• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CAPPI

Re: Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CA

"Certain rights", not all rights. I already said they could not build a permanent structure over it or build a pond. Guess that qualifies a "certain rights".

Big deal, they are handsomely compensated up front and yearly.

$21,000 ( the amount offered to the landowner in the article ) is not a lot of money especially when you could sell the the land for much more to a developer.

My uncle sold his 80 acre potato farm for over a couple of million years ago to a developer.
 
Last edited:
Re: Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CA

$21,000 ( the amount offered to the landowner in the article ) is not a lot of money especially when you could sell the the land for much more to a developer.

My uncle sold his 80 acre potato farm for over a couple of million years ago to a developer.

Let me get this straight.... you are actually comparing an 80 acre potato farm to an easement covering 1 1/2 acres ????

They are getting $3.14 a square foot for the easement. They can still use the land for farming/ranching. Sounds more than fair to me.
 
Re: Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CA

There's no point to miss. This is a minor addition to already existing pipeline capacity in the US, many many thousands of miles, and there's no history of unfair treatment of landowners.

Sure there is, you just haven't looked for it. Not to mention that you assume, "We WILL take your land to build this private pipeline" is by definition "fair" and the only question is whether the landowner gets paid or has some minimal say in WHERE across the property they'll install this pipeline.
 
Re: Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CA

No private company has been given the right to condemn anyone's property. The government is doing that.

Correct, the states granted the right of eminent domain to the pipeline company. Read the story posted just above by minnie.

Your big government takes private property against the owner's will all the time. Why are you complaining about it now? It's done all the time to build wind farms and you never complained about that.

If you have an example, present it and we can discuss it. Otherwise, what's your point? If I support eminent domain in any case, I have to support it in all cases? That's bizarre and would apply to you as well.
 
Re: Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CA

Let me get this straight.... you are actually comparing an 80 acre potato farm to an easement covering 1 1/2 acres ????

They are getting $3.14 a square foot for the easement. They can still use the land for farming/ranching. Sounds more than fair to me.

Goodness, if that 80 acre potato farm had a pipeline running through the middle of it, it would be worth FAR less for development. That's not rocket science observation there. The pipeline is a significant and forever harm to the value of your property because of the permanent restrictions on the use of that land.
 
Re: Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CA

Correct, the states granted the right of eminent domain to the pipeline company. Read the story posted just above by minnie.



If you have an example, present it and we can discuss it. Otherwise, what's your point? If I support eminent domain in any case, I have to support it in all cases? That's bizarre and would apply to you as well.

You can't complain about imminent domain concerning the pipeline, then condone it when it furthers your agenda. That's called hypocrisy.
 
Re: Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CA

You can't complain about imminent domain concerning the pipeline, then condone it when it furthers your agenda. That's called hypocrisy.

When did I condone it to further "my agenda?"

And since you approve of eminent domain here, you must approve use of it in ALL cases or you're a hypocrite? Interesting..... I don't agree!!
 
Re: Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CA

When did I condone it to further "my agenda?"

And since you approve of eminent domain here, you must approve use of it in ALL cases or you're a hypocrite? Interesting..... I don't agree!!

I never said I approved of ID. But, I'm not the one saying that ID is wrong, then never uttering a word when the wind industry does the exact same thing. That would be you.

You claim that a pipeline right of way reduces the development value of a piece of property, yet say nothing about wind farms making a property absolutely worthless for development.
 
Re: Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CA

Goodness, if that 80 acre potato farm had a pipeline running through the middle of it, it would be worth FAR less for development. That's not rocket science observation there. The pipeline is a significant and forever harm to the value of your property because of the permanent restrictions on the use of that land.

Did the potato farm have a pipeline running through it ??
 
Re: Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CA

Sure there is, you just haven't looked for it. Not to mention that you assume, "We WILL take your land to build this private pipeline" is by definition "fair" and the only question is whether the landowner gets paid or has some minimal say in WHERE across the property they'll install this pipeline.

The landowner still owns the land. The pipeline company purchases a right-of-way easement. The vast majority of farmers see these as welcome moneymakers.
 
Re: Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CA

I never said I approved of ID. But, I'm not the one saying that ID is wrong, then never uttering a word when the wind industry does the exact same thing. That would be you.

Where is the discussion on wind farms where I approved of private companies using eminent domain to install the turbines on the property of unwilling ranchers? It doesn't exist - I'd never support such a thing. I can't really imagine supporting it if it was governments seizing that land, but it would make more sense because the power generated by that wind farm would benefit the local community directly. At any rate, you're making up positions I haven't taken then calling me a hypocrite based on these invented positions.

You claim that a pipeline right of way reduces the development value of a piece of property, yet say nothing about wind farms making a property absolutely worthless for development.

Point me to this thread about wind farms where I took this position.
 
Re: Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CA

Did the potato farm have a pipeline running through it ??

What does that have to do with anything? You're the one making the hilarious argument that it's no biggee to have a permanent easement across your property, not me.
 
Re: Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CA

Did the potato farm have a pipeline running through it ??

No pipeline was running through it. A pipeline would have killed the deal.
 
Re: Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CA

The landowner still owns the land. The pipeline company purchases a right-of-way easement. The vast majority of farmers see these as welcome moneymakers.

What's a bit telling is how weak the conservatives' arguments are on this issue. I guess I understand - if you value property rights, it's hard to defend giving a private company the authority to usurp them for private gain. But you have to know that argument is really weak.

The "vast majority" of farmers probably sell out to developers. But whether they do or not doesn't affect in the slightest whether we should grant developers the right of eminent domain to force holdouts to sell.

And you're kidding yourself about the false distinction between property and easements. As I mentioned, the county condemned part of an old family home site to install high tension power lines across the property. We can still do whatever we want under those lines and all around the gigantic supports. Grow crops, graze horses, cows, run dogs, plant a garden. What no one can do any longer is build a house on that property, so it cut the value by probably 80%. We supposedly got compensated for that, but we also gave up the potential future appreciation of that property, and we had no choice whether or not to do that.
 
Re: Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CA

No pipeline was running through it. A pipeline would have killed the deal.

Of course it would have, but Gill is somehow pretending that if your uncle had been forced to accept a pipeline, no biggee because he'd still have been able to grow potatoes....
 
Re: Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CA

What's a bit telling is how weak the conservatives' arguments are on this issue. I guess I understand - if you value property rights, it's hard to defend giving a private company the authority to usurp them for private gain. But you have to know that argument is really weak.

The "vast majority" of farmers probably sell out to developers. But whether they do or not doesn't affect in the slightest whether we should grant developers the right of eminent domain to force holdouts to sell.

And you're kidding yourself about the false distinction between property and easements. As I mentioned, the county condemned part of an old family home site to install high tension power lines across the property. We can still do whatever we want under those lines and all around the gigantic supports. Grow crops, graze horses, cows, run dogs, plant a garden. What no one can do any longer is build a house on that property, so it cut the value by probably 80%. We supposedly got compensated for that, but we also gave up the potential future appreciation of that property, and we had no choice whether or not to do that.

Since I'm not conservative I really could not care less about the weakness you perceive in their arguments or anyone else's. For my part it's a simple proposition. The pipeline is a valuable addition to our industrial infrastructure and capacity, and is to be built across largely empty land. The value of community is to come together for the greater good of all.
 
Re: Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CA

Of course it would have, but Gill is somehow pretending that if your uncle had been forced to accept a pipeline, no biggee because he'd still have been able to grow potatoes....

Except he didn't want to grow potatoes anymore.
It was retirement time and by selling the land for real estate he was able to enjoy his retirement not worrying about money or crops or whether it rained or not.
 
Re: Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CA

If Keystone XL has not been approved by 2016 then the Repubs will use it and gain quite a bit.

Which is bs because one project does not change the economy. To take land from people in order to achieve corporate profit is just terrible.
 
Re: Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CA

Which is bs because one project does not change the economy. To take land from people in order to achieve corporate profit is just terrible.

It is a powerful visual and symbolic issue. And no one is "taking" anything. The right-of-way is paid for and the vast majority of farmers and ranchers welcome the income.
 
Re: Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CA

It is a powerful visual and symbolic issue. And no one is "taking" anything. The right-of-way is paid for and the vast majority of farmers and ranchers welcome the income.

