Hitting the Wall of Eminent Domain
As a private individual, I find the legal taking of land/property under eminent domain principles to be more than a little troubling–because it comes up against property rights, which are foundational to the rule of law. As we have seen with rulings such as Kelo (no, not the TV or radio station, the person who lived in Connecticut who objected to her house being taken) government can and does abuse eminent domain.
So it is with mixed emotions that I read the following:
The South Dakota Transportation Commission has approved the Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad’s request for authority to acquire land by condemnation west of Wall for its $6 billion expansion to Wyoming’s coal fields.
However, the commission denied the DM&E’s application for authority to use eminent domain east of Wall on its existing line because the railroad has not yet demonstrated that it has negotiated with any landowners on that stretch.
Emotions are mixed because I think the rail line will do much good (economically speaking) for South Dakota and other areas, yet at the same time, I am far from happy that eminent domain was/will be used to secure the land needed for the project.
Ach, the world is a confusing place at time.
Disseminate via | Facebook | Twitter | Digg | StumbleUpon
4 Comments, Comment or Ping
CosbySweater
06 March 2009, 1:46, UTC
Hello Constant Conservative,
This is my first time to your blog, so hello. I have just a quick bit about your post: Keep in mind that although this railroad deal might be a good thing for SD, this arm of the government made absolutely the right decision. There is no need for any use of eminent domain if the DM&E would just make the deals with the landowners. That is plain common sense.
So this commission, having not seen “negotiations” with landowners, denied DM&E the blessing of eminent Domain. Good job, government. The value of something is what someone is willing to pay for it. If DM&E wants this land bad enough, they’ll pay for it. And I would be really angered by their circumvention of the free market if the government force citizens to give up their land for a dime less then they are asking for it.
But, I’m with you, Kelo sucks. (BTW: You might be a South Dakotan if. . . you must differentiate between Kelo the court case and KELO the station. – It was too obvious a joke to be funny, or to go without a mention.)
Michael Woodring
06 March 2009, 8:12, UTC
CosbySweater,
Hello. Thanks for reading (and for sharing your thoughts). You are right, it is good and proper that the commission refused to let DM&E use eminent domain before they had tried to purchase what they need the old-fashioned way (for that land east of Wall).
I tried putting myself in the boots of those whose land the railroad wishes to cross and found that I would probably find several reasons not to like the unwarranted (from the landowner’s perspective) intrusion into private property.
On Kelo (the court case), it is interesting that the property which was condemned has still not been used for anything–casting the “public need” on which the case was predicated into much doubt.
I like your “You might be a South Dakotan . . .” thought.
MikeB
07 March 2009, 9:17, UTC
Speaking as someone actually fighting eminent domain in federal court with Houston-based Spectra Energy, I can confirm that, nowadays, eminent domain has less to do with projects for the “public good,” and everything to do with the financial good of publicly held companies.
In Bedford County, Pennsylvania (about 2 hours from Washington), property owners have been hauled into federal court by Spectra Energy, backed by the power of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
The “public good” argument is that this is an underground natural gas storage site (bring gas from somewhere else for a fee, store it for a fee, then send it to the northeast via piplines and charge another fee).
What goes missing is that the landowners’ property is sitting on top of the gas-rich Marcellus Shale; but they can’t develop that because Spectra Energy wants to use the Oriskany sands layer (which lies just beneath the Marcellus) for its underground gas storage facility.
In addition, Pennsylvania has more underground natural gas storage sites than any other state in the continental US, according to the Dept. of Energy.
Further, in its most recent motion, Spectra Energy asked that the federal judge exclude evidence that would argue “economic loss to the landowner” for fear that the jury would be “confused, misled and distracted … waste time.” (From p. 7 of the motion: Case 3:08-cv-00154-KRG, Document 59).
Here is the great conundrum in eminent domain: property owners possess the key asset that companies and government covet — the land. But they are treated as obstacles to the corporate Return on Investment goal rather than as key stakeholders.
For info:
http://www.spectraenergywatch.com/blog/
Michael Woodring
08 March 2009, 15:09, UTC
MikeB,
Thanks for the specific info what’s happening in PA. Whenever someone is doing anything for the “public good” it is good and proper to figure out just who the public is who will be profiting.
Absolutely agree that property owners should be treated as the valuable partners in the process they really are.