Nebraska judge rules in favor of landowners on Keystone XL eminent domain
Source: Omaha World Herald
By Joe Duggan
LINCOLN A Nebraska district court judge has temporarily halted the ability of a Canadian company to acquire right-of-way for the Keystone XL pipeline.
Holt County District Judge Mark Kozisek granted a temporary injunction Thursday to landowners who challenged the ability of TransCanada to use eminent domain to acquire land for the controversial pipeline.
The judge made the ruling after landowners filed new lawsuits challenging the states pipeline routing law, which was narrowly upheld by the Nebraska Supreme Court in a decision last month.
A spokesman for TransCanada said Thursday the company agreed to the injunction in exchange for an accelerated trial schedule. Although the judges order affects just the landowners along the northern part of the pipeline route, the company will offer to stall land condemnation for the roughly 90 property owners along the route who have refused to sign easement contracts.
FULL story at link.
Read more: http://www.omaha.com/news/nebraska/nebraska-judge-rules-in-favor-of-landowners-on-keystone-xl/article_a19c551a-b2f5-11e4-9440-fb3972ced98c.html

Historic NY
(38,407 posts)angrychair
(10,123 posts)Sheriff Bud Boomer where are you now!
Cha
(306,979 posts)scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)but I simply cannot wrap my mind around the concept that a foreign corporate entity can exercise Eminent Domain in our country. How the hell did such a thing happen? Is it part of NAFTA?
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)glinda
(14,807 posts)whathehell
(30,021 posts)
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)the ability of a local government entity to exercise eminent domain - not a foreign corporation. So I'm still left wondering how TransCanada, a foreign corporation, could possibly have the power of eminent domain in the U.S.
I do thank you for the Wikipedia link, however. It was very interesting reading, and gave me much food for thought. What I found particularly strange and disturbing is that it was the most conservative members of the Court who dissented from the ruling - and I completely agree with their dissent!
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Nebraska passed a law giving a company building a pipeline the right to use eminent domain
to acquire a property they need (some feel this goes further than the Kelo decision allows).
The Nebraska law LB 1161 (.pdf) http://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/102/PDF/Slip/LB1161.pdf
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)I hope the plaintiffs are aware of who screwed them for the damn pipeline!
greiner3
(5,214 posts)Of a multi state pipeline, federal law would trump the Kelo statute.
IMO
christx30
(6,241 posts)Pfiser pulled out of the area, and, years later, nothing has been done at all with the land. It sits empty, with nothing there but dead weeds. The homes there were razed for no good reason at all. The mayor has apologized to the homeowners for the whole mess.
I'd love to see the homeowners sue the city of New London for an improper taking. Force them to rebuild the neighborhood and compensate them for legal fees for the origional case.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)off the local construction of a Walmart using Eminent Domain. I think they proved that the Walmart would have a negative impact.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,390 posts)masquerading as a Canadian one. No doubt to take advantage of Canadian laws.
According to a page, since taken down, from their own website a couple of years ago:
http://www.straightgoods.ca/2011/ViewArticle.cfm?Ref=869&Cookies=yes
"Like many American companies with operations in Canada, we are incorporated and registered in both Canada and the United States. We currently have 1,631 talented employees in 33 U.S. states. Our U.S. operations are headquartered in Houston and will be responsible for the U.S. construction of Keystone XL."
Also the Koch Brothers and China have huge investments in the oil sands and the go ahead of this pipeline.
RationalMan
(96 posts)it used to be that eminent domain was only used to give property interests to PUBLIC interests (e.g. establishing a wetlands) or for PUBLIC interests that were served by a private company (e.g. giving a right of way to a power company to stretch power cables across someone's land). But in all cases there was a direct public interest. Since the case in New England the SCOTUS has held that you can appropriate private property for private gain if there is some kind of nexus between the private company and the public. I believe in that case it was appropriating private land to build condos and a business park in a run-down part of a city.
What a scam. While I don't disagree the appropriation might have benefitted the public in a general sense of raising property values, etc. the benefit was primarily for personal gain.
That is the issue here. We all know XL will do nothing to reduce gas prices in the U.S. or make us more energy independent. This is all about making the Koch Bros and their buddies even more wealthy.
This is the time to go to the prairies with our pitchforks and whatever else we have to protect ourselves and stand up for us.
central scrutinizer
(12,441 posts)conservatives would literally be up in arms ala Cliven Bundy and defending the landowners against the jack booted thugs. But seem to have no issue with a foreign corporation doing this so it can export oil (this is NOT about energy independence, merely profit at the expense of the rest of us). Conservatives also scream about how the national debt is burdening future generations but seem to see nothing wrong with depleting natural resources. If they cared about future generations, they would want as much oil as possible left in the ground for them.
azureblue
(2,348 posts)and that entity is called the Koch brothers. Who do think is the largest lease holder of the oil sands in Canada? Who do you think already has a deal to ship the sands to China? The Us will not benefit one bit from this pipeline, except maybe to put 35 or so people to work. The Koch brothers have been buying all the politicians involved with trying to push approval.
turbinetree
(25,565 posts)They have expanded from Singapore model to China and now we get to see the legislative body antics in the states and the federals use this here in the courts what is normally called FAST TRACK, look no further than the TPP, CAFTA, the South Korean Deal, NAFTA and other trade deals---nice huh.
The TPP goes further, (500) corporations if they don't get there way can sue a sovereign country under the TPP rules----nice huh.
This is just a microcosm of what is going on behind closed doors, country , what country, we (Trans-Canada) are a corporation and oligarpghy we can do whatever we want
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)while O considers his veto.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
Brother Buzz
(38,181 posts)Officials in the Canadian province of Alberta say they hope to talk to Alaska leaders about shipping tar-sands crude oil through the state as the Keystone XL pipeline route through the Lower 48 remains bogged down in politics.
An Alaska economist said the idea faces many challenges but is possible.
The desert is full of mirages, but the desert also has water, said Gunnar Knapp, director of the University of Alaska Anchorage's Institute of Social and Economic Research.
He was putting a hopeful spin on Alaskas troubling fiscal outlook, with the state facing years of billion-dollar deficits unless it can dramatically increase oil production.
Canadian oil moving through Alaska could provide additional revenue opportunities for state and local governments, through property taxes on facilities, for example.
The state and Alberta have held no meetings on the idea, which was only recently presented when representatives of Alberta Premier Jim Prentice reached out to Kip Knudson, with the governors office in Washington, D.C., to request discussions about the concept, said Grace Jang, Gov. Bill Walkers press secretary.
<more>
http://www.adn.com/article/20150209/stymied-lower-48-alberta-floats-idea-moving-tar-sands-oil-through-alaska
rpannier
(24,632 posts)1. The Canadian Rockies make the project exceedingly expensive
2. As far as I know, all First Nation People's have rejected allowing the pipeline to go through their Tribal lands. My understanding is, under Canadian Law, the First Nation People have near full jurisdiction over their land and this kind of project would require the council approval
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Still an ecological disaster waiting to happen though... No wait, they rush the disasters through fast.
Thanks for the info!
Marthe48
(19,959 posts)Not The lower 48, not Alaska. Keep the pollution in their provinces. I just bet Canadian citizens would love the hell out of that.
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)on American citizens. Could you imagine the howls if a Democrat proposed it. Fuckers. This is bullshit and SHOULD be struck down. How could anyone support that and call themselves a patriotic american.
packman
(16,296 posts)Where's the Repuke outrage? Why isn't Hannity, Beck, Rush screaming about this? Outrageous! Has national sovereignty become international business piracy now? I would love to see the reaction if American interests were to pull this shit by building a toll road thru the heart of Europe and declaring eminent domain along its road path.
groundloop
(12,491 posts)Despite all the evidence to the contrary our tea-bagger brethren are absolutely convinced of the notion that this damned pipeline will crate a gazilliion jobs as well as give them cheap gasoline.
None of it is true, of course. I read that the total number of PERMANENT jobs created would only be about 50 or so. And that tarsands oil is just a drop in the bucket on the global market so it will have no impact on gasoline prices.
think
(11,641 posts)a pipeline that would cross one of the world's largest aquifers isn't a great idea except if it makes you money....
http://www.nrdc.org/energy/tarsandssafetyrisks.asp
jwirr
(39,215 posts)nikto
(3,284 posts)Typical mega-corporation, swimming in a sea of crony-capitalism...