The Nebraska Supreme court ruled to let the owners of ‪#‎KeystoneXL‬ seize land and drive a pipeline through

  • metta

    Posts: 39099

    Jan 10, 2015 8:29 AM GMT
    The Nebraska Supreme court just ruled to let the owners of ‪#‎KeystoneXL‬ seize land and drive a pipeline through the heartland of America, no matter what local tribes, ranchers and landowners think:

    http://bit.ly/vetoKXL
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14336

    Jan 10, 2015 6:56 PM GMT

    I wonder if any of the federal courts will get involved with this disputeicon_question.gif
  • sothis999

    Posts: 58

    Jan 10, 2015 8:23 PM GMT
    This is anti-propertarian and wrong. It was not the state of Nebraska's land to give away, and I don't care what silly eminent domain argument they might have.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 11, 2015 3:54 PM GMT
    sothis999 saidThis is anti-propertarian and wrong. It was not the state of Nebraska's land to give away, and I don't care what silly eminent domain argument they might have.



    Question of an overriding public purpose...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 11, 2015 4:10 PM GMT
    roadbikeRob said
    I wonder if any of the federal courts will get involved with this disputeicon_question.gif


    Its called eminent domain, and it's the right of the state to take property for the public good. The state may condemn private property, then purchase that property for any use they define as "public good."

    The Supreme Court landmark case a couple years ago was Kelo v. City of New London. Pretty much anything can be defined as "permissible public use."


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jan 11, 2015 4:18 PM GMT
    It's really only going to benefit Canada and a handful of robber barons in the US. The people of the US are being fleeced, and I'm just speaking of economic impacts. The environmental impacts are unprecedented.
  • Apparition

    Posts: 3521

    Jan 12, 2015 4:44 AM GMT
    HottJoe saidIt's really only going to benefit Canada and a handful of robber barons in the US. The people of the US are being fleeced, and I'm just speaking of economic impacts. The environmental impacts are unprecedented.


    Our oil companies are chnese or american, we arent going to benefit any more than you. All the jobs will be there too physically, how would we benefit? At the moment it is not going to happen anyway, oil is half of production cost it will be shut down soon.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 12, 2015 4:59 AM GMT
    Hello, have you ever driven on a road or ridden on a railroad? Or used electricity, or gas or a telephone or the Internet, or watched television? Drunk water, bathed, taken a shit? Used things that run through wires, pipes, or fiber optics? All of that land was seized from someone. Plus the railroads got "extra" land to exploit, so that they could pay for lines that might not be individually profitable but formed a comprehensive transportation system. (Like riverfront and downtown property in every town and huge chunks of western forest land.)

    Ronny Raygun let the railroads welsh on that deal, and close down all the unprofitable lines. Guess what? They got to keep all the land...

    And it's not as if the envirobabble crowd aren't trying to seize and condemn all the ranch and forest land that they can to make picnic and party areas and country estates for themselves.
  • sothis999

    Posts: 58

    Jan 12, 2015 1:10 PM GMT
    If an economic endeavor is not profitable without government force, then it isn't an endeavor worth having. If these companies really need the land they can negotiate with the owners or build around them and afford the costs themselves. And I don't buy the argument that it was used for so many other things that it is right. It was wrong in those instances and it is wrong now. That property belongs to the people who either honesteaded it or traded for it, and if they decide they don't want tovsell it or that they want more for it, that is their choice and theirs only. Eminent Domain is one of the shittiest things put in state and federal constitutions from a true propertarians perspective.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jan 12, 2015 2:46 PM GMT
    Apparition said
    HottJoe saidIt's really only going to benefit Canada and a handful of robber barons in the US. The people of the US are being fleeced, and I'm just speaking of economic impacts. The environmental impacts are unprecedented.


    Our oil companies are chnese or american, we arent going to benefit any more than you. All the jobs will be there too physically, how would we benefit? At the moment it is not going to happen anyway, oil is half of production cost it will be shut down soon.

    Only 30 permanent jobs will be created in the US by this project. If Canada and the US get nothing, you have to wonder who actually does benefit.icon_confused.gif
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jan 12, 2015 2:48 PM GMT
    sothis999 saidIf an economic endeavor is not profitable without government force, then it isn't an endeavor worth having. If these companies really need the land they can negotiate with the owners or build around them and afford the costs themselves. And I don't buy the argument that it was used for so many other things that it is right. It was wrong in those instances and it is wrong now. That property belongs to the people who either honesteaded it or traded for it, and if they decide they don't want tovsell it or that they want more for it, that is their choice and theirs only. Eminent Domain is one of the shittiest things put in state and federal constitutions from a true propertarians perspective.

    Does China use eminent domain? You touted their "free market," and one of your examples was minimal/non existent zoning laws, which, I'm wondering if that explains (or maybe partially explains) why they are stewing in smog.
  • sothis999

    Posts: 58

    Jan 12, 2015 3:32 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    sothis999 saidIf an economic endeavor is not profitable without government force, then it isn't an endeavor worth having. If these companies really need the land they can negotiate with the owners or build around them and afford the costs themselves. And I don't buy the argument that it was used for so many other things that it is right. It was wrong in those instances and it is wrong now. That property belongs to the people who either honesteaded it or traded for it, and if they decide they don't want tovsell it or that they want more for it, that is their choice and theirs only. Eminent Domain is one of the shittiest things put in state and federal constitutions from a true propertarians perspective.

    Does China use eminent domain? You touted their "free market," and one of your examples was minimal/non existent zoning laws, which, I'm wondering if that explains (or maybe partially explains) why they are stewing in smog.


    I already explained to you how Hong Kong isn't the same thing as China. If you are going to make claims about what I have or have not said at least educate yourself on my position. I never said Hong Kong had minimal or no zoning laws. I said that their way about doing zoning laws allow for easier business growth. They still have plenty of zoning laws, they just go about it differently.

    As for your question about whether Hong Kong has eminent domain, it has a procedure called land resumption, which is essentially eminent domain. All legal systems that are based on common law (as Hong Kong's is, via Britain) have some form of this. Again, I wouldn't say it is right for that reason. It is just an archaic feature of common law that hadn't been thrown out with a lot of other crappy stuff during the enlightenment.

    Functionally, Hong Kong doesn't seem to use its right to land resumption as much as most cities in the U.S or other places in the world, probably because of their limited resources.

    As for smog, Hong Kong is neither very polluted nor exceptionally pollution free. It is less polluted than U.S cities like Houston, and Los Angeles, while more polluted than a U.S cities like New York City and Philadelphia. Pretty typical for a city of 7 million people. For some reason, something tells me you were thinking of Beijing or Shanghai. Which despite their high regulatory environments are vastly more polluted than Hong Kong.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jan 12, 2015 3:48 PM GMT
    sothis999 said
    HottJoe said
    sothis999 saidIf an economic endeavor is not profitable without government force, then it isn't an endeavor worth having. If these companies really need the land they can negotiate with the owners or build around them and afford the costs themselves. And I don't buy the argument that it was used for so many other things that it is right. It was wrong in those instances and it is wrong now. That property belongs to the people who either honesteaded it or traded for it, and if they decide they don't want tovsell it or that they want more for it, that is their choice and theirs only. Eminent Domain is one of the shittiest things put in state and federal constitutions from a true propertarians perspective.

    Does China use eminent domain? You touted their "free market," and one of your examples was minimal/non existent zoning laws, which, I'm wondering if that explains (or maybe partially explains) why they are stewing in smog.


    I already explained to you how Hong Kong isn't the same thing as China. If you are going to make claims about what I have or have not said at least educate yourself on my position. I never said Hong Kong had minimal or no zoning laws. I said that their way about doing zoning laws allow for easier business growth. They still have plenty of zoning laws, they just go about it differently.

