Eminent Domain (1 Viewer)

[SaintsInDome2006]

I would generally be more in favor of ED to build an oil pipeline than to build a mall or office building. The former seems a lot more like core infrastructure that benefits the public.

To me it's closer to the old railroad building issue which was the old classic eminent domain challenge. The main difference though is that trains can be used for public transportation and delivery of anyone and anything whereas an oil pipeline is just for moving one thing for one company.

And in this case is being built specifically to raise the price of Canadian oil in the US and thus gas prices.

Well then you are getting into what is for the public good. Once the legislature or Congress decides it is, then I think the courts say ok it is.

I tend to agree with you on the point though, beware the pig in the poke. But if Congress ok's and if the state legislature ok's it, well then off we go.

 

[timschochet]

I would generally be more in favor of ED to build an oil pipeline than to build a mall or office building. The former seems a lot more like core infrastructure that benefits the public.

To me it's closer to the old railroad building issue which was the old classic eminent domain challenge. The main difference though is that trains can be used for public transportation and delivery of anyone and anything whereas an oil pipeline is just for moving one thing for one company.

We broke several treaties with Native American tribes, and forcibly relocated them to what can only be called concentration camps, in order to get those trains running. But hey, it was all in the name of the public good!

 

[timschochet]

I would generally be more in favor of ED to build an oil pipeline than to build a mall or office building. The former seems a lot more like core infrastructure that benefits the public.

To me it's closer to the old railroad building issue which was the old classic eminent domain challenge. The main difference though is that trains can be used for public transportation and delivery of anyone and anything whereas an oil pipeline is just for moving one thing for one company.

And in this case is being built specifically to raise the price of Canadian oil in the US and thus gas prices.

Do you have any evidence for this beyond supposition? Because that's not an argument I've read anywhere.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I would generally be more in favor of ED to build an oil pipeline than to build a mall or office building. The former seems a lot more like core infrastructure that benefits the public.

To me it's closer to the old railroad building issue which was the old classic eminent domain challenge. The main difference though is that trains can be used for public transportation and delivery of anyone and anything whereas an oil pipeline is just for moving one thing for one company.

We broke several treaties with Native American tribes, and forcibly relocated them to what can only be called concentration camps, in order to get those trains running. But hey, it was all in the name of the public good!

Well, what are you arguing for here? I'd say that's an example of how this provision can be badly misused.

 

[NCCommish]

I would generally be more in favor of ED to build an oil pipeline than to build a mall or office building. The former seems a lot more like core infrastructure that benefits the public.

To me it's closer to the old railroad building issue which was the old classic eminent domain challenge. The main difference though is that trains can be used for public transportation and delivery of anyone and anything whereas an oil pipeline is just for moving one thing for one company.

And in this case is being built specifically to raise the price of Canadian oil in the US and thus gas prices.

Do you have any evidence for this beyond supposition? Because that's not an argument I've read anywhere.

I posted the direct quote from the company proposing it in the other thread and you have commented on it a couple of times in that thread IIRC.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I would generally be more in favor of ED to build an oil pipeline than to build a mall or office building. The former seems a lot more like core infrastructure that benefits the public.

To me it's closer to the old railroad building issue which was the old classic eminent domain challenge. The main difference though is that trains can be used for public transportation and delivery of anyone and anything whereas an oil pipeline is just for moving one thing for one company.

And in this case is being built specifically to raise the price of Canadian oil in the US and thus gas prices.

Do you have any evidence for this beyond supposition? Because that's not an argument I've read anywhere.

I actually heard this on NPR this morning. I'm not sure I understand the details to be frank. One argument is that the pipeline raises gas prices here. Another is that it will lower them. One argument is that we are just benefiting the Canucks to ship their oil elsewhere. The counter argument is that it will increase our domestic production and reliance (considering Canada as domestic and better than Arabia or Venezuela or other unstable places) and maybe that's where the increase in the Canadian price comes from. Pick your poison I guess.

 

[NCCommish]

I would generally be more in favor of ED to build an oil pipeline than to build a mall or office building. The former seems a lot more like core infrastructure that benefits the public.

To me it's closer to the old railroad building issue which was the old classic eminent domain challenge. The main difference though is that trains can be used for public transportation and delivery of anyone and anything whereas an oil pipeline is just for moving one thing for one company.

And in this case is being built specifically to raise the price of Canadian oil in the US and thus gas prices.

Do you have any evidence for this beyond supposition? Because that's not an argument I've read anywhere.

I actually heard this on NPR this morning. I'm not sure I understand the details to be frank. One argument is that the pipeline raises gas prices here. Another is that it will lower them. One argument is that we are just benefiting the Canucks to ship their oil elsewhere. The counter argument is that it will increase our domestic production and reliance (considering Canada as domestic and better than Arabia or Venezuela or other unstable places) and maybe that's where the increase in the Canadian price comes from. Pick your poison I guess.

Cornell University:

KXL will divert Tar Sands oil now supplying Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets. As a result, consumers in the Midwest could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel. These additional costs (estimated to total $2–4 billion) will suppress other spending and will therefore cost jobs.

This is pretty much just what the builders said they wanted to happen in the report from them I posted in the other thread.

BTW that is one of 3 studies that all reached the same conclusion.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I would generally be more in favor of ED to build an oil pipeline than to build a mall or office building. The former seems a lot more like core infrastructure that benefits the public.

To me it's closer to the old railroad building issue which was the old classic eminent domain challenge. The main difference though is that trains can be used for public transportation and delivery of anyone and anything whereas an oil pipeline is just for moving one thing for one company.

And in this case is being built specifically to raise the price of Canadian oil in the US and thus gas prices.

Do you have any evidence for this beyond supposition? Because that's not an argument I've read anywhere.

I actually heard this on NPR this morning. I'm not sure I understand the details to be frank. One argument is that the pipeline raises gas prices here. Another is that it will lower them. One argument is that we are just benefiting the Canucks to ship their oil elsewhere. The counter argument is that it will increase our domestic production and reliance (considering Canada as domestic and better than Arabia or Venezuela or other unstable places) and maybe that's where the increase in the Canadian price comes from. Pick your poison I guess.

Cornell University:

KXL will divert Tar Sands oil now supplying Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets. As a result, consumers in the Midwest could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel. These additional costs (estimated to total $2–4 billion) will suppress other spending and will therefore cost jobs.

This is pretty much just what the builders said they wanted to happen in the report from them I posted in the other thread.

BTW that is one of 3 studies that all reached the same conclusion.

What confuses me is why don't we just buy all their oil there, and ship it ourselves, so we aren't buying non-NA foreign oil?

 

[NCCommish]

I would generally be more in favor of ED to build an oil pipeline than to build a mall or office building. The former seems a lot more like core infrastructure that benefits the public.

To me it's closer to the old railroad building issue which was the old classic eminent domain challenge. The main difference though is that trains can be used for public transportation and delivery of anyone and anything whereas an oil pipeline is just for moving one thing for one company.

And in this case is being built specifically to raise the price of Canadian oil in the US and thus gas prices.

Do you have any evidence for this beyond supposition? Because that's not an argument I've read anywhere.

I actually heard this on NPR this morning. I'm not sure I understand the details to be frank. One argument is that the pipeline raises gas prices here. Another is that it will lower them. One argument is that we are just benefiting the Canucks to ship their oil elsewhere. The counter argument is that it will increase our domestic production and reliance (considering Canada as domestic and better than Arabia or Venezuela or other unstable places) and maybe that's where the increase in the Canadian price comes from. Pick your poison I guess.

Cornell University:

KXL will divert Tar Sands oil now supplying Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets. As a result, consumers in the Midwest could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel. These additional costs (estimated to total $2–4 billion) will suppress other spending and will therefore cost jobs.

This is pretty much just what the builders said they wanted to happen in the report from them I posted in the other thread.

BTW that is one of 3 studies that all reached the same conclusion.

What confuses me is why don't we just buy all their oil there, and ship it ourselves, so we aren't buying non-NA foreign oil?

Less than 25% of imports are from the middle east. Canada, Mexico and Venezuela are the main suppliers of the US.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I would generally be more in favor of ED to build an oil pipeline than to build a mall or office building. The former seems a lot more like core infrastructure that benefits the public.

To me it's closer to the old railroad building issue which was the old classic eminent domain challenge. The main difference though is that trains can be used for public transportation and delivery of anyone and anything whereas an oil pipeline is just for moving one thing for one company.

And in this case is being built specifically to raise the price of Canadian oil in the US and thus gas prices.

Do you have any evidence for this beyond supposition? Because that's not an argument I've read anywhere.

I actually heard this on NPR this morning. I'm not sure I understand the details to be frank. One argument is that the pipeline raises gas prices here. Another is that it will lower them. One argument is that we are just benefiting the Canucks to ship their oil elsewhere. The counter argument is that it will increase our domestic production and reliance (considering Canada as domestic and better than Arabia or Venezuela or other unstable places) and maybe that's where the increase in the Canadian price comes from. Pick your poison I guess.

Cornell University:

KXL will divert Tar Sands oil now supplying Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets. As a result, consumers in the Midwest could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel. These additional costs (estimated to total $2–4 billion) will suppress other spending and will therefore cost jobs.

This is pretty much just what the builders said they wanted to happen in the report from them I posted in the other thread.

BTW that is one of 3 studies that all reached the same conclusion.

What confuses me is why don't we just buy all their oil there, and ship it ourselves, so we aren't buying non-NA foreign oil?

Less than 25% of imports are from the middle east. Canada, Mexico and Venezuela are the main suppliers of the US.

So why not go even more Canada & Mexico and less middle east? I mean, let's buy up everything Canada has.

Isn't the argument always that our dependence on oil over there keeps getting us involved?

 

[NCCommish]

I would generally be more in favor of ED to build an oil pipeline than to build a mall or office building. The former seems a lot more like core infrastructure that benefits the public.

To me it's closer to the old railroad building issue which was the old classic eminent domain challenge. The main difference though is that trains can be used for public transportation and delivery of anyone and anything whereas an oil pipeline is just for moving one thing for one company.

And in this case is being built specifically to raise the price of Canadian oil in the US and thus gas prices.

Do you have any evidence for this beyond supposition? Because that's not an argument I've read anywhere.

I actually heard this on NPR this morning. I'm not sure I understand the details to be frank. One argument is that the pipeline raises gas prices here. Another is that it will lower them. One argument is that we are just benefiting the Canucks to ship their oil elsewhere. The counter argument is that it will increase our domestic production and reliance (considering Canada as domestic and better than Arabia or Venezuela or other unstable places) and maybe that's where the increase in the Canadian price comes from. Pick your poison I guess.

Cornell University:

KXL will divert Tar Sands oil now supplying Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets. As a result, consumers in the Midwest could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel. These additional costs (estimated to total $2–4 billion) will suppress other spending and will therefore cost jobs.

This is pretty much just what the builders said they wanted to happen in the report from them I posted in the other thread.

BTW that is one of 3 studies that all reached the same conclusion.

What confuses me is why don't we just buy all their oil there, and ship it ourselves, so we aren't buying non-NA foreign oil?

Less than 25% of imports are from the middle east. Canada, Mexico and Venezuela are the main suppliers of the US.

So why not go even more Canada & Mexico and less middle east? I mean, let's buy up everything Canada has.

Isn't the argument always that our dependence on oil over there keeps getting us involved?

We pretty much take all their exports now. IIRC we take over 90% of Canadian production. They do have domestic needs after all. Mexico literally has to change thier constitution to develop more oil.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

In Fight For Survival, Fifth Ward Churches Sue Houston Housing AuthorityBishop Roy Lee Kossie says he and others established the Latter Day Deliverance Revival Church on Benson Street in part because it was at the heart of a high-crime Fifth Ward neighborhood. “This is where the Lord called us,” Kossie said in a statement. The church, which has served the neighborhood since 1965, won't leave without a fight, he says.

The Latter Day church and the nearby First Christian Fellowship Missionary Baptist Church have sued the Houston Housing Authority over its plans to buy – and, if they're not selling, take through eminent domain – the lots and demolish the churches to build an affordable housing project, library and medical facility in the neighborhood.

HHA's plans to build a 63-unit housing project would replace apartments the housing authority demolished at the Kelly Village apartment complex that had been damaged during Hurricane Ike. The authority's plans for the neighborhood — which include buying up two other lots near the church properties — were based on a studies by the Fifth Ward Redevelopment Corporation, according to the Houston Chronicle. “We are trying to build decent, safe, affordable, but modern housing,” HHA president and CEO Tory Gunsolley told the daily.

The right-leaning Liberty Institute filed the lawsuit on behalf of the longstanding Fifth Ward churches in federal court Tuesday.

According to the lawsuit, HHA first made offers to buy the church properties on Benson and Lyons back in early March. However HHA reps, the churches claim, made sure to mention that they have eminent domain power and would condemn the properties if they wouldn't agree to a sale.

Last month, HHA made its final offer to buy the Latter Day property, but church leaders still weren't selling. So HHA sent an appraisal report and a threat to go ahead with the condemnation process. It appears HHA reps haven't yet made a final offer and threat to condemn the First Christian church property.

The churches have filed for a temporary restraining order to prevent HHA “from pursing condemnation proceedings or taking possession or title” of the church properties.

The Liberty Institute has produced a video highlighting the church's fight with the housing authority.

http://www.houstonpress.com/news/in-fight-for-survival-fifth-ward-churches-sue-houston-housing-authority-7648644

 

[cstu]

f they're not selling, take through eminent domain – the lots and demolish the churches to build an affordable housing project, library and medical facility in the neighborhood.

Sounds good to me.

 

[cstu]

Is God really that picky about location and why does He hate low income housing and libraries?

 

[NCCommish]

f they're not selling, take through eminent domain the lots and demolish the churches to build an affordable housing project, library and medical facility in the neighborhood.

Sounds good to me.

This is actually a project I can support the use of ED.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Is God really that picky about location and why does He hate low income housing and libraries?

Yeah, "fight for survival" is a little over the top. They'll get fair market value for the property; money that they can presumably use to relocate. "Fight for location" is more accurate. Which is still an interest I respect and would like to protect, but it's not really the same thing.

 

[NCCommish]

Is God really that picky about location and why does He hate low income housing and libraries?

Yeah, "fight for survival" is a little over the top. They'll get fair market value for the property; money that they can presumably use to relocate. "Fight for location" is more accurate. Which is still an interest I respect and would like to protect, but it's not really the same thing.

If they were doing this to give it to private parties to make a profit I would support the churches. But they aren't. This is genuine community building and is what ED was meant for.