Canadian Company Wants To Confiscate Privately Owned US Land

[thej27]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/u...in-fight-over-pipeline.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3
Even before getting federal approval for the pipeline they are already threatening land owners with eminent domain.

 

[printcraft]

Take my land and put it in.....


Pickup truck with a chain does wonders

 

[cobber]

The government asserts eminent domain for a public purpose. This is a private commercial venture. Whether it benefits the US or not, TransCanada is not an American governmental entity. Maybe they can pull that stuff north of the border.

See what our feckless feds do with this one...

 

[mrjarrell]

Politicians from both wings of the Boot On Your Neck Party will be lining up to help with the land grabs on this project. And there'll be plenty of black robed lawyers to lend them a hand. Stealing land and giving it to corporations has already been upheld by the SCOTUS. This will be, too.

 

[mrjarrell]

The government asserts eminent domain for a public purpose. This is a private commercial venture. Whether it benefits the US or not, TransCanada is not an American governmental entity. Maybe they can pull that stuff north of the border.

See what our feckless feds do with this one...

It's already been done and ruled on. Kelo vs New London ring any bells for you?

 

[cobber]

It's already been done and ruled on. Kelo vs New London ring any bells for you?

And they were REALLY REALLY wrong on that, too. Really. (And note who made up the 5-4 majority on that one.)

But an American party, eh? Not a bunch of Canucks!

Back in my county in the 1880s when the railroads were forcing their way through, folks used to go out every night and tear up the rails. Don't know how it turned out, but they're private property now.

 

[hornadylnl]

Why not? They do it for stadiums.

 

[cobber]

Stadiums are usually municipally-owned, or? Usually the local government forms some sort of entity to manage them. But Kelo and now TransCanada appear to be totally private concerns. Of course they will generate some jobs, but more than that, they'll line pockets.

Public purpose is more like tearing down slums (one man's slum...) for a beautiful park for us all to relax in or a needed expressway to hurry commuters to their 9 to 5.

If ED (not that ED) is used more and more to appropriate private property for other private uses, well, people may get testy.

 

[kevman65]

Why not? They do it for stadiums.

Other companies do it to expand and move roadways so they can buy old roadway for parking lot expansion. Harding Street from Morris Street to Raymond Street. Kentucky Avenue from Morris Street to Raymond Street. Said company also never completed the expansion of Harding to I-465 on their dime like was stated in contract with the city. But that's okay, they cleared out family homes for less than going rate for the neighborhood.

 

[dross]

In my opinion, an oil pipeline could be a reasonable use of imminent domain. I'm not addressing the details of this particular situation, because all we have to go on is what the NYT has written, and I don't trust them on anything else. I'm just speaking on principle - an oil pipeline could be what I would consider to be a reasonable use.

 

[Pocketman]

Is there that much difference between a pipeline and a highway? Both are used to transport commerce. The article alleges that TransCanada is perhaps being a bit heavy handed, but their actual authority is an issue for the courts to decide.

 

[RockofStrength]

Is there that much difference between a pipeline and a highway? Both are used to transport commerce. The article alleges that TransCanada is perhaps being a bit heavy handed, but their actual authority is an issue for the courts to decide.

A highway is a public use item owned, maintained and paid for by the government. A pipeline is used by the company that owns it for the profit of that company, and we may reap the benefits of more cheaply piped in product.

I don't see the comparison, but perhaps others could enlighten me?