View Single Post
Old 03-23-2012, 04:51 PM   #16
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $107661
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCTitus View Post
Interesting...I hadnt heard this before. I did some googling and found a couple of articles. The ones I read were about the fact they were concerned about the safety of the pipeline as opposed to the 'land grab'. I guess if the local land owners agreed and now have second thoughts about safety, that's one thing, but I cannot find a link where a land owner was forced to give his private land over to the pipeline. I find that two different things.
You need to see a specific case? I gave you a link showing who was teaming up on this— property owners and environmentalists. I think you're seeing what you want to see in this case.
“Government has no other end but the preservation of property” – John Locke.
Quote:
Conservatives Against the Keystone Pipeline

What has been missed until recently in all of this is how TransCanada planned on acquiring property. Right now TransCanada is suing landowners in Nebraska and Texas to gain access to their property to build the Keystone pipeline on them. Texas Tea Party groups have begun opposing the pipeline on eminent domain grounds.

In September 2011 the Texas Supreme Court ruled in Texas Riceland Partners vs. Denbury Green-Pipeline Texas that using the powers of eminent domain to give property to a private corporation that would only be privately using the property (specifically a gas pipeline in this case) violated the Texas Constitution. In May of 2011 the Texas Legislature passed a law that provided a lot of strength to that ruling.

Nevertheless, utility companies are fighting the ruling and TransCanada is continuing to take Texans to court in order to gain their property for the pipeline.

Quote:

Link within the above story on who is losing what land:
After Crawford repeatedly refused to allow TransCanada onto her land, the company sought eminent domain last fall.

TransCanada says they’ve settled all but 20 of the 80 eminent domain cases they’ve filed in Texas since beginning the pipeline project, and that they pay “at least” market value for the land, if not more.
http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/201...minent-domain/
TC has gotten around it by saying they're public when it's one of those public/private partnerships. However the Tea Partiers have fought against the reasoning being used by TC that
they're a public “common carrier” pipeline .


Quote:
After the opinion by the Supreme Court of Texas, the oil and gas industry has been fighting to overturn it. (You can read more about those efforts in our earlier report, Pipeline Companies Fight for Right to Take Property.) ...

But Crawford and some other holdouts may not go quietly. While the Supreme Court of Texas revisits the decision, she’s filed a temporary restraining order against TransCanada in Lamar County.
__________________
“Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” — James Madison
Posts: 56,177
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote