Pipelines which transport products (oil, gas, water, etc.) on behalf of other parties and who submit themselves to the jurisdiction of regulatory bodies are considered common carriers which are entitled to condemn easements under the law of eminent domain, even if the pipeline company is private. Just like railroads—which ship products for the owners of those products—have the right to condemn private property to construct their tracks (paying just compensation to the owners whose land is taken). These are considered takings of property for the public good—they allow the shipments of goods by common carriers and are therefore considered to be for a public purpose..
What has historically not been allowed is taking property for a private purpose (Kelo), where, e.g., a company is allowed to condemn property because it will put it to a “higher use”: turn vacant land or low value improved property into a much more valuable property by making new improvements (e.g., build a mall). That type of takings only benefits the party conducting the condemnation and not the public at large. However, several local governments have backed this type of eminent domain to increase their property tax base and bring in more property tax revenue.
Excellent summary statement of the distinction between traditional eminent domain versus the Kelo mutation. This is what distressed me so much during the NH debate. Trump was conflating the old and the new as if they were the same. They are not. Addressing a tangible public need, energy for example, through a quasi-governmental use of private actors falls within the traditional meaning of the “public use” clause. Kelo using municipal power to destroy homestead dwellings of good quality, on the empty speculation that maybe different private owners would raise more taxes, was a serious deviation from “public use” as previously understood.
It really attacks the 5th Amendment by removing the takings clause from its common law context, which was foundational to the American idea of freedom, that we could protect our property from seizure by the government unless certain stiff criteria were met. Under Kelo, a man’s home is no longer his castle. It’s just a rental unit that can be taken by the government for virtually no reason at all. Kelo is a product of the New Deal derogation of private property, a success story for a progressive theory of the power of the collective over the private individual. That any candidate claiming to be conservative supports Kelo reflects that either A) the candidate does not understand the Constitution well enough to protect it, or B) they understand the progressive roots of Kelo and are comfortable with the loss of individual liberty Kelo represents.
Peace,
SR
“That type of takings only benefits the party conducting the condemnation and not the public at large.”
The tourists staying at the hotel and the businesses flourishing around the hotel would probably disagree.
These are considered takings of property for the public good—they allow the shipments of goods by common carriers and are therefore considered to be for a public purpose..>>>> I was going to raise the railroads takings as well because they were at the time highly regulated private carriers (i believe) and had stock holders etc. The pipeline as it looks is owned by Trans-canada (private) which makes it kind of a private road which would allow everyone to use. (which i would rather have privately maintained ie more efficient) we can harken back to the many privately maintained turnpikes all across the nation that were signed over to the government because they were hard to maintain at a profit. our government is only authorized to establish and maintain post roads. kelo for the big “D” is definitely wrong and he supports the BLM. he needs to send Don Jr to utah BLM=Common Core=bad