits, the other who gets to decide. Who gets to decide depends on who has alloadal title to the land, and in most cases that's the state. I first heard about this from Michael Badnarik, in his Constitution class--skip to 3:45 and he'll explain:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BU_PqLN-ls

In most cases we don't own the land, not truly own it.

[Agravan]

Some things are worth more than money to a lot of people
Not when you have a family to feed. Some people can't afford to be idealistic.

[Chris]

Considering that this pipeline would help the economy, is very short-sighted. These people haven't considered the environmental implications that will need to be dealt with in the long run after all the oil companies have made their quick buck. As for the land owners. Eminent domain basically says, we will take your land against your will if necessary as long as it benefits the economy. The compensation is almost never reasonable, and you shouldn't be able to take it if the person doesn't want to sell it. That's a direct infringement on individual freedoms. I don't see how keystone xl can honestly defend what they are doing.

Again, the jobs and other benefits are known, the environmental risks are unknown. What you're saying is even though I know there are benefits, jobs, etc, I do not know but there might could be some environmental risk, therefore.... What will be against what if.

[Dr. Who]

Well, the Keystone XL pipeline is in the news again. Protestors were arrested outside the White House today for protesting the proposed pipeline and the President's lack of mention of it in his SOTU address.

Read more about that here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/activists-arrested-at-white-house-protesting-keystone-pipeline/2013/02/13/8f0f1066-75fa-11e2-aa12-e6cf1d31106b_story.html

In my opinion, the government has no business telling Trans Canada whether or not it can build the pipeline. Believers in property rights, however, may have some common cause with environmentalists when it comes to the pipeline. Trans Canada has been already been granted rights to build on private property in Texas (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-28/transcanada-s-keystone-wins-right-to-take-pipeline-land.html), using the state's eminent domain laws. The government has even less business telling property holders to step aside.

The pipeline should not be built at the expense of our rights as property owners, yet the government continues to arrest environmentalists for protesting-- a Constitutional right-- while denying the property rights the government exists to protect.


To be honest you have to be crazy to want a pipeline on your property. Pipelines spring leaks all the time. There is no way to adequately inspect them because they can corrode from the inside out. If you allow a pipeline on your property you're almost certainly going to have at some point or other an environmental incident which can contaminate your water table. Really bad news if you rely on well water. Also bad news if you are operating a farm.
All the more reason to find new sources of energy.

[Dr. Who]

To be honest you have to be crazy to want a pipeline on your property. Pipelines sprink leaks all the time. There is no way to adequately inspect them because they can corrode from the inside out. If you allow a pipeline on your property you're almost certainly going to have at some point or other an environmental incident which can contaminate your water table. Really bad news if you rely on well water. Also bad news if you are operating a farm.
All the more reason to find new sources of energy.

Oh and by the way, this is not coming from an "environmentalist" point of view. Dealing with losses for pipeline leaks is part of what I do for a living. They do frequently leak. Not in the first few years, but eventually they will.

[Guerilla]

Again, the jobs and other benefits are known, the environmental risks are unknown. What you're saying is even though I know there are benefits, jobs, etc, I do not know but there might could be some environmental risk, therefore.... What will be against what if.

Yes the what if is more important than the will be on some occasions. The benefits aren't even that great, sure a few jobs here and their but should we really even be trying to expand the oil industry? I mean greener industries are going to begin replacing the oil industry and that's no what if. We shouldn't be looking at the expansion of oil industry as improvement, we should look at it as slowing progress.

[Chloe]

Not when you have a family to feed. Some people can't afford to be idealistic.

But see if you have to sell your home to an oil company in order to feed your family then there is probably more going on. I just meant that money doesn't always solve everything.

[Chris]

Yes the what if is more important than the will be on some occasions. The benefits aren't even that great, sure a few jobs here and their but should we really even be trying to expand the oil industry? I mean greener industries are going to begin replacing the oil industry and that's no what if. We shouldn't be looking at the expansion of oil industry as improvement, we should look at it as slowing progress.

No, it's not. You can't argue rationally from unknowns.

[Agravan]

But see if you have to sell your home to an oil company in order to feed your family then there is probably more going on. I just meant that money doesn't always solve everything.

You're right, money doesn't always solve anything. But it keeps the wolves at bay until you can figure things out.

[KC]

There's two issues, one weighing risks and benefits, the other who gets to decide. Who gets to decide depends on who has alloadal title to the land, and in most cases that's the state. I first heard about this from Michael Badnarik, in his Constitution class--skip to 3:45 and he'll explain:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BU_PqLN-ls

In most cases we don't own the land, not truly own it.

Whoever pays taxes on land ought to be considered sovereign as far as the land's use goes. Only seems fair.

[Chris]

Whoever pays taxes on land ought to be considered sovereign as far as the land's use goes. Only seems fair.

Ought to be, I agree. But legally, it's not the case.

[donttread]

Well, the Keystone XL pipeline is in the news again. Protestors were arrested outside the White House today for protesting the proposed pipeline and the President's lack of mention of it in his SOTU address.

