Obama sez No to Keystone

[Mr Bread]

silver bullet

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Can anyone name one real reason why this shouldn't have been summarily permitted?  I haven't seen a single reason that wasn't fallacy by definition. 

[Rage Against the McKee]

Can anyone name one real reason why this shouldn't have been summarily permitted?  I haven't seen a single reason that wasn't fallacy by definition.

Nebraska objected to the project at first. I'm not sure if they still object, though. I think a project like this should need approval from each state legislature that it passes through.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Can anyone name one real reason why this shouldn't have been summarily permitted?  I haven't seen a single reason that wasn't fallacy by definition.

Nebraska objected to the project at first. I'm not sure if they still object, though. I think a project like this should need approval from each state legislature that it passes through.

That happened years ago. JFC

[sys]

Can anyone name one real reason why this shouldn't have been summarily permitted?  I haven't seen a single reason that wasn't fallacy by definition.

no.  but i'm glad it was rerouted around the sandhills.  and using eminent domain to seize property for private projects is completely horrible, immoral, etc.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Fwiw, you have to consent to be regulated as a utility to have condemnation powers, so it's quasi-public

[sys]

Fwiw, you have to consent to be regulated as a utility to have condemnation powers, so it's quasi-public

i don't really know how that makes it any different.  it still seems ridiculous and wrong to me.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Fwiw, you have to consent to be regulated as a utility to have condemnation powers, so it's quasi-public

i don't really know how that makes it any different.  it still seems ridiculous and wrong to me.

Think of it like the gas line that heats your house. Without condemnation powers (these are easements, not fee simple) people would be unable to hook up or the cost would be outrageous.

[sys]

Think of it like the gas line that heats your house. Without condemnation powers (these are easements, not fee simple) people would be unable to hook up or the cost would be outrageous.

i can see how it is practical, for anything that is long and thin and crosses a ton of people's property.  but it still seems immoral.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Think of it like the gas line that heats your house. Without condemnation powers (these are easements, not fee simple) people would be unable to hook up or the cost would be outrageous.

i can see how it is practical, for anything that is long and thin and crosses a ton of people's property.  but it still seems immoral.

It's a sacrifice we all make to have access to roads, water, gas, internet, phone, electricity,  etc.

I agree the condemnation to build things like arenas and Pfizer offices is bullshit.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

There is a huge difference bw condemning easements and fee simple. Most farmers hosting a pipeline love them - it's free money to them because they don't really impair their use of the land.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Plus, less than 1% of the land was condemned (although the hammer of condemnation obviously incentives private contract)

[sys]

It's a sacrifice we all make to have access to roads, water, gas, internet, phone, electricity,  etc.

yeah, except it's just a small number of people making the sacrifices, not everyone.  and against their will.


btw, by pure coincidence i heard this podcast today, which is the most heartwarming story about eminent domain (not really, but kinda related) you'll ever hear.  i also liked the weirdo nyc guy who refused to sell his property.

http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/holdout/

[sys]

There is a huge difference bw condemning easements and fee simple. Most farmers hosting a pipeline love them - it's free money to them because they don't really impair their use of the land.

what in the world does that have to do with eminent domain?  are you suggesting they deserve to have to forfeit their property rights because they're unreasonable?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

There is a huge difference bw condemning easements and fee simple. Most farmers hosting a pipeline love them - it's free money to them because they don't really impair their use of the land.

what in the world does that have to do with eminent domain?  are you suggesting they deserve to have to forfeit their property rights because they're unreasonable?

Huh? I'm not saying unreasonable farmers deserve to forfeit their property rights - I'm not sure what that even means or where you got that from. Condemnation is often necessary and appropriate for infrastructure projects such as highways, rail, utilities, and pipelines due to the linear nature and necessity of those projects.

As I said, most farmers gladly pocket the cash offered by the pipeline company. An easement generally doesn't disturb their use and enjoyment of the property. Those farmers that hold out a bit longer will often pocket a bit more money than those that signed up early.  Contesting the condemnation in court, however, is a bad idea, and can often result in receiving less than was offered. The condemnation is going to happen.

[ChiComCat]

From my experience, a lot of farmers have history with the gov taking land for projects.  They know plenty of ways to come out way ahead in it.

[Dugout DickStone]

There is a huge difference bw condemning easements and fee simple. Most farmers hosting a pipeline love them - it's free money to them because they don't really impair their use of the land.

what in the world does that have to do with eminent domain?  are you suggesting they deserve to have to forfeit their property rights because they're unreasonable?

Huh? I'm not saying unreasonable farmers deserve to forfeit their property rights - I'm not sure what that even means or where you got that from. Condemnation is often necessary and appropriate for infrastructure projects such as highways, rail, utilities, and pipelines due to the linear nature and necessity of those projects.

As I said, most farmers gladly pocket the cash offered by the pipeline company. An easement generally doesn't disturb their use and enjoyment of the property. Those farmers that hold out a bit longer will often pocket a bit more money than those that signed up early.  Contesting the condemnation in court, however, is a bad idea, and can often result in receiving less than was offered. The condemnation is going to happen.

This is called the "take the gold or take the lead" approach

[sys]

As I said, most farmers gladly pocket the cash offered by the pipeline company.

as i said, what relevance does this have to the seizure of property rights by eminent domain?  by definition (ignoring for now, those who simply want a higher price) those people impacted by eminent domain are not glad to pocket the cash in exchange for those property rights.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

As a policy measure, it prevents people from acquiring land in an effort to create a barrier which can then be used to extort everyone on the other side of the barrier. 

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Approved with 62 votes in the senate. This is enough to defeat a veto, no?

[Rage Against the McKee]

Approved with 62 votes in the senate. This is enough to defeat a veto, no?

Don't they need 2/3? That would be 67 votes. Plus, they would also need 2/3 of the House.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Approved with 62 votes in the senate. This is enough to defeat a veto, no?

Don't they need 2/3? That would be 67 votes. Plus, they would also need 2/3 of the House.

Assuming every senator votes, that would be 67. They probably don't have quite enough votes in the House or Senate. That's unfortunate, but it is still productive legislation. The President will finally be held to account one way or another.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Approved with 62 votes in the senate. This is enough to defeat a veto, no?

Don't they need 2/3? That would be 67 votes. Plus, they would also need 2/3 of the House.

Assuming every senator votes, that would be 67. They probably don't have quite enough votes in the House or Senate. That's unfortunate, but it is still productive legislation. The President will finally be held to account one way or another.

Yeah, I don't know all the details on Keystone, but I generally support projects that improve energy infrastructure.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

I didn't know/remember what the super majority threshold was, sounds like it's 2/3 not 60%.

In addition to making the president look like a huge dumbass, anti democratic, totalitarian bad person, it will also force party line dems to take a position in the house or senate that is contrary to their constituency.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

The Democrats pretty much have nothing to stand on here. The Senate dems were resorting to amendments requiring such things as "the pipeline must be manufactured with American steel."

So after the vote, Chuck Shumer gives a press conference: "We tried to pass an amendment requiring the use of American steel - the Republicans said 'no.'" Amazing. Democrat politicians are definitely the best at politics.