Repub Trump tramples core conservative belief in property rights

marsh

On TB every waking moment
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/t...perty-rights/article/2581410?custom_click=rss

Trump tramples core conservative belief in property rights

By Washington Examiner • 1/26/16 12:01 AM

Margaret Thatcher, when she was British Prime Minister, used a simple formula to describe the economic freedoms due to a properly free people: "A man's right to work as he will, to spend what he earns, to own property, to have the state as servant and not as master." This was, in her view, "the British inheritance."

Her thinking, influenced by centuries of English jurisprudence and political philosophy, provides a modern statement of the same rights that America's founders sought to bestow upon their posterity. Thatcher's phrase embodies the conservative view of the role of government and of citizens' rights in a well-functioning and free society.

Property ownership exists in some form in every nation, but it is often informal. Even in the most unfree nations, the powerful elite feel secure about what they own, in part because the property rights of others are theirs to trample.

What distinguishes America from such countries is not its abundance of natural resources or the race of its people, but its scrupulous cultural and legal dedication to protecting everyone's private property rights. This critical application of the rule of law is what allowed a massive middle class to form and grow on a scale unprecedented in history.

This is not some minor point or obscure issue. This is what made America great.

This is why anyone who wants the United States to remain a great country should be concerned that Donald Trump, who is running for the presidency, defends his own use of government to trample other people's property rights as a positive thing. Merely defending eminent domain, a valid legal principle recognized in the U.S. Constitution for obtaining private land for needed public uses, is one thing. But using it for private gain is quite another. And it is not as though Trump used it long ago and now disavows his actions as wrong.

But he has not seen the error of his ways. To this day, Trump defends his own use of state force to trample the property rights of a person less powerful than himself. He views it as a positive good and regrets only that the courts stopped him in one well-known instance.

In 1994, as we have previously noted, Trump tried to use used his connections and wealth to make government his tool for plundering an Atlantic City widow named Vera Coking. He wanted to build a parking garage where her house stood, and so he got a local government agency to force the sale for just 25 percent of what she had previously been offered for it. The agency would then transfer ownership of the property to his company.

Fortunately, Trump lost that case in court. He has offered various comments when asked about it, but they all amount to the same thing. His argument has been that a man's home is his castle only as long as the government cannot find a use for it that better maximizes tax revenues. As he once put it to a reporter for this publication, "If you're going to create 10,000 jobs for a town that's in trouble and you need a piece of property, I'll tell you what folks, I want to create jobs. ..."

On other occasions, Trump has defended and praised the Supreme Court's Kelo decision, which justified eminent domain abuse. The decision prompted a huge backlash and spurred legislators in several states to make new laws to protect homeowners from people like Trump. Even Bernie Sanders, who is running president on the Democratic side, has spoken against Kelo; the socialist Vermont senator is more conservative on property rights than Trump.

Trump's corporatist and authoritarian vision of central planning might work for a CEO who is granted great power to operate his own company as he sees fit. But it can never be acceptable way for a president to govern a free republic under a constitution. Trump's departure from such a foundational American principle is one of many reasons why conservatives voting in early caucuses and primaries should think twice before jumping on to his authoritarian bandwagon.
 

Mixin

Veteran Member
The aricle you posted is such rubbish. I wish you would do some research before just throwing an article out there.

First, about Vera Coking, please see the article I posted. Poor Vera and evil Trump sure suits some agendas.

Second, eminent domain... do you know anything about it?
Are you aware of the Keystone Pipeline?
Do you know how long it is and how many properties it's going through?
Do you know Ted Cruz voted in favor of it?
Do you have any idea of how Texans felt about it?
Do you know Ted Cruz voted in favor of it? (In case you missed this question the first time)

Not that I think you will read this; but someone else might:
(I loathe posting crap HufPo articles)

SUMNER, Texas (AP) — In a story on Oct. 17 about TransCanada Corp.'s effort to build a pipeline in Texas, The Associated Press erroneously reported that landowners are filing dozens of lawsuits against the company. No lawsuits have been filed. Attorneys for landowners say they are in the process of preparing to file lawsuits, but have not yet done so. Some landowners have appealed court decisions condemning their land after they refused to grant TransCanada an easement allowing construction of the proposed pipeline.

A corrected version of the story is below:

Texas landowners take a rare stand against Big Oil

TransCanada finds pushback on cross-country pipeline in an unlikely place: Oil-friendly Texas

By RAMIT PLUSHNICK-MASTI

Associated Press

SUMNER, Texas (AP) — Oil has long lived in harmony with farmland and cattle across the Texas landscape, a symbiosis nurtured by generations and built on an unspoken honor code that allowed agriculture to thrive while oil was extracted.

Proud Texans have long welcomed the industry because of the cash it brings to sustain agriculture, but also see its presence as part of their patriotic duty to help wean the United States off "foreign" oil. So the answer to companies that wanted to build pipelines has usually been simple: Yes.

Enter TransCanada.

As the company pursues construction of a 1,179-mile-long cross-country pipeline meant to bring Canadian tar sands oil to South Texas refineries, it's finding opposition in the unlikeliest of places: oil-friendly Texas, a state that has more pipelines snaking through the ground than any other.

In the minds of some landowners approached by TransCanada for land, the company has broken the code.

Nearly half the steel TransCanada is using is not American-made and the company won't promise to use local workers exclusively; it can't guarantee the oil will remain in the United States. It has snatched land. Possibly most egregious: The company has behaved like an arrogant foreigner, unworthy of operating in Texas.

To fight back, insulted Texas landowners have appealed court decisions condemning their land after they refused to grant TransCanada an easement allowing construction of the pipeline. Still others are allowing activists onto their land to stage protests, leading to several arrests. Together, the actions threaten to further delay a project that has already encountered many obstacles.

"We've fought wars for it. We stood our ground at the Alamo for it. There's a lot of reasons that Texans are very proud of their land and proud when you own land that you are the master of that land and you control that land," said Julia Trigg Crawford, who is fighting the condemnation of a parcel of her family's 650-acre Red'Arc Farm in Sumner, about 115 miles northeast of Dallas.

Oil and agriculture have lived in peace in part because a one-time payment from a pipeline company or monthly royalties from a production rig can help finance a ranch or farm that struggle today to turn a profit from agriculture. The oil giants also respected landowners' fierce Texas independence, even sometimes drilling in a different yard or rerouting a pipeline to ensure easy access to the minerals below.

TransCanada is different. For one, it has more often sought and received court permission to condemn land when property owners didn't agree to an easement.

"This is a foreign company," Crawford said. "Most people believe that as this product gets to the Houston area and is refined, it's probably then going to be shipped outside the United States. So if this product is not going to wind up as gasoline or diesel fuel in your vehicles or mine then what kind of energy independence is that creating for us?"

While using foreign steel for a U.S. pipeline and condemning land is not all that unusual, Keystone XL has been so controversial nationally — sparking protests in Washington, Nebraska and other states, and even getting a mention in the presidential debate on Tuesday — that it may have given Texans the push they needed to fight.

Activists have handcuffed themselves to machinery. A group has moved into a grove of trees on a TransCanada easement. A 78-year-old great-grandmother, Eleanor Fairchild, whose late husband worked in the oil industry, spent a night in jail after trespassing — along with actress Daryl Hannah of "Splash" fame — on land condemned on her 425-acre farm. On Monday, eight others were arrested for their protest activities.

TransCanada's pipeline, some landowners say, is more worrisome than those built by other companies because of the tar sands oil the company wants to transport. They point to an 800,000-gallon spill of mostly tar sands oil in Michigan's Kalamazoo River in 2010. It took Enbridge, the company that owns that pipeline, 17 hours to detect the rupture, and the cleanup is still incomplete.

With a pipeline, landowners give up control of the land for a one-time check, risking a spill that could contaminate their land or water for years. It's a risk many are willing to take in exchange for cash — to a point.

