Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Good information is contained in the article.
1 posted on 02/11/2016 6:15:22 PM PST by House Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: House Atreides
Wow. WSJ suddenly in favor of private property rights?

Next, they'll come out against amnesty. < /S >

2 posted on 02/11/2016 6:17:01 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Yuge 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: House Atreides

To Read the Full Story, Subscribe or Sign In


Looks like the Wall Street Journal confiscated the rest of the article. Hope the author got fair market value!


3 posted on 02/11/2016 6:17:55 PM PST by 20yearsofinternet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: House Atreides

Trump is putting the Constitution last and his business first.


4 posted on 02/11/2016 6:20:01 PM PST by RginTN (Donald J Trump- why would the people of Ky want a rookie senator when they have Sen Mitch Mcconnell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: House Atreides

So private agreements were negotiated. If the pipeline is built, the threat of eminent domain will face each landowner. So negotiating a better deal now makes sense. But if eminent domain did not exist, it is a lot more likely that there would be hold-outs. From the small part of it that I read, the article does not prove what it purports to.


5 posted on 02/11/2016 6:21:52 PM PST by Stingray51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: House Atreides
Don't have access to the entire article but what you excerpted shows the eminent domain was used.

Also, 'voluntary easement' is interesting. I'm assuming they are compensated for the easement as the easement can devalue their land and typically the easement runs with the land and should be a permanent easement.

There is actually case law where, depending on the type of sale, the easement could be removed and the landowner could remove the pipeline from their property.

Interesting arrangement.

7 posted on 02/11/2016 6:23:56 PM PST by The Iceman Cometh (The Democrats Must Lose In November)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: House Atreides

God, this CRAP is getting old. Cruzers are raving nuts...


8 posted on 02/11/2016 6:28:15 PM PST by heights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: House Atreides

Got Trump through the debate...that’s how one WINS!


9 posted on 02/11/2016 6:28:27 PM PST by BobL (Who cares? He's going to build a wall and stop this invasion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: House Atreides

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/268562-trump-bush-family-used-eminent-domain-to-build-a-baseball


13 posted on 02/11/2016 6:41:10 PM PST by HarleyLady27 ("The Force Awakens"!!! TRUMP;TRUMP;TRUMP;TRUMP!!! 100%)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: House Atreides

A shame we can’t read the article without subscribing.


15 posted on 02/11/2016 6:42:44 PM PST by jazusamo (Have YOU Donated to the Freep-a-Thon? https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: House Atreides
TransCanada has on rare occasion turned to eminent domain, a process that usually involves a panel of experts determining fair compensation.

So TransCanada Corp used eminent domain. So Trump is right.

17 posted on 02/11/2016 6:53:01 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: House Atreides

Fact is, 100% of the land in Texas along the Rio Grande is privately owned by Bundy types and they use the River for their cows. I’m an old man but I live in East Texas and think even myself will go and support them.
Mr. Trump here’s the deal. A wall is not an easement, it is land possession. A 20 ft high wall X amount of feet from the river and a 30 foot border patrol driving lane?
So let me see about 100ft from the river at the minimum plus another 100ft for wall and driving?
Yep, sounds good, let’s let the US government confiscate an acre of these rancher’s land for each 200 ft and tell them to F off and give them the false promise that we’ll pump water from the river for your cows. Yea ok, I trust ya.

Here’s another fact, the western state citizens are upset because most of their land was unclaimed when they became states and the US government took possession of it all. In some states like Nevada it is near 90% I think.

I’m not a Bundy supporter by any means but can somewhat understand his family legacy of using unowned land for grazing. But the fact is maybe your ancestors should have made a move to own that land.

Hey Mr Trump, good luck in taking all that land from private citizens here in south Texas.


21 posted on 02/11/2016 7:13:29 PM PST by Undecided 2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: House Atreides

Disappointed in WSJ for so distorting this situation. Did they think the 96% would have settled, if not for the possibility of an eminent domain taking? How the mighty have fallen.


22 posted on 02/11/2016 7:15:36 PM PST by Albion Wilde (Who can actually defeat the Democrats in 2016? -- the most important thing about all candidates.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: House Atreides

But if those deals were not reached with the property owners, eminent domain would have applied. Usually, a deal is reached with the property owner, which is what obviously happened. In the case of the 4% that don’t agree, eminent domain could apply. On a side note, property owners are typically paid several times the fair market value of their property. If I was offered 3 times the value of my property I wouldn’t hesitate.


23 posted on 02/11/2016 7:59:11 PM PST by mouse1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: House Atreides

and the other 4% you need eminent domain to take the property for the whole pipeline to succeed. or no. and it is a private taking. the use may be public as every one maybe can use the pipeline. but the profit goes to private carriers. easements for telephone lines altho non-existent today went to private holders as did railway lines. it is a good conversation to have.


25 posted on 02/11/2016 8:44:31 PM PST by kvanbrunt2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: House Atreides

“TransCanada has on rare occasion turned to eminent domain, a process that usually involves a panel of experts determining fair compensation.”

So then Trump was right? I’m confused. Why the misleading headline?


30 posted on 02/12/2016 12:27:58 AM PST by mbrfl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: House Atreides

Here is a quote from the Ted Cruz Facebook webpage, bragging that he is a co-sponsor of the Keystone Pipeline. How can you be for building the Keystone Pipeline, but against eminent domain?


“Passing the Keystone pipeline is a good start, but we need a job-creating energy agenda, far broader. The energy revolution that is already underway can produce the jobs and opportunities that our country needs to grow. All the federal government needs to do is get out of the way and let Americans do what they do best: dream, innovate, and prosper.”

Sen Cruz Files Pro-Growth, Pro-Jobs Keystone XL Pipeline Amendments

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, today introduced three pro-growth, pro-jobs amendments to S. 1, the Keystone XL Pipeline Act, of which Sen. Cruz is a cosponsor.

https://www.facebook.com/SenatorTedCruz/posts/676783042433999


36 posted on 02/12/2016 4:09:45 AM PST by r_barton (We the People of the United States...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: House Atreides; All

Shame on Donald Trump for trying to claim that eminent domain is for PRIVATE business use.

Has he never read the Fifth Amendment, which states:

“....nor shall private property be taken for public use,....”

It does NOT say private property be taken for private use (such as taking a 75-year old widow’s property to use for Trump’s PRIVATE casino).

It says PUBLIC use.

Do we want Donald picking our judges?


39 posted on 02/12/2016 4:17:45 PM PST by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson