Eminent Domain (1 Viewer)

[SaintsInDome2006]

So private property got taken to give other people... their private property.

It always bothers me when folks say property "got taken" without any mention that the property owners received compensation. Just comes across as misleading.

Yeah, from people who did not want their property "sold" for some baseline price that others created.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I wish we had eminent domain like China. We would be able to get a lot more done.

I'm trying to understand the difference if property can be taken just so long as some claim of public value is shown.

 

[timschochet]

Saints all I can say is that it depends on the situation . But do you have links as to the cities you mentioned making millions from the pipeline?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Tim - the estimate from TransCanada of the XL Pipeline in terms of value to the US economy is $7 billion.

I'm guessing the value of that mall in New London, which was never built, may have been in the millions...

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Saints all I can say is that it depends on the situation . But do you have links as to the cities you mentioned making millions from the pipeline?

That's across the board of course.

As discussed here the total value estmated for the US economy is $7 billion.

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1136627843001/transcanada-ceo-on-proposed-pipeline/#sp=show-clips

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Time here's one case from Alaska:

http://www.newsminer.com/news/alaska_news/supreme-court-affirms-pipeline-value-decision/article_84b5e0fe-9a7f-11e3-aae9-001a4bcf6878.html

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - The Alaska Supreme Court on Wednesday handed Alaska municipalities a victory in a dispute over the value of the trans-Alaska pipeline, affirming that the structure for 2006 should have been valued at nearly $10 billion, not the $850 million claimed by pipeline owners.

Now you tell me what the property tax is on a $10 billion pipeline. I bet it's pretty damned good.

Eta - Yep:

The ruling resulted in a windfall in December 2010 for municipalities - with the understanding that an unfavorable Supreme Court ruling might mean they would have to return money to pipeline owners. The money has in effect been put in escrow, Hopkins said.

The North Slope Borough received $35 million in back-tax payments; Valdez received $32 million; and Fairbanks about $9 million. Anchorage received $4.6 million, and the state received $73.6 million based on the higher assessed value of the pipeline, and the money was placed in the Constitutional Budget Reserve.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

So private property got taken to give other people... their private property.

It always bothers me when folks say property "got taken" without any mention that the property owners received compensation. Just comes across as misleading.

Yeah, from people who did not want their property "sold" for some baseline price that others created.

Still not the same as just seizing the property.

 

[timschochet]

Tim - the estimate from TransCanada of the XL Pipeline in terms of value to the US economy is $7 billion.

I'm guessing the value of that mall in New London, which was never built, may have been in the millions...

first off those figures are pretty controversial. We've been debating them at length in the other thread. But more importantly I have trouble with your analogy. If a mall demands eminent domain, it does so in a limited area, usually a city , which gets public benefits from the mall . A pipeline goes through thousands of miles . It's hard for me to see how a town in Nebraska would gain enough benefits to justify seizing private property.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Tim - the estimate from TransCanada of the XL Pipeline in terms of value to the US economy is $7 billion.

I'm guessing the value of that mall in New London, which was never built, may have been in the millions...

first off those figures are pretty controversial. We've been debating them at length in the other thread.But more importantly I have trouble with your analogy. If a mall demands eminent domain, it does so in a limited area, usually a city , which gets public benefits from the mall . A pipeline goes through thousands of miles . It's hard for me to see how a town in Nebraska would gain enough benefits to justify seizing private property.

Well as I posted above the counties in townships in AK were claiming millions in back taxes, and they got them - $35 mill in one case, $32 mill in another. Now multiply that through every county on the way from Kansas through to the Gulf.

The city of New London could never have dreamed of making that much, heck that mall couldn't have been even worth that much by itself.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I tended to agree with the SC decision as a general rule. It depends on the situation. I think that property can be seized for the public good as a matter of principle, but it should have a high bar to hurdle. I question whether Keystone hurdles that bar .

What's the difference between a mall and an oil pipeline? A pipeline generates more income.

maybe not by square footage.A city will have long term benefits, potentially, from a mall. What long term benefits are there for a city from a pipeline?

Well for one Port Arthur and Houston stand to make millions in taxes. Many port cities in Louisiana will make money off the shipping. And in each locale where those pipleine properties are bought up and transferred there will be taxes and payouts galore. People will be making bank off this thing and so will the towns and counties right down the line.

Meanwhile that mall in New London never got built. They seized people's properties... and now they're just putting in townhouses. So private property got taken to give other people... their private property.

http://www.theday.com/article/20100219/NWS01/100219649/1047

So people in Nebraska and Montana and wherever else the proposed pipeline goes should care about the profits of port cities along the gulf?

 

[njherdfan]

The Keystone issue made me wonder where liberals and conservatives and indies stand on this.

I am still trying to wrap my head around how the liberal judges on the USSC decided that it would be a good idea to allow state, city or federal governments seize private property, even in poor neighborhoods, largely affecting the poor and lower class and disadvantaged living there, for purposes of private development.

The definition of "public good" used here could include almost any private or public development. They threw poor people, largely and often renters, out into the street. If I recall correctly the mall that was planned in New London never came to fruition.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html

I can tell you locally here in NO conservative Gov. Bobby Jindal used this case to seize some two score of historic neighborhoods which he promptly tore down for a boondoggle of a biomedical complex, which is part public, part private. Property speculators and insiders reaped the benefits of selling property to teh state. Meanwhile the poor, the lower class who largely populated the neighborhoods were thrown out on their bums. Jindal will further use this project for his presidential campaign run which is sure to come.

So now today we have the Keystone issue looming and the oil companies will be able to use this case to seize property from private landowners for their own profit.

Anyone left or right changed their view on this case?

I think the case definitely led to a blurring of "public purpose" vs. "public use" that is not a good precedent. I think Kennedy's concurrence in that case is something closer to a middle ground that I'd be comfortable with.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I tended to agree with the SC decision as a general rule. It depends on the situation. I think that property can be seized for the public good as a matter of principle, but it should have a high bar to hurdle. I question whether Keystone hurdles that bar .

What's the difference between a mall and an oil pipeline? A pipeline generates more income.

maybe not by square footage.A city will have long term benefits, potentially, from a mall. What long term benefits are there for a city from a pipeline?

Well for one Port Arthur and Houston stand to make millions in taxes. Many port cities in Louisiana will make money off the shipping. And in each locale where those pipleine properties are bought up and transferred there will be taxes and payouts galore. People will be making bank off this thing and so will the towns and counties right down the line.

Meanwhile that mall in New London never got built. They seized people's properties... and now they're just putting in townhouses. So private property got taken to give other people... their private property.

http://www.theday.com/article/20100219/NWS01/100219649/1047

So people in Nebraska and Montana and wherever else the proposed pipeline goes should care about the profits of port cities along the gulf?

Note for reference I am arguing against ED here. Iam also pointing out that liberals who support kelo now oppose ED with regard to Keystone and conservatives who oppose Kelo are now all for seizing property for a private pipeline.

But, no, they don't have to. They can look at their own state and county property taxes they will be bringing in in addition to whatever claims of jobs there are in that particular locale.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The Keystone issue made me wonder where liberals and conservatives and indies stand on this.

I am still trying to wrap my head around how the liberal judges on the USSC decided that it would be a good idea to allow state, city or federal governments seize private property, even in poor neighborhoods, largely affecting the poor and lower class and disadvantaged living there, for purposes of private development.

The definition of "public good" used here could include almost any private or public development. They threw poor people, largely and often renters, out into the street. If I recall correctly the mall that was planned in New London never came to fruition.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html

I can tell you locally here in NO conservative Gov. Bobby Jindal used this case to seize some two score of historic neighborhoods which he promptly tore down for a boondoggle of a biomedical complex, which is part public, part private. Property speculators and insiders reaped the benefits of selling property to teh state. Meanwhile the poor, the lower class who largely populated the neighborhoods were thrown out on their bums. Jindal will further use this project for his presidential campaign run which is sure to come.

So now today we have the Keystone issue looming and the oil companies will be able to use this case to seize property from private landowners for their own profit.

Anyone left or right changed their view on this case?

I think the case definitely led to a blurring of "public purpose" vs. "public use" that is not a good precedent. I think Kennedy's concurrence in that case is something closer to a middle ground that I'd be comfortable with.

Seizing private property to be transferred to others so that they can then have that private property for their own doesn't seem like much of a middle ground to me.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So private property got taken to give other people... their private property.

It always bothers me when folks say property "got taken" without any mention that the property owners received compensation. Just comes across as misleading.

Yeah, from people who did not want their property "sold" for some baseline price that others created.

Still not the same as just seizing the property.

Actually it is. If someone will not sell their property to you for a higher price but they will to someone else for a lower price, and that someone else buys the property and flips it to you for that lower price, then you have been gifted whatever % extra that is.

Same thing if your property is seized for a lesser price than it is worth or for less than what it is worth to you, you have had value taken from you. Absolutely if you have a 1 million home and someone seizes it for 750K then you have just had 250K taken from you. And if you have a home that you would never sell for any price then that could never be replaced.

I will add that frequently these properties have itinerant poor people and renters on them. They have no choice and are left with nothing.

 

[timschochet]

Tim - the estimate from TransCanada of the XL Pipeline in terms of value to the US economy is $7 billion.

I'm guessing the value of that mall in New London, which was never built, may have been in the millions...

first off those figures are pretty controversial. We've been debating them at length in the other thread.But more importantly I have trouble with your analogy. If a mall demands eminent domain, it does so in a limited area, usually a city , which gets public benefits from the mall . A pipeline goes through thousands of miles . It's hard for me to see how a town in Nebraska would gain enough benefits to justify seizing private property.

Well as I posted above the counties in townships in AK were claiming millions in back taxes, and they got them - $35 mill in one case, $32 mill in another. Now multiply that through every county on the way from Kansas through to the Gulf.

The city of New London could never have dreamed of making that much, heck that mall couldn't have been even worth that much by itself.

so you're suggesting that every county affected by Keystone will win lawsuits against TransCanada, and they can be enforced against a foreign company? Forgive my skepticism.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Tim - the estimate from TransCanada of the XL Pipeline in terms of value to the US economy is $7 billion.

I'm guessing the value of that mall in New London, which was never built, may have been in the millions...

first off those figures are pretty controversial. We've been debating them at length in the other thread.But more importantly I have trouble with your analogy. If a mall demands eminent domain, it does so in a limited area, usually a city , which gets public benefits from the mall . A pipeline goes through thousands of miles . It's hard for me to see how a town in Nebraska would gain enough benefits to justify seizing private property.

Well as I posted above the counties in townships in AK were claiming millions in back taxes, and they got them - $35 mill in one case, $32 mill in another. Now multiply that through every county on the way from Kansas through to the Gulf.

The city of New London could never have dreamed of making that much, heck that mall couldn't have been even worth that much by itself.

so you're suggesting that every county affected by Keystone will win lawsuits against TransCanada, and they can be enforced against a foreign company? Forgive my skepticism.

No they will be getting taxes up front and from the beginning. The towns in AK were getting paid, just not properly. The case gives you an idea how much money these counties and towns will be making up and down the heartland.

 

[timschochet]

Actually it gives me the idea that TransCanada will avoid paying anything close to what they should, and that they will do so until forced to pay by lawsuit, who knows how many years later, and that as a foreign company they will be much more difficult to sue .

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Actually it gives me the idea that TransCanada will avoid paying anything close to what they should, and that they will do so until forced to pay by lawsuit, who knows how many years later, and that as a foreign company they will be much more difficult to sue .

Absolutely completely ridiculous, foreign companies pay property taxes throughout the US and typically local entities filed with the state are done to do this.

 

[timschochet]

Actually it gives me the idea that TransCanada will avoid paying anything close to what they should, and that they will do so until forced to pay by lawsuit, who knows how many years later, and that as a foreign company they will be much more difficult to sue .

Absolutely completely ridiculous, foreign companies pay property taxes throughout the US and typically local entities filed with the state are done to do this.

wait, I'm relying on your example. If it's so ridiculous, why were the towns in Alaska forced to sue?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Still not the same as just seizing the property.

Actually it is. If someone will not sell their property to you for a higher price but they will to someone else for a lower price, and that someone else buys the property and flips it to you for that lower price, then you have been gifted whatever % extra that is.

From the perspective of the party that acquires the land to build a mall or whatever, they are paying a price that approximates the fair market value. I agree that they are getting a pretty good deal, because if left purely to the open market, they would be forced to pay far more than a fair market value due to landowners either acting strategically or having idiosyncratic values for their own property.

Same thing if your property is seized for a lesser price than it is worth or for less than what it is worth to you, you have had value taken from you. Absolutely if you have a 1 million home and someone seizes it for 750K then you have just had 250K taken from you.

"What it is worth" and "what it is worth to you" aren't really the same thing. I might have been given my coffee mug by a beloved grandparent and treasure it and refuse to sell it for thousands of dollars. But the thing is still worth less than ten bucks. I agree that compensating a person 75% of the market value of their home represents value taken from you, but my understanding is that this pretty much never happens. Stuff I've read indicates people generally receive more for their property than they would ordinarily expect to be able to sell it for under normal circumstances.

I will add that frequently these properties have itinerant poor people and renters on them. They have no choice and are left with nothing.

I think it would be nice if a municipality gave renters some money to assist their relocation. It isn't constitutionally required though, renters always run the risk of having to relocate when their lease runs out anyway, this doesn't seem too different.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Actually it gives me the idea that TransCanada will avoid paying anything close to what they should, and that they will do so until forced to pay by lawsuit, who knows how many years later, and that as a foreign company they will be much more difficult to sue .

Absolutely completely ridiculous, foreign companies pay property taxes throughout the US and typically local entities filed with the state are done to do this.

wait, I'm relying on your example. If it's so ridiculous, why were the towns in Alaska forced to sue?

First of all get clear that BP was paying taxes, but they were claiming a lower value than what the counties and state estimated, so they protested.

Secondly because BP (news alert) is a real SOB of a company. If you want to talk about the travails of dealing with the oil industry that's another issue altogether...

 

[timschochet]

So BP are bastards, but we can expect TransCanada to pay just prices to everyone from the beginning?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Still not the same as just seizing the property.

Actually it is. If someone will not sell their property to you for a higher price but they will to someone else for a lower price, and that someone else buys the property and flips it to you for that lower price, then you have been gifted whatever % extra that is.

From the perspective of the party that acquires the land to build a mall or whatever, they are paying a price that approximates the fair market value. I agree that they are getting a pretty good deal, because if left purely to the open market, they would be forced to pay far more than a fair market value due to landowners either acting strategically or having idiosyncratic values for their own property.

Same thing if your property is seized for a lesser price than it is worth or for less than what it is worth to you, you have had value taken from you. Absolutely if you have a 1 million home and someone seizes it for 750K then you have just had 250K taken from you.

"What it is worth" and "what it is worth to you" aren't really the same thing. I might have been given my coffee mug by a beloved grandparent and treasure it and refuse to sell it for thousands of dollars. But the thing is still worth less than ten bucks. I agree that compensating a person 75% of the market value of their home represents value taken from you, but my understanding is that this pretty much never happens. Stuff I've read indicates people generally receive more for their property than they would ordinarily expect to be able to sell it for under normal circumstances.

I will add that frequently these properties have itinerant poor people and renters on them. They have no choice and are left with nothing.

I think it would be nice if a municipality gave renters some money to assist their relocation. It isn't constitutionally required though, renters always run the risk of having to relocate when their lease runs out anyway, this doesn't seem too different.

I can tell you we just went through this in NO and no people were not dealt with fairly. Typically my understanding is ED valuations are below what their owners expect or want, and IMO inevitably the judges who are making the decisions are politically connected and look out for their friends in politics. Maybe this is just a function of where I come from, not sure. But here wealthy people get great deals from the courts and the poor get kicked into the street.

But hey I'm sure Kansas is different.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So BP are bastards, but we can expect TransCanada to pay just prices to everyone from the beginning?

For one thing right BP are.

For another I'm guessing TC will have to deal squarely from the beginning or yes they will be sued.

However all this aside the potential value to each county and parish dwarfs what New London was looking at with Kelo.

 

[Todd Andrews]

I hate ED.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I hate ED.

That's like hating defense spending. Eminent Domain is absolutely necessary. The question is whether a particular case is a proper exercise of it, which is a case by case determination.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I can tell you we just went through this in NO and no people were not dealt with fairly. Typically my understanding is ED valuations are below what their owners expect or want, and IMO inevitably the judges who are making the decisions are politically connected and look out for their friends in politics. Maybe this is just a function of where I come from, not sure. But here wealthy people get great deals from the courts and the poor get kicked into the street.

But hey I'm sure Kansas is different.

Yeah, I don't have any personal knowledge of this stuff. Googling turned up this book, which says some studies have suggested people often don't get fair market value. If that is true, my preference is just to compensate more, not to take away the power of eminent domain.

 

[timschochet]

So BP are bastards, but we can expect TransCanada to pay just prices to everyone from the beginning?

For one thing right BP are.

For another I'm guessing TC will have to deal squarely from the beginning or yes they will be sued.

However all this aside the potential value to each county and parish dwarfs what New London was looking at with Kelo.

as to your first point, let's just say that, given history I'm skeptical. As to your second point, I'd sure like to see some specifics on how much these counties are going to be paid on an annual basis.

 

[RCon]

So private property got taken to give other people... their private property.

It always bothers me when folks say property "got taken" without any mention that the property owners received compensation. Just comes across as misleading.

I don't see it as misleading at all. The property was taken by force. If the owners had wished to sell for the price given as compensation, they could have.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

So private property got taken to give other people... their private property.

It always bothers me when folks say property "got taken" without any mention that the property owners received compensation. Just comes across as misleading.

I don't see it as misleading at all. The property was taken by force. If the owners had wished to sell for the price given as compensation, they could have.

It was exchanged for money by force. "Taken" generally means you didn't get anything in return.

 

[thecatch]

So private property got taken to give other people... their private property.

It always bothers me when folks say property "got taken" without any mention that the property owners received compensation. Just comes across as misleading.

I don't see it as misleading at all. The property was taken by force. If the owners had wished to sell for the price given as compensation, they could have.

It was exchanged for money by force. "Taken" generally means you didn't get anything in return.

If I walk out of a store with a TV and throw some money on the table as I leave, did I take the TV?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

So private property got taken to give other people... their private property.

It always bothers me when folks say property "got taken" without any mention that the property owners received compensation. Just comes across as misleading.

I don't see it as misleading at all. The property was taken by force. If the owners had wished to sell for the price given as compensation, they could have.

It was exchanged for money by force. "Taken" generally means you didn't get anything in return.

If I walk out of a store with a TV and throw some money on the table as I leave, did I take the TV?

Are you leaving the amount of money that the TV was selling for?

 

[thecatch]

So private property got taken to give other people... their private property.

It always bothers me when folks say property "got taken" without any mention that the property owners received compensation. Just comes across as misleading.

I don't see it as misleading at all. The property was taken by force. If the owners had wished to sell for the price given as compensation, they could have.

It was exchanged for money by force. "Taken" generally means you didn't get anything in return.

If I walk out of a store with a TV and throw some money on the table as I leave, did I take the TV?

Are you leaving the amount of money that the TV was selling for?

No, I left the money I thought the TV was worth but less than the listed retail price.

 

[TobiasFunke]

So private property got taken to give other people... their private property.

It always bothers me when folks say property "got taken" without any mention that the property owners received compensation. Just comes across as misleading.

I don't see it as misleading at all. The property was taken by force. If the owners had wished to sell for the price given as compensation, they could have.

It was exchanged for money by force. "Taken" generally means you didn't get anything in return.

If I walk out of a store with a TV and throw some money on the table as I leave, did I take the TV?

Are you leaving the amount of money that the TV was selling for?

No, I left the money I thought the TV was worth but less than the listed retail price.

To make the analogy correct there would have to be a court where the store owner could sue you to recover the difference.

Anyway this is a weird semantic argument, esp. considering the Fifth Amendment calls it a "taking." But OTOH the idea that it's some bizarre power play is also weird. This is pretty standard and really unavoidable practice. The complications are at the margins.

 

[johnnycakes]

Provided it's taking property for a legitimate public use, I have no problem with the taking of private property, but compensation should be more than 100% of market value, especially if the property being taken is part of a personal residence and not investment property.

 

[thecatch]

So private property got taken to give other people... their private property.

It always bothers me when folks say property "got taken" without any mention that the property owners received compensation. Just comes across as misleading.

I don't see it as misleading at all. The property was taken by force. If the owners had wished to sell for the price given as compensation, they could have.

It was exchanged for money by force. "Taken" generally means you didn't get anything in return.

If I walk out of a store with a TV and throw some money on the table as I leave, did I take the TV?

Are you leaving the amount of money that the TV was selling for?

No, I left the money I thought the TV was worth but less than the listed retail price.

To make the analogy correct there would have to be a court where the store owner could sue you to recover the difference.

Anyway this is a weird semantic argument, esp. considering the Fifth Amendment calls it a "taking." But OTOH the idea that it's some bizarre power play is also weird. This is pretty standard and really unavoidable practice. The complications are at the margins.

Believe it or not there is a court where you could sue for the difference in my hypo.

I agree it's a weird semantic argument. I also agree it's not a "bizarre" power play. But it's most definitely a power play that should be exercised cautiously and in as limited a fashion as possible (hence the rationale for the 5th Amendment).

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So BP are bastards, but we can expect TransCanada to pay just prices to everyone from the beginning?

For one thing right BP are.

For another I'm guessing TC will have to deal squarely from the beginning or yes they will be sued.

However all this aside the potential value to each county and parish dwarfs what New London was looking at with Kelo.

as to your first point, let's just say that, given history I'm skeptical.As to your second point, I'd sure like to see some specifics on how much these counties are going to be paid on an annual basis.