Some say the risk of a spill now is too high to cooperate. Others want guarantees TransCanada will take full responsibility for a spill.

Many just want respect.

Most pipeline projects in Texas have been completed with an average of 4 percent to 10 percent of condemned land. TransCanada, however, has condemned more than 100 of the 800 or so tracts — or about 12.5 percent — of the land it needed to complete a 485-mile portion of the pipeline that runs through Texas.

TransCanada has "common carrier" status in Texas, which allows companies building projects benefiting the public to condemn private property. The Texas Supreme Court recently ruled if a landowner challenges a condemnation, the company must prove its project is for the public good.

Crawford, whose family has denied other pipelines access to their land, argues that since TransCanada's pipeline will have only one access point — or a place where oil can get into the pipe — at a hub in Cushing, Okla., it does not qualify for the status, which requires the pipeline be accessible in Texas.

"This is not about the money," said Crawford, who notes that TransCanada's final offer of $20,000 amounts to less than $1 a day over 60 years, less time than her family has been on the land. "This is about the right of a landowner to control what happens on their land."

David Dodson, a TransCanada spokesman in Houston, said the company has agreements with 60,000 landowners in North America, hundreds of them in Texas. Many have been reached easily, he said. The problems in Texas, he believes, may just be a sign of the times.

"These days, anyone who attempts to build a linear infrastructure project, Texas, wherever it is, it doesn't matter, is facing increased opposition," Dodson said.

David Holland's 3,850-acre rice farm and ranch in southeast Jefferson County is littered with nearly 50 pipelines. In the five years since he was first approached by TransCanada, he said he has signed contracts with two other companies. He insists he would do the same for TransCanada — if they offered him fair value for his 10.5 acres.

Until now, Holland said, he and other landowners had given pipeline companies a roughly 20 percent discount because it was cheaper than fighting Big Oil. TransCanada offered him more than $400,000 for his land. But that, he said, was about $200 less for every 16.5 feet than he had previously received. After Holland declined, the court allowed TransCanada to take the land for $13 for every 16.5 feet — totaling slightly more than $20,000.

"Every landowner in the state is furious at them," he said.

Some landowners have reached agreements without a problem. Henry Duncan, whose 200-acre farm is across the road from the Crawford's, wouldn't say how much TransCanada paid, but feels he was fairly compensated for his 7 acres. He does wish they would use American-made steel for the pipe and hire local workers. He, too, feels they bullied landowners, but is realistic.

Pipeline money helps keep his 100 head of cattle roaming the pastures. It could help him and his wife as they age.

"To be quite honest, I'd like to see another one come through because they pay good," Duncan said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/17/keystone-xl-construction-texas_n_1972613.html__

Plushnick-Masti can be followed on Twitter at https://twitter.com/RamitMastiAP Enter TransCanada. As the company pursues construction of a 1,179-mile-long cross-country pipeline meant to bring Canadian tar sands oil to South Texas refineries, it's finding opposition in the unlikeliest of places: oil-friendly Texas, a state that has more pipelines snaking through the ground than any other. In the minds of some landowners approached by TransCanada for land, the company has broken the code.

Nearly half the steel TransCanada is using is not American-made and the company won't promise to use local workers exclusively; it can't guarantee the oil will remain in the United States. It has snatched land. Possibly most egregious: The company has behaved like an arrogant foreigner, unworthy of operating in Texas.

To fight back, insulted Texas landowners are filing and appealing dozens of lawsuits, threatening to further delay a project that has already encountered many obstacles. Others are allowing activists to go on their land to stage protests. Several have been arrested. "We've fought wars for it. We stood our ground at the Alamo for it. There's a lot of reasons that Texans are very proud of their land and proud when you own land that you are the master of that land and you control that land," said Julia Trigg Crawford, who is fighting the condemnation of a parcel of her family's 650-acre Red'Arc Farm in Sumner, about 115 miles northeast of Dallas.

