Why do "conservatives" support individuals being able to take/use YOUR land?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So you do not support the XL pipeline taking land?
Same difference they have eternal access accross your land anytime they want and you cannot build on/use that land and you still pay taxes on it.

That is a close call. Is the XL pipeline a public use? Is there a reasonable alternative option for the pipeline? Are they asking for the land, or a right of way across the land?

I would accept that the XL pipeline is a public service, no different that any other public utility. States commonly designate right of ways for electric transmission lines, sewer lines, water lines, gas lines, etc.

I oppose the government taking property because another owner will contribute more taxes to the government. But, the supreme court, in their superior wisdom, disagrees.

The key is that the original landholder must be fairly compensated, and every effort must be made to avoid the condemnation of the land.

However this is one of the allowed powers under the US consitution, and most state constitutions.

"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

What is "just" or "fair" compensation? If I don't want to give up my land then they can take it and give me what they think is "fair," but it's not fair if both sides don't agree.

 

[8537]

This is the one and only legitimate use of the Commerce Clause.

Are you even vaguely familiar with Kelo decision?

Wait what? You think it's a legitimate use of the commerce clause for a private foreign company to obtain common carrier status in Texas and thus take private property by government decree in order to route a pipeline shipping Canadian tar sands to Houston to export around the world?

Can you explain how that benefits the common good?

its actually that combined with the 5th amendment. And better access to energy supplies is something that benefits us all. Again it would only be used in cases where someone refused to sell the underground right of way. Most of the time the federal or state agency doing the condemnation tries to avoid condemnation, and would rather buy the person out.

How does shipping tar sands from Canada to Houston in order to refine and ship it overseas "benefit us all"

And of COURSE it would only be used when people refuse to sell. That's the whole point. The private company first comes with a nice letter. If that fails to persuade you they come with a sheriff and take it from you.

And by the way, in this instance the case is actually about the Common Carrier requirement in Texas, not federal law - and in this case, TransCanada claiming it is building a pipeline for common carriers is just absurd.

 

[martybegan]

That is a close call. Is the XL pipeline a public use? Is there a reasonable alternative option for the pipeline? Are they asking for the land, or a right of way across the land?

I would accept that the XL pipeline is a public service, no different that any other public utility. States commonly designate right of ways for electric transmission lines, sewer lines, water lines, gas lines, etc.

I oppose the government taking property because another owner will contribute more taxes to the government. But, the supreme court, in their superior wisdom, disagrees.

The key is that the original landholder must be fairly compensated, and every effort must be made to avoid the condemnation of the land.

However this is one of the allowed powers under the US consitution, and most state constitutions.

"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

What is "just" or "fair" compensation? If I don't want to give up my land then they can take it and give me what they think is "fair," but it's not fair if both sides don't agree.

It is what it is. The government is allowed to comdemn private property for public good. It is up to the courts and the legislatures to determine what is considered a public good. Note it doesnt say public use, but public good.

Just or fair is usually determined by a court in really nasty condemnation disputes.

 

[Avatar4321]

Last time I checked, We don't support anyone being able to take anyone else land. They have to purchase the land.

 

[8537]

Last time I checked, We don't support anyone being able to take anyone else land. They have to purchase the land.

They have to transfer money to the person losing the property. "purchase" usually implies an agreed-upon price.

This isn't a price reached in mutual agreement.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The key is that the original landholder must be fairly compensated, and every effort must be made to avoid the condemnation of the land.

However this is one of the allowed powers under the US consitution, and most state constitutions.

"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

What is "just" or "fair" compensation? If I don't want to give up my land then they can take it and give me what they think is "fair," but it's not fair if both sides don't agree.

It is what it is. The government is allowed to comdemn private property for public good. It is up to the courts and the legislatures to determine what is considered a public good. Note it doesnt say public use, but public good.

Just or fair is usually determined by a court in really nasty condemnation disputes.

Yes, we know they allow themselves to steal, the issue is whether or not they should be permitted to do so. As somebody who supports private property rights I would answer no. The op's point is that most conservatives will say they support private property rights, but also support eminent domain. This is a contradiction.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This is the one and only legitimate use of the Commerce Clause.

Are you even vaguely familiar with Kelo decision?

Kelo was a travesty. Right up there with Roe v. Wade. Why are you using that piece of shit decision to justify your position?


.

It was 2 separate thoughts.

Kelo was one of the worst decisions ever

 

[8537]

What is "just" or "fair" compensation? If I don't want to give up my land then they can take it and give me what they think is "fair," but it's not fair if both sides don't agree.

It is what it is. The government is allowed to comdemn private property for public good. It is up to the courts and the legislatures to determine what is considered a public good. Note it doesnt say public use, but public good.

Just or fair is usually determined by a court in really nasty condemnation disputes.

Yes, we know they allow themselves to steal, the issue is whether or not they should be permitted to do so. As somebody who supports private property rights I would answer no. The op's point is that most conservatives will say they support private property rights, but also support eminent domain. This is a contradiction.

I happen to believe there are legitimate uses of eminent domain for proper government functions - to build a runway for an AF base, for example, or locate a radar installation. Reasonable people may disagree on that use.

However, this case is very different. In this case the government is transferring ownership of private property from an unwilling citizen to a corporation - and not just any corporation, a foreign corporation. And despite the fact that Texas law requires an exchange in this instance to be for common carrier rights, there is no indication that any other transporter will use this pipeline for anything.

It's legalized theft, the punishment coming in the form of a money transfer.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This is the one and only legitimate use of the Commerce Clause.

Are you even vaguely familiar with Kelo decision?

Wait what? You think it's a legitimate use of the commerce clause for a private foreign company to obtain common carrier status in Texas and thus take private property by government decree in order to route a pipeline shipping Canadian tar sands to Houston to export around the world?

Can you explain how that benefits the common good?

I don't support Kelo, but did you know that under Kelo, paying higher taxes is the only qualification for the government being able to transfer your property to another

 

[Two Thumbs]

The XL pipeline goes to court to get any passage on land that the Landowner refuses or wants too much.
A corporation is an individual right?
A non US corporation no less.

I'd say they would have to go around, or pay out the ass for the property.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It is what it is. The government is allowed to comdemn private property for public good. It is up to the courts and the legislatures to determine what is considered a public good. Note it doesnt say public use, but public good.

Just or fair is usually determined by a court in really nasty condemnation disputes.

Yes, we know they allow themselves to steal, the issue is whether or not they should be permitted to do so. As somebody who supports private property rights I would answer no. The op's point is that most conservatives will say they support private property rights, but also support eminent domain. This is a contradiction.

I happen to believe there are legitimate uses of eminent domain for proper government functions - to build a runway for an AF base, for example, or locate a radar installation. Reasonable people may disagree on that use.

However, this case is very different. In this case the government is transferring ownership of private property from an unwilling citizen to a corporation - and not just any corporation, a foreign corporation. And despite the fact that Texas law requires an exchange in this instance to be for common carrier rights, there is no indication that any other transporter will use this pipeline for anything.

It's legalized theft, the punishment coming in the form of a money transfer.

I don't bother differentiating. Taking somebody else's property and keeping it with the government or giving it to a corporation is theft regardless, in my mind.