They are not the only one who have been arrested trying to stop the pipeline. Several other protesters have also been arrested, and even some reporters (who were just trying to cover the event) have been arrested. The corporation does not want anyone to see or report on their high-handed and thuggish actions.
Personally, I don't think this corporation (which is not even a U.S. corporation) should have the right to steal a citizens land. Eminent domain is supposed to be used for the public good -- to build something like a highway, that is for the good of and will be used by everyone. That is not the case here. The only real beneficiaries of the pipeline are the giant oil companies (and the politicians they are paying off).
I know they are claiming this is for the public good (because the public will benefit from the oil flowing through the pipeline), but that's ridiculous. If that was true, then any corporation should have the right of eminent domain because the product they want to build or sell will be bought by the public (and therefore is for the public good). If TransCanada is allowed to do this, then Texas obviously needs some new and stricter guidelines for the use of eminent domain. It is just wrong to use eminent domain to fill the bank accounts of giant corporations.
If you'd like to read more about this grievous miscarriage of justice (and I hope you do), then you can go to the website called Planetsave.
I agree with you that eminent domain is supposed to be used only for projects which will be used by the public, and not for those which will be used by private entities even when those entities serve the public interest. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court settled that issue in favor of business interests some years ago, ruling that private land can be taken any time that such taking can be shown to be in the public interest, so clearly you and I are "wrong" on this.
ReplyDeleteThe landmark case was in Boston, iirc, where homes were taken by eminent domain and the land sold to a developer who built high priced condos. The Supreme Court upheld the eminent domain taking of the homes.
We had our vote on this in MS in 2011. Here is a summary of the proposed constitutional amendment which was approved by MS voters over 73 percent yes to almost 27 percent no: "Initiative #31 would amend the Mississippi Constitution to prohibit state and local government from taking private property by eminent domain and then conveying it to other persons or private businesses for a period of ten years after acquisition. Exceptions from the prohibition include drainage and levee facilities, roads, bridges, ports, airports, common carriers, and utilities. The prohibition would not apply in certain situations, including public nuisance, structures unfit for human habitation, or abandoned property." My summary is "Don't piss off a conservative by telling him you are taking his property and giving it to Toyota to build another manufacturing plant!"
ReplyDeleteI had to deal with this recently when an oil company approached me to build a pipeline across my land in Louisiana. According to the case law I read, there was no way I could stop them from using eminent domain to seize my land under either Louisiana or Federal law. However, the costs of using eminent domain to do so were high. I used that information to negotiate a price for the right-of-way that was roughly four times what the per-acre cost of the land would be, or just under the cost of filing an eminent domain lawsuit in Louisiana courts. That, unfortunately, is all I could do.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I will point out, however, is that the United States is a democracy, and in a democracy the majority rules. And the majority wants that oil. As much as I dislike the fact that the majority can come in and take my land for their benefit (after paying me for it), there's a name for the kind of country where a small minority can rule over the majority, and that name is tyranny. Just sayin'.