Dakota Access Pipeline : Eminent domain _ none of this matters

1. 67

   ptosisposted 7 years ago

   None of this matters any more: I'm pissing in the wind because Trump is a major investor - now Prez:
   
   Offshoot of another thread of government force, http://hubpages.com/politics/forum/1389 … d-control-
   
   Since a lot of the discussion involved DAPL, this is the rights of government and the public good versus a private person, family, township or tribe.
   
   a de facto fast-track federal authorization: if unable to legally combat a project - then what are the tools left to stop it?
   NWP 12 abuses:
   
   http://www.desmogblog.com/2016/09/08/da … -permit-12
   
   "Congress did not intend the NWP program to be used to streamline major infrastructure projects like the Gulf Coast Pipeline, the Flanagan South Pipeline, and the Dakota Access Pipeline,” reads their comment. “For the reasons explained herein, we strongly oppose the reissuance of NWP 12 and its provisions that allow segmented approval of major pipelines without any project-specific environmental review or public review process.”
   
   Three federal agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of the Interior, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, have all urged the Army Corps’ to revise its assessment, citing major risks to water supplies, inadequate emergency preparedness, potential impacts to the Standing Rock reservation and insufficient environmental justice analysis
   
   
   Read More: http://www.trueactivist.com/pipeline-sa … deficient/
   
   http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-new … -concerns/
   
   "The pipeline was initially routed north of the capital city of Bismarck, Archambault noted, but rerouted by the company, in part, because of concerns to protect drinking-water intakes. The company’s proposed routeThree federal agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of the Interior, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, have all urged the Army Corps’ to revise its assessment, citing major risks to water supplies, inadequate emergency preparedness, potential impacts to the Standing Rock reservation and insufficient environmental justice analysis now crosses within a half mile of the tribe’s reservation boundary and 10 miles upstream of its drinking-water intake."
   
   http://www.trueactivist.com/pipeline-sa … deficient/
   
   Three federal agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of the Interior, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, have all urged the Army Corps’ to revise its assessment, citing major risks to water supplies, inadequate emergency preparedness, potential impacts to the Standing Rock reservation and insufficient environmental justice analysis
   
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

           Three federal agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of the Interior, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, have all urged the Army Corps’ to revise its assessment, citing major risks to water supplies, inadequate emergency preparedness, potential impacts to the Standing Rock reservation and insufficient environmental justice analysis.
      
      And yet they haven't, under an Obama administration either. Corporations get their way. The little guy suffers. It's been business as usual in Washington for long time.

      replyreport
2. 96

   wildernessposted 7 years ago

   "if unable to legally combat a project - then what are the tools left to stop it?"
   
   Illegal actions.  Bombs, war, etc.  But I'm not sure what you're asking here: is the question based on the premise that the environmentalists want this pipeline stopped so it must be stopped regardless of legality?  That they, or anyone else, must get whatever they want without regard to the law?

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      It isn't just environmentalists. It's private citizens. They are running a part of the pipeline through here. Some type of station is going in one county west of us. If it blows, people die. A station blew west of here. They said had it happened at night many would have died. Luckily most were at work or school when it happened.
      
      People, average citizens, are not taken into account adequately. They are not informed, adequately. It's not right. If, after the fact, people choose to protest it is because they were given no information, or faulty information, from the get go.

      replyreport
      1. 96

         wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         But none of that has anything to do with violating the law.  That the environmentalists have scared people doesn't change it.  That they have sucked a few Indians (far from all of them) into it doesn't change it.  Not even the lie that the Dakota pipeline was publicized or that Indians never had a chance to communicate their fears.  It doesn't change that the law was followed and that criminal activities in trying to get what is illegal to have is not OK.
         
         LtL, what is happening here is a very clear case of NIMBY, coupled with a temper tantrum that the people can't have what they want so will commit crimes until they get it anyway.  I do not agree that it is reasonable.

         replyreport
         1. 67

            ptosisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            That is incorrect.
            
            http://www.okayplayer.com/news/no-dakot … -help.html
            
            Using the Nationwide Permit 12, the Dakota Access Pipeline Project was fast-tracked and granted exemption from environmental review that’s required by the Clean Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. Add to the mix that since the DAPL does not cross over into Canada or Mexica, the project isn’t being deeply combed through by federal analysis. According to the chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, David Archambault II, they have been opposing the DAPL since they first learned of it in 2014.
            
            http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/dakota … ts-n676801
            
            The protests forced a halt in construction in late August after the Standing Rock Sioux sued the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The tribe argued that it did not adequately consult with them before granting Energy Transfer Partners fast-track approval in July, as required under the National Historic Preservation Act. The Army Corps of Engineers said it did not oppose the suspension.
            
            The Obama administration intervened, asking Energy Transfer Partners to "voluntarily" halt construction on all surrounding private land, pending a final environmental review by the Army Corps, the Justice Department and the Interior Department. The company rejected that request and resumed construction within 48 hours.

            replyreport
3. 0

   ahorsebackposted 7 years ago

   So far , The entire protesting of the pipeline has created more of an environmental impact than ten  pipe bursting accidents !   Any comment on that , anyone .   Burning tires , pallets , cars  , police vehicles  ,  .....yea !.....Keep up the protest burning !

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Can a tire be compared to a human life? Are corporate interests more valuable than a citizen's peace of mind in their home?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Right , What's perhaps a thousand tires ,  a dozen vehicles and you cannot see the hypocrisy  of what we can classify as rioting    ,  isn't that throwing out the baby with the bathwater ?
         
         Not quite like holding up a sign, is it  ?

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            I'm not saying it's right but you, yourself, admit that the government doesn't act in the best interests of the people. You, yourself, have been known to say there may come a time we will have to take up arms against it.
            
            If the government is protecting corporate interests to the detriment of citizens I don't know what better reason there could be to fight back.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               I think here is a huge difference between all out politically motivated revolution and a pipeline protest on the edge of a reservation . Given the hypocrisy of the environmental issues .      Burn it down .........aren't you all about global warming ?

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  You have me confused with someone else. I'm not chicken little on global warming. Call me a defeatist on that.

                  replyreport
               2. 59

                  Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  I think the old saying applies here. The one about not standing up for one, then another, then another and when it came your turn there was no one to stand up for you.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     An inanimate pipeline isn't like the spread of Nazi-ism ,       It may simply be for the betterment of all , Did you look at the map of pipelines I posted ?
                     
                     If its only the P.C. locations like Indian reservations that matter enough to protest , we are all in trouble !
                     
                     
                     

                     replyreport
      2. 96

         wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Are the needs of the nation more important than "peace of mind" for an handful?  Is damaging roads by blockading them with burning tires (illegal most places wherever it done) a reasonable action?  Destroying private property and trespassing to do it?

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Are the needs of a nation more important than the peace of mind for a handful? Is that a serious question?
            
            Say you bought a house and moved your family in and they were going to build something next door to you that could explode and kill your entire family, but it would benefit me. Would that be ok?

            replyreport
            1. 96

               wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               Kill?  Benefit you only?  The term you proposed was "peace of mind" which is a far cry from "kill".  And the term I used was "nation", not "single individual".
               
               No, you can't change the entire premise and still expect me to keep the same opinion.  But I will point out that my neighbor keeps a car, loaded with 100+ pounds of gasoline, in the driveway next to my house.  Does that qualify as "could explode and kill your entire family"?  Should the pipeline of natural gas in the street outside my home (that benefits only 2 families) be removed because it scares me?
               
               (Do you really think a pipeline of crude oil, that can barely burn at all, can "explode"?  I mean, I visited the tar pits where crude oil bubbles up and makes pools in the middle of LA and none of exploded, never has and never will.)

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  I don't know much other than what is being protested at this community. But, I will say that I'm a firm believer if the potential danger and/or damage is excessive things should not be done. No matter how many benefit.
                  
                  And I frown on the concept of imminent domain. Every time I've seen it used it was to benefit a developer, to the detriment of either a home owner or a business owner who'd put years of blood and sweat into building their business.

                  replyreport
                  1. 96

                     wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     Perhaps the key is in that "excessive" damage part.  The environmentalists (who are spearheading the disturbance over the Dakota pipeline and commonly demand that anything to do with oil be ended) will tell us that turning a shovel of dirt for the garden is excessive, while others say that the Kennicott Copper mine is quite reasonable.
                     
                     
                     
                     I have problems with imminent domain, too.  Taking a property to build a highway on, or train tracks is one thing.  Even a new or expanded airport or water plant.  To give it to a developer for their new shopping mall is quite another, and that seems far more common.  Perhaps we only hear about those cases, but I suspect it is as common as it seems.

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        Taking. I don't think anyone should have the right to take anything.

                        replyreport
                        1. 96

                           wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           But there is a problem with that, as I see it.  The country needs a new interstate highway (the backbone of the transportation system that made us what we are) - trying to find willing sellers for 3,000 miles of highway simply will not work.  Or the water treatment needs expanded - will the land owners adjacent sell?  The airport needs longer runways to accommodate jets - is the land available, and at a fair market price?
                           
                           (I trust you aren't thinking that no compensation is given in the use of imminent domain?  That it is simply taken without paying for it?)

                           replyreport
                           1. 67

                              ptosisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                              The big problem is ID authority has been greatly expanded. If you believe that it is wrong to forcibly expel people from their homes in order to promote commercial development then please say so. Otherwise say that you support this viewpoint as long as it doesn't affect your family and friends.  I'm real sure you would resist losing your home below market price and have desecration done to your family cemetery. Usually when a building is built and find iwi, the bones are re-interred or sequestered within the foundation of the  new building.
                              