So the article indicating that the counties and towns in Alaska were entitled to $10 billion for that BP pipeline was insufficient?

I would think that would give you some idea. But regardless this pipeline absolutely makes the mall in New London look like chicken feed in comparison.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

So BP are bastards, but we can expect TransCanada to pay just prices to everyone from the beginning?

For one thing right BP are.

For another I'm guessing TC will have to deal squarely from the beginning or yes they will be sued.

However all this aside the potential value to each county and parish dwarfs what New London was looking at with Kelo.

as to your first point, let's just say that, given history I'm skeptical.As to your second point, I'd sure like to see some specifics on how much these counties are going to be paid on an annual basis.

So the article indicating that the counties and towns in Alaska were entitled to $10 billion for that BP pipeline was insufficient?

I would think that would give you some idea. But regardless this pipeline absolutely makes the mall in New London look like chicken feed in comparison.

The Alaskan pipeline matter is a tax case. The counties and towns didn't get $10bln from the pipeline owners (a consortium of several large oil and gas companies). Rather, the pipeline was valued at approx. 10bln for purposes of property tax assessment. The key part of that ruling was that the court determined the pipeline should be valued on a "replacement cost" basis, rather than market value (an odd decision imo.) In most cases involving personal property, and certainly in this particular case, the difference between replacement value and market value is massive. I've read your posts the past page or so, and don't understand why you think the Alaskan pipeline property tax dispute case is relevant to eminent domain.

 

[eoMMan]

I hate ED.

Have you tried Viagra or Cialis?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So BP are bastards, but we can expect TransCanada to pay just prices to everyone from the beginning?

For one thing right BP are.

For another I'm guessing TC will have to deal squarely from the beginning or yes they will be sued.

However all this aside the potential value to each county and parish dwarfs what New London was looking at with Kelo.

as to your first point, let's just say that, given history I'm skeptical.As to your second point, I'd sure like to see some specifics on how much these counties are going to be paid on an annual basis.

So the article indicating that the counties and towns in Alaska were entitled to $10 billion for that BP pipeline was insufficient?

I would think that would give you some idea. But regardless this pipeline absolutely makes the mall in New London look like chicken feed in comparison.

The Alaskan pipeline matter is a tax case. The counties and towns didn't get $10bln from the pipeline owners (a consortium of several large oil and gas companies). Rather, the pipeline was valued at approx. 10bln for purposes of property tax assessment. The key part of that ruling was that the court determined the pipeline should be valued on a "replacement cost" basis, rather than market value (an odd decision imo.) In most cases involving personal property, and certainly in this particular case, the difference between replacement value and market value is massive. I've read your posts the past page or so, and don't understand why you think the Alaskan pipeline property tax dispute case is relevant to eminent domain.

Sorry you're right, I either misunderstood or said it wrong or both.

affirming that the structure for 2006 should have been valued at nearly $10 billion...

The North Slope Borough received $35 million in back-tax payments; Valdez received $32 million; and Fairbanks about $9 million. Anchorage received $4.6 million, and the state received $73.6 million based on the higher assessed value of the pipeline...

The point I guess is that however many state entities at issue, counties or municipalities, had $10 billion worth of taxable property they would not have.

This started in making the comparison to Kelo. Tim raised the value to the city of New London which justified the ruling and my point is that the value of a pipeline to a state like say Kansas and its rural counties would be much greater. If it's just a question of value to the public wealth then Kelo would justify eminent domain.

Not in favor of this by the way, but that's the outfall to me.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

So BP are bastards, but we can expect TransCanada to pay just prices to everyone from the beginning?

For one thing right BP are.

For another I'm guessing TC will have to deal squarely from the beginning or yes they will be sued.

However all this aside the potential value to each county and parish dwarfs what New London was looking at with Kelo.

as to your first point, let's just say that, given history I'm skeptical.As to your second point, I'd sure like to see some specifics on how much these counties are going to be paid on an annual basis.

So the article indicating that the counties and towns in Alaska were entitled to $10 billion for that BP pipeline was insufficient?

I would think that would give you some idea. But regardless this pipeline absolutely makes the mall in New London look like chicken feed in comparison.

The Alaskan pipeline matter is a tax case. The counties and towns didn't get $10bln from the pipeline owners (a consortium of several large oil and gas companies). Rather, the pipeline was valued at approx. 10bln for purposes of property tax assessment. The key part of that ruling was that the court determined the pipeline should be valued on a "replacement cost" basis, rather than market value (an odd decision imo.) In most cases involving personal property, and certainly in this particular case, the difference between replacement value and market value is massive. I've read your posts the past page or so, and don't understand why you think the Alaskan pipeline property tax dispute case is relevant to eminent domain.