    As for your question about whether Hong Kong has eminent domain, it has a procedure called land resumption, which is essentially eminent domain. All legal systems that are based on common law (as Hong Kong's is, via Britain) have some form of this. Again, I wouldn't say it is right for that reason. It is just an archaic feature of common law that hadn't been thrown out with a lot of other crappy stuff during the enlightenment.

    Functionally, Hong Kong doesn't seem to use its right to land resumption as much as most cities in the U.S or other places in the world, probably because of their limited resources.

    As for smog, Hong Kong is neither very polluted nor exceptionally pollution free. It is less polluted than U.S cities like Houston, and Los Angeles, while more polluted than a U.S cities like New York City and Philadelphia. Pretty typical for a city of 7 million people. For some reason, something tells me you were thinking of Beijing or Shanghai. Which despite their high regulatory environments are vastly more polluted than Hong Kong.

    If you google pollution in Hong Kong you get a very different story. I would have to research more thoroughly than to just take the word of anyone who cites heritage.org.

    icon_confused.gif
  • sothis999

    Posts: 58

    Jan 12, 2015 4:10 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    If you google pollution in Hong Kong you get a very different story. I would have to research more thoroughly than to just take the word of anyone who cites heritage.org.


    After a quick google search:


    http://www.numbeo.com/pollution/rankings.jsp (higher is worst)

    Hong Kong - 57.41

    New York - 52.82

    Los Angeles - 60.92

    Houston - 60.37

    Philadelphia 51.44

    About their statistics

    Most of our data are based on perceptions (opinions) from visitors of this website. For pollution section, we might include some relevant data from World Health Organization and other institutions if we find it helpful. Please consult our Terms of use for details.

    Pollution Index is an estimation of the overall pollution in the city. The biggest weight is given to air pollution, than to water pollution/accessibility, two main pollution factors. Small weight is given to other pollution types.


    http://aqicn.org/map/world/

    Again higher is worse.

    Hong Kong 16, 58, 68, 35 depending on location.

    Los Angeles 82, 93, 63, 59 depending on location.

    New York 52-80 depending on location, too many to list.

    Philadelphia 52.

    Here's Hong Kong's full report.

    http://aqicn.org/city/hongkong/causeway-bay/

    Most of it is in green, except for the one area with yellow. Green = Good, Yellow = Moderate.

    Meanwhile Beinjing is at around 212. Here is a comparison of Chinese cities.

    http://aqicn.org/city/beijing/

    Hong kong is obviously the cleanest.


  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14336

    Jan 13, 2015 6:10 PM GMT
    rkyjockdn said
    roadbikeRob said
    I wonder if any of the federal courts will get involved with this disputeicon_question.gif


    Its called eminent domain, and it's the right of the state to take property for the public good. The state may condemn private property, then purchase that property for any use they define as "public good."

    The Supreme Court landmark case a couple years ago was Kelo v. City of New London. Pretty much anything can be defined as "permissible public use."


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
    However if tribal lands aka Indian Reservations are affected by this ruling this could lead to an overturning of the state's court ruling because Indian Reservations are technically sovereign countries. The Keystone Pipeline would technically be invading the land of a sovereign country. The Nebraska Supreme Court was wrong to rule in favor of Keystone because there is no public benefit or purpose with this pipeline project.

    It is government agencies that have the right of eminent domain to acquire and condemn land. The owners of the Keystone Pipeline are not a government agency, therefore they should not be granted the right of eminent domain. The Nebraska State Supreme Court got it wrong on this one.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2015 6:36 PM GMT
    roadbikeRob said
    rkyjockdn said
    roadbikeRob said
    I wonder if any of the federal courts will get involved with this disputeicon_question.gif


    Its called eminent domain, and it's the right of the state to take property for the public good. The state may condemn private property, then purchase that property for any use they define as "public good."