                              The problem is the law:
                              
                              United States Supreme Court
                              KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al., (2005)
                              No. 04-108
                              Argued: February 22, 2005    Decided: June 23, 2005
                              Justice O'Connor, Scalia, and Thomas dissenting.
                              
                              “In my view, the Supreme Court made a terrible mistake in Kelo, and I think they know that and they’re going to be looking for a way to extricate [themselves] from that case,” he said.
                              
                              A church case, he continued, is the best challenge to the principle of that case, “where there is no economic output, so any economic development could then be utilized to take out the church under the Kelo theory.” - http://www.wnd.com/2006/03/35198/

                              replyreport
                              1. 96

                                 wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                 While it may be possible that a specific commercial development might be reasonable to take land, I can't think of any.  Not a shopping mall, not a parking garage, not an office building.  Not even a church.  None of those are for the good of the nation or even city: there are all centered around a profit for and individual or corporation and thus not (IMO) reasonable excuse to force a sale.
                                 
                                 But I CAN see reasonable reasons - a highway, train tracks, utilities, etc.  And it is absolutely necessary for many of them.

                                 replyreport
                           2. 59

                              Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                              Seen it done. Oh, they say they pay for it but it is pennies on the dollar of fair market value.

                              replyreport
                              1. 96

                                 wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                 Which is another problem - what's "fair market value"?  To the homeowner that doesn't want to sell and hating anything that says he does, it's 10 times what any realtor could possibly get.  To the shopping mall developer, it's 1/10th of what the owner could sell for.  That's a problem, all right, but we do have courts and procedures to handle it.  While it is possible that eminent domain resulted in a dime on the dollar of real value, I think that would be extremely rare and require more than just a crooked politician and buyer.
                                 
                                 One that I DID see was maybe an acre of land at a freeway exit.  Apparently that acre was not purchased for the freeway (although some was) and the exit completely blocked it from any possible use.  A triangle of land at the exit, surrounded by freeway and exit.  There was a billboard there for some years, complaining, and if that's what happened I would certainly agree that it wasn't right.
                                 
                                 Read a SciFi novel once where property owners set their own appraisal for property tax purposes.  The kicker was that anyone could buy it for that listed value unless the owner immediately raised it beyond anything the buyer would pay and paid 5 years of back taxes.  While I don't see it as particularly workable, it does illustrate the problems in finding value.

                                 replyreport
         2. 67

            ptosisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            I also assumed the burnt out and blocked road was done by the protesters. Found out that was not the case.
            
            http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati … story.html
            
            Sunday's clashes between authorities and protesters started in the early evening, when some protesters tried to move trucks blocking the Backwater Bridge, saying they were preventing emergency services from accessing the reservation. Authorities say they have left the bridge closed since late October because they are concerned about its structural integrity.
            
            It seems highly insincere reasoning by the police who are standing on the bridge with armoured weaponry if such a rickety bridge.  The corporate trolls are calculating the blocked bridge will allow the construction to continue. And they are doing it with reckless disregard of human safety and dignity.
            
            Sophia Wilansky had been hit by a concussion grenade. The Morton County Sheriff's dispatcher said that police only used nonlethal weapons against the protesters. So didn't deny using concussion grenades.
            
            
            
            She was handing out water.
            
            This is what nonlethal looks like:  Doesn't mean noninjury:
            
            I was WRONG when I assumed the police the serve and protect. I was being naive and living in a fantasy world. I was clearly wrong to think that.
            
            The police do not neutrally enforce the law because the law itself is not neutral. We live in a world of Hegel , where  is not the the state that serves the people but that the people are a means to and end to serve the state.  (Nationalism)
            
            

            replyreport
4. 0

   ahorsebackposted 7 years ago

   
   
   This is a map of pipelines in America  ,  How many tires and vehicles  do we burn  in protest , how many are too many ?
   At what point is a  protesting burning and  rioting environmentally  unsafe , unethical  ?   Who IS the worst abuser , the potential pipeline accident or the  deliberate protester ?

   replyreport
5. 75

   Castlepalomaposted 7 years ago

   North Dakota could be Canada last harishima like in Ft. McMurray Alt. The native there had the worst health issues in the country. The fracking cause all water too dangerous to drink you could actually lite it on fire. The carbon dioxide in the air was worst than all the cars in Canada. About 1/3 of the building in Ft. McMurray were fire rain on and burnt them to the ground. Now the town is turning into a ghost town like many towns before them and clean up will never be done. An all round loose/loose.
   
   Good luck with Trump's fracking , as the aim is more crowd control than healthy, happy people singing.

   replyreport