Read more about that here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/activists-arrested-at-white-house-protesting-keystone-pipeline/2013/02/13/8f0f1066-75fa-11e2-aa12-e6cf1d31106b_story.html

In my opinion, the government has no business telling Trans Canada whether or not it can build the pipeline. Believers in property rights, however, may have some common cause with environmentalists when it comes to the pipeline. Trans Canada has been already been granted rights to build on private property in Texas (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-28/transcanada-s-keystone-wins-right-to-take-pipeline-land.html), using the state's eminent domain laws. The government has even less business telling property holders to step aside.

The pipeline should not be built at the expense of our rights as property owners, yet the government continues to arrest environmentalists for protesting-- a Constitutional right-- while denying the property rights the government exists to protect.


There is an entire organization which exist to combat government land grabs, usually where the confiscated land is turned over to private corporations . The Institute for Justice. Peter are you familiar with them

[Bob]

Well, the Keystone XL pipeline is in the news again. Protestors were arrested outside the White House today for protesting the proposed pipeline and the President's lack of mention of it in his SOTU address.

Read more about that here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/activists-arrested-at-white-house-protesting-keystone-pipeline/2013/02/13/8f0f1066-75fa-11e2-aa12-e6cf1d31106b_story.html

In my opinion, the government has no business telling Trans Canada whether or not it can build the pipeline. Believers in property rights, however, may have some common cause with environmentalists when it comes to the pipeline. Trans Canada has been already been granted rights to build on private property in Texas (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-28/transcanada-s-keystone-wins-right-to-take-pipeline-land.html), using the state's eminent domain laws. The government has even less business telling property holders to step aside.

The pipeline should not be built at the expense of our rights as property owners, yet the government continues to arrest environmentalists for protesting-- a Constitutional right-- while denying the property rights the government exists to protect.

Eminent domain laws work different than presented above.

No taking can be established unless the property owner is fully compensated.

Pipelines are different than taking your property to build themselves a commercial business on your land.

Pipelines may be ordered to be put underground in the process of eminent domain.

Many restrictions may be placed on the pipeline owner/operator.
Environmentalists have no legal standing over the property thus should protest on land that has been approved by an owner to protest on.

[Newpublius]

Who gets to decide what is reasonable?

Eventually, courts, KC.

My parents actually live on land where a water pipeline cuts a corner of the property underground. I'd never know it was there, but United Water has an easement and that water pipe feeds water to the City of Newark from the Charlotteburg Reservoir. Water, electrical, phone., even roads themselves...there are many things which need a point A to point B connection. The government will come along and say, John gets $X, Susie gets $Y dollars and Joe gets $Z dollars. If you refuse to accept it, it becomes a factual dispute and that can go to court. But the standard is 'just compensation'

[donttread]

I'm more strict in my feelings on eminent domain when it's invoked for the benefit of a private entity. I realize that without eminent domain it would be difficult to build up any kind of infrastructure. So you have to tolerate it at some level, but the decision makers should be dispersed, decisions made at the local level, and in all cases property holders should receive just compensation.

Eminent domain should never be invoked on behalf of any private project.

Kelo vs. New London opened my eyes. New London won the USSC blessing to steal a functional , unblighted neighborhood for Pfizer glory! And yes steal is the correct word. If you have a ten dollar auto part I need and I forcefully take it from you and throw a ten dollar bill at your feet is that not still theft? Public outcry helped Susan Kelo where her government failed her, at least three of them.
In other places the city simply deems your neighborhood "blighted" as though it was a tree and does the same damned thing.
Further restrictions need to be placed on Eminent Domain, including that it never be enacted for private interest

[Peter1469]

And that land has never been used for a "better use."

Kelo, like Citizen's United were the Dread Scotts of our day.


Kelo vs. New London opened my eyes. New London won the USSC blessing to steal a functional , unblighted neighborhood for Pfizer glory! And yes steal is the correct word. If you have a ten dollar auto part I need and I forcefully take it from you and throw a ten dollar bill at your feet is that not still theft? Public outcry helped Susan Kelo where her government failed her, at least three of them.
In other places the city simply deems your neighborhood "blighted" as though it was a tree and does the same damned thing.
Further restrictions need to be placed on Eminent Domain, including that it never be enacted for private interest

[donttread]

At some point we have to collectively say no fucking more

[PolWatch]

if someone with more money than you has convinced the local authorities that they will make money by condemning your property...yer outta luck.

[Dr. Who]

Well, Broken Record ( :-) ), the benefits are known, you can count on the number of jobs, the income, the spending, etc, but your guessing the risks. For every source you could find saying it's risky I could likely find a source saying it's safe. Now if we knew the risks with some certainty, like the benefits, then we could weigh it, do a cost/benefit analysis, and decide. But we don't know the risks.
It's a heck of a thing if you get expropriated from a piece of land that's been in your family for generations, just compensation or otherwise. There is some value that doesn't have a price. On the other hand they might just take a strip out of your farm, for "just compensation" which doesn't consider the possible downside of pipeline leakage destroying your property and possibly your livelihood and the fact that you will have to ante up the funds to pursue compensation via the courts or the fact that you will probably be bankrupt and in default of all of your creditors long before you receive such compensation.

[donttread]

if someone with more money than you has convinced the local authorities that they will make money by condemning your property...yer outta luck.

So will be at least one of them