    The Supreme Court landmark case a couple years ago was Kelo v. City of New London. Pretty much anything can be defined as "permissible public use."


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
    However if tribal lands aka Indian Reservations are affected by this ruling this could lead to an overturning of the state's court ruling because Indian Reservations are technically sovereign countries. The Keystone Pipeline would technically be invading the land of a sovereign country. The Nebraska Supreme Court was wrong to rule in favor of Keystone because there is no public benefit or purpose with this pipeline project.

    It is government agencies that have the right of eminent domain to acquire and condemn land. The owners of the Keystone Pipeline are not a government agency, therefore they should not be granted the right of eminent domain. The Nebraska State Supreme Court got it wrong on this one.


    The Kelo decision decided that the government could condemn land on the basis that benefiting a private company would be good for the community as a whole.

    You make a good point regarding the tribal sovereignty issue. That might override the Kelo case, at least until a series of appeals wind their way through the courts.
  • metta

    Posts: 39099

    Jan 20, 2015 10:47 PM GMT
    Republicans say no to American-made steel for Keystone XL


    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/20/1359036/-Republicans-say-no-to-American-made-steel-for-Keystone-XL
  • metta

    Posts: 39099

    Jan 21, 2015 3:48 AM GMT
    Nebraskans File New Lawsuits That Could Stop The Keystone XL Pipeline


    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/01/20/3613050/two-new-keystone-xl-lawsuits/
  • metta

    Posts: 39099

    Jan 26, 2015 4:48 AM GMT
    The biggest foreign lease holder in Canada’s oil sands isn’t Exxon Mobil or Chevron. It’s the Koch brothers.

    ● Cenovus Energy (Canada) 1.57 million* (includes rights to an air weapons range)

    ● Athabasca Oil Corp. (Canada) 1.56 million**

    ● Koch (U.S.) 1.12 million to 1.47 million***

    ● Canadian Natural Resources (Canada) 1 million*

    ● Suncor (Canada) 986,000****

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/03/20/the-biggest-land-owner-in-canadas-oil-sands-isnt-exxon-mobil-or-conoco-phillips-its-the-koch-brothers/
  • metta

    Posts: 39099

    Feb 03, 2015 8:56 PM GMT
    The EPA Just Gave President Obama Cover To Reject The Keystone XL Pipeline


    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/03/3618612/epa-keystone-obama-rejection/
  • metta

    Posts: 39099

    Feb 14, 2015 1:50 AM GMT
    Nebraska Judge Halts TransCanada's Use Of Eminent Domain For Keystone Route

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/12/nebraska-transcanada-keystone-eminent-domain_n_6673552.html
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14336

    Feb 14, 2015 6:38 PM GMT
    metta8 saidNebraska Judge Halts TransCanada's Use Of Eminent Domain For Keystone Route

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/12/nebraska-transcanada-keystone-eminent-domain_n_6673552.html
    This is good news. Especially since this pipeline route might be going through Indian Reservations. There you will be dealing with tribal sovereignty which can get very complicated and messy.
  • metta

    Posts: 39099

    Feb 24, 2015 9:28 PM GMT
    Obama Just Vetoed The Keystone XL Pipeline. Now What?

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/24/3626301/keystone-xl-vetoed/


    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/us/politics/as-expected-obama-vetoes-keystone-xl-pipeline-bill.html?_r=0
  • metta

    Posts: 39099

    Feb 25, 2015 5:42 PM GMT
    Shell Withdraws From Largest Tar Sands Project Yet


    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/25/3626863/shell-shelves-tar-sands-project/
  • metta

    Posts: 39099

    Mar 05, 2015 7:14 AM GMT
    Senate falls short of votes needed to override Obama's veto of Keystone XL approval bill, 62-37

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/04/1368500/-Senate-falls-short-of-votes-needed-to-override-Obama-s-veto-of-Keystone-XL-approval-bill