Oil and agriculture have lived in peace in part because a one-time payment from a pipeline company or monthly royalties from a production rig can help finance a ranch or farm that struggle today to turn a profit from agriculture. The oil giants also respected landowners' fierce Texas independence, even sometimes drilling in a different yard or rerouting a pipeline to ensure easy access to the minerals below.

TransCanada is different. For one, it has more often sought and received court permission to condemn land when property owners didn't agree to an easement. "This is a foreign company," Crawford said. "Most people believe that as this product gets to the Houston area and is refined, it's probably then going to be shipped outside the United States. So if this product is not going to wind up as gasoline or diesel fuel in your vehicles or mine then what kind of energy independence is that creating for us?"

While using foreign steel for a U.S. pipeline and condemning land is not all that unusual, Keystone XL has been so controversial nationally – sparking protests in Washington, Nebraska and other states, and even getting a mention in the presidential debate on Tuesday – that it may have given Texans the push they needed to fight. Activists have handcuffed themselves to machinery. A group has moved into a grove of trees on a TransCanada easement. A 78-year-old great-grandmother, Eleanor Fairchild, whose late husband worked in the oil industry, spent a night in jail after trespassing – along with actress Daryl Hannah of "Splash" fame – on land condemned on her 425-acre farm. On Monday, eight others were arrested for their protest activities.

TransCanada's pipeline, some landowners say, is more worrisome than those built by other companies because of the tar sands oil the company wants to transport. They point to an 800,000-gallon spill of mostly tar sands oil in Michigan's Kalamazoo River in 2010. It took Enbridge, the company that owns that pipeline, 17 hours to detect the rupture, and the cleanup is still incomplete. With a pipeline, landowners give up control of the land for a one-time check, risking a spill that could contaminate their land or water for years. It's a risk many are willing to take in exchange for cash – to a point. Some say the risk of a spill now is too high to cooperate. Others want guarantees TransCanada will take full responsibility for a spill. Many just want respect.

Most pipeline projects in Texas have been completed with an average of 4 percent to 10 percent of condemned land. TransCanada, however, has condemned more than 100 of the 800 or so tracts – or about 12.5 percent – of the land it needed to complete a 485-mile portion of the pipeline that runs through Texas. Many of the lawsuits in Texas are about TransCanada's "common carrier" status. This allows companies building projects benefiting the public to condemn private property. The Texas Supreme Court recently ruled if a landowner challenges a condemnation, the company must prove its project is for the public good.

Crawford, whose family has denied other pipelines access to their land, argues that since TransCanada's pipeline will have only one access point – or a place where oil can get into the pipe – at a hub in Cushing, Okla., it does not qualify for the status, which requires the pipeline be accessible in Texas. "This is not about the money," said Crawford, who notes that TransCanada's final offer of $20,000 amounts to less than $1 a day over 60 years, less time than her family has been on the land. "This is about the right of a landowner to control what happens on their land."

David Dodson, a TransCanada spokesman in Houston, said the company has agreements with 60,000 landowners in North America, hundreds of them in Texas. Many have been reached easily, he said. The problems in Texas, he believes, may just be a sign of the times. "These days, anyone who attempts to build a linear infrastructure project, Texas, wherever it is, it doesn't matter, is facing increased opposition," Dodson said. David Holland's 3,850-acre rice farm and ranch in southeast Jefferson County is littered with nearly 50 pipelines.

In the five years since he was first approached by TransCanada, he said he has signed contracts with two other companies. He insists he would do the same for TransCanada – if they offered him fair value for his 10.5 acres. Until now, Holland said, he and other landowners had given pipeline companies a roughly 20 percent discount because it was cheaper than fighting Big Oil. TransCanada offered him more than $400,000 for his land. But that, he said, was about $200 less for every 16.5 feet than he had previously received. After Holland declined, the court allowed TransCanada to take the land for $13 for every 16.5 feet – totaling slightly more than $20,000. "Every landowner in the state is furious at them," he said. Some landowners have reached agreements without a problem.

Henry Duncan