Sorry you're right, I either misunderstood or said it wrong or both.

affirming that the structure for 2006 should have been valued at nearly $10 billion...

The North Slope Borough received $35 million in back-tax payments; Valdez received $32 million; and Fairbanks about $9 million. Anchorage received $4.6 million, and the state received $73.6 million based on the higher assessed value of the pipeline...

The point I guess is that however many state entities at issue, counties or municipalities, had $10 billion worth of taxable property they would not have.

This started in making the comparison to Kelo. Tim raised the value to the city of New London which justified the ruling and my point is that the value of a pipeline to a state like say Kansas and its rural counties would be much greater. If it's just a question of value to the public wealth then Kelo would justify eminent domain.

Not in favor of this by the way, but that's the outfall to me.

I'm still confused as to the point you and Tim are discussing, but that's normal for me. Its been so many years since Kelo, I don't recall the issues specifically, but obviously the state needs to show a public benefit. When the taking also benefits a private entity, such as a developer, that issue can get sticky. A property tax assessment dispute involves completely different legal and valuation issues. FWIW, my company does property tax appeal work and eminent domain work. We worked on the Alaska pipeline case, and have also done major eminent domain projects. We work both sides - the property owner and the government.

 

[NCCommish]

So private property got taken to give other people... their private property.

It always bothers me when folks say property "got taken" without any mention that the property owners received compensation. Just comes across as misleading.

They didn't want to sell it and it wasn't used for a public works. It was taken to make other people money. I'd go with taken.

 

[NCCommish]

Tim - the estimate from TransCanada of the XL Pipeline in terms of value to the US economy is $7 billion.

I'm guessing the value of that mall in New London, which was never built, may have been in the millions...

Does the include the rise in US gas prices? Does it include some mythical number of jobs? Does it include the lost revenue from the other Canadian pipelines that are barely used now and that companies had to be forced into building? I find that number suspicious at best.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So BP are bastards, but we can expect TransCanada to pay just prices to everyone from the beginning?

For one thing right BP are.

For another I'm guessing TC will have to deal squarely from the beginning or yes they will be sued.

However all this aside the potential value to each county and parish dwarfs what New London was looking at with Kelo.

as to your first point, let's just say that, given history I'm skeptical.As to your second point, I'd sure like to see some specifics on how much these counties are going to be paid on an annual basis.

So the article indicating that the counties and towns in Alaska were entitled to $10 billion for that BP pipeline was insufficient?

I would think that would give you some idea. But regardless this pipeline absolutely makes the mall in New London look like chicken feed in comparison.

The Alaskan pipeline matter is a tax case. The counties and towns didn't get $10bln from the pipeline owners (a consortium of several large oil and gas companies). Rather, the pipeline was valued at approx. 10bln for purposes of property tax assessment. The key part of that ruling was that the court determined the pipeline should be valued on a "replacement cost" basis, rather than market value (an odd decision imo.) In most cases involving personal property, and certainly in this particular case, the difference between replacement value and market value is massive. I've read your posts the past page or so, and don't understand why you think the Alaskan pipeline property tax dispute case is relevant to eminent domain.

Sorry you're right, I either misunderstood or said it wrong or both.

affirming that the structure for 2006 should have been valued at nearly $10 billion...

The North Slope Borough received $35 million in back-tax payments; Valdez received $32 million; and Fairbanks about $9 million. Anchorage received $4.6 million, and the state received $73.6 million based on the higher assessed value of the pipeline...

The point I guess is that however many state entities at issue, counties or municipalities, had $10 billion worth of taxable property they would not have.

This started in making the comparison to Kelo. Tim raised the value to the city of New London which justified the ruling and my point is that the value of a pipeline to a state like say Kansas and its rural counties would be much greater. If it's just a question of value to the public wealth then Kelo would justify eminent domain.

Not in favor of this by the way, but that's the outfall to me.

I'm still confused as to the point you and Tim are discussing, but that's normal for me. Its been so many years since Kelo, I don't recall the issues specifically, but obviously the state needs to show a public benefit. When the taking also benefits a private entity, such as a developer, that issue can get sticky. A property tax assessment dispute involves completely different legal and valuation issues. FWIW, my company does property tax appeal work and eminent domain work. We worked on the Alaska pipeline case, and have also done major eminent domain projects. We work both sides - the property owner and the government.