Try telling that to the people being bent over and forced to leave so a private company can make a profit.
 
Re: Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CA

Try telling that to the people being bent over and forced to leave so a private company can make a profit.

No one is being forced to move.
 
Re: Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CA

No one is being forced to move.

And how do you figure that?
 
Re: Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline Associated Press By DINA CA

No one is being forced to move.

Tell that to lady in the following article:



The trouble for Lori Collins and her family started the day in early October 2012 when a backhoe plunged into the earth. Lori walked outside her farmhouse, in the East Texas bottomlands south of Paris, to see that her septic system had been torn from the ground to make way for a pipeline. She saw the piping scattered in the dirt on the side of a great trench—the future home of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, which could eventually stretch from northern Alberta, Canada, to the Texas Gulf Coast, carrying diluted bitumen to refineries that will transform it into crude oil.


TransCanada Corporation’s construction of the Texas section of the Keystone pipeline has been met with angry protests from environmentalists and some landowners. But the Collins family, and Lori in particular, was happy to see the pipeline come through their property. The money was good, but there were personal reasons, too. Big-haired, blonde and brassy, Lori grew up as the only daughter in a family of oilfield workers. In the TransCanada contractors she saw a reflection of her two brothers, pipefitters who lived their lives as nomads on various lines across the country, working hard and living hard. (One of her brothers died from a gunshot in a hotel room in Oklahoma, where he was working on a pipeline project. The crime was never solved.) So when the work crews arrived she drove out to the pipeline easement in her Suburban and, during the day—while her children were at school and her husband, J.B., was out in the fields—she fed them home-cooked beans, cornbread and cobbler. When the worker-safety supervisors yelled at them for letting a civilian without protective gear onto the construction site, they scrounged her up a flame-retardant jumpsuit and TransCanada helmet.

So perhaps it’s a potent metaphor for the project that for a year and a half, TransCanada left a family inundated in its own ****.
Then came that October day in 2012 when Lori walked outside to find considerable damage to her septic system. Like many rural families, the Collinses pumped their sewage to a central tank, and from there it went into smaller pipes that drained waste into their fields. It was these lines, which drained into the fields, that TransCanada had ripped from the ground to clear the pipeline route. So Lori went to the construction site and found a supervisor. She showed him the damage; he promised that he would tell his supervisor and that they would fix it promptly.

Lori was not, at that point, too concerned. TransCanada owns more than 42,000 miles of oil and natural gas pipelines that spread across the continent from Canada to Mexico, crossing the land of thousands of private owners. In promotional videos and media statements, TransCanada’s representatives tout their devotion to landowners. The company line, repeated in press and ad copy, is that people like the Collinses are “not just landowners, they’re valued neighbors.” The company even produced a series of promotional videos showing farmers and TransCanada land agents walking through rolling fields of grain: pipeline easements, lovingly restored by the company. The series is called “Good Neighbors.”

During the next two years, that “Good Neighbors” line would become, for Lori Collins and others like her, a bitter joke. A few days after her family’s septic system was destroyed, construction crews piled all the dirt they had dug up on top of the remaining pipe, the one draining the Collinses’ septic tank, effectively plugging it. The family watched helplessly as raw sewage flooded back into the house, soaking the carpets and walls and leaving black mold in its wake. For a year and a half—as their foundation slid toward the growing fetid lake of sewage in their front yard, as they got sick, as disposing of their own waste became a daily problem—the Collins family relentlessly and unsuccessfully tried to get someone to fix the damage. “We trusted them,” Lori Collins told me. “That was the biggest mistake we ever made.”


For the last four years, the country has fought over the future of the remainder of the Keystone XL pipeline. Much of the national political debate over the Keystone XL—and whether the Obama administration should grant the pipeline final approval—has centered on the project’s impact on climate change (extracting and burning the Alberta bitumen will unleash an enormous amount of carbon into the atmosphere). But there’s been another fight, happening all along the planned route, over what damage the pipeline and its contents will do to the land and, more important, the extent to which TransCanada can be trusted to repair it. To these questions, TransCanada has said, essentially: Trust us. Another common company talking point: “It’ll be the safest pipeline ever built on U.S. soil.”
 
Back
Top Bottom