Wow, ok, well I'd say you're super-informed on the subject.

I do think the property tax that flows from a development can be considered as a public benefit, whether it's direct or indirect, as in Kelo where a development arguably generates income and improves the economy for everyone generally. The tax revenues can be used for schools, parks, roads or other infrastructure. This is on top of whatever arguments are being made about jobs, construction and the like, though I really how much of that will be happening for most parishes/counties/towns.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Tim - the estimate from TransCanada of the XL Pipeline in terms of value to the US economy is $7 billion.

I'm guessing the value of that mall in New London, which was never built, may have been in the millions...

Does the include the rise in US gas prices? Does it include some mythical number of jobs? Does it include the lost revenue from the other Canadian pipelines that are barely used now and that companies had to be forced into building? I find that number suspicious at best.

The numbers used were by TC as shown on Fox in a link, I used that to show the kind of numbers they were promising. I agree all that's open to debate. The mall in New London didn't get built either. In a situation similar to New London a biomedical complex in Baltimore created by eminent domain has turned into a white elephant largely. Our biomedical complex in NO seems to be built on whispers and promises.

Absolutely beware estimates promised by the developers. The sole point of offering that number was to compare what is being promised by TC and what was being promised in Kelo, the latter was chump change compared to the former.

 

[NCCommish]

So BP are bastards, but we can expect TransCanada to pay just prices to everyone from the beginning?

For one thing right BP are.

For another I'm guessing TC will have to deal squarely from the beginning or yes they will be sued.

However all this aside the potential value to each county and parish dwarfs what New London was looking at with Kelo.

as to your first point, let's just say that, given history I'm skeptical.As to your second point, I'd sure like to see some specifics on how much these counties are going to be paid on an annual basis.

So the article indicating that the counties and towns in Alaska were entitled to $10 billion for that BP pipeline was insufficient?

I would think that would give you some idea. But regardless this pipeline absolutely makes the mall in New London look like chicken feed in comparison.

The Alaskan pipeline matter is a tax case. The counties and towns didn't get $10bln from the pipeline owners (a consortium of several large oil and gas companies). Rather, the pipeline was valued at approx. 10bln for purposes of property tax assessment. The key part of that ruling was that the court determined the pipeline should be valued on a "replacement cost" basis, rather than market value (an odd decision imo.) In most cases involving personal property, and certainly in this particular case, the difference between replacement value and market value is massive. I've read your posts the past page or so, and don't understand why you think the Alaskan pipeline property tax dispute case is relevant to eminent domain.

Sorry you're right, I either misunderstood or said it wrong or both.

affirming that the structure for 2006 should have been valued at nearly $10 billion...

The North Slope Borough received $35 million in back-tax payments; Valdez received $32 million; and Fairbanks about $9 million. Anchorage received $4.6 million, and the state received $73.6 million based on the higher assessed value of the pipeline...

The point I guess is that however many state entities at issue, counties or municipalities, had $10 billion worth of taxable property they would not have.

This started in making the comparison to Kelo. Tim raised the value to the city of New London which justified the ruling and my point is that the value of a pipeline to a state like say Kansas and its rural counties would be much greater. If it's just a question of value to the public wealth then Kelo would justify eminent domain.

Not in favor of this by the way, but that's the outfall to me.

I'm still confused as to the point you and Tim are discussing, but that's normal for me. Its been so many years since Kelo, I don't recall the issues specifically, but obviously the state needs to show a public benefit. When the taking also benefits a private entity, such as a developer, that issue can get sticky. A property tax assessment dispute involves completely different legal and valuation issues. FWIW, my company does property tax appeal work and eminent domain work. We worked on the Alaska pipeline case, and have also done major eminent domain projects. We work both sides - the property owner and the government.

Wow, ok, well I'd say you're super-informed on the subject.

I do think the property tax that flows from a development can be considered as a public benefit, whether it's direct or indirect, as in Kelo where a development arguably generates income and improves the economy for everyone generally. The tax revenues can be used for schools, parks, roads or other infrastructure. This is on top of whatever arguments are being made about jobs, construction and the like, though I really how much of that will be happening for most parishes/counties/towns.

The Kelo decision wasn't about Kelo per se. It was about forcing states to take a stand on the laws and get them under control. Which actually has happened quite a bit. I think the SC played a long game and it looks like they mostly got what they wanted.

 

[SacramentoBob]

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.

 

[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.

 

[SacramentoBob]

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.

Maybe we can build a train that runs inside of the pipeline. Win-win.

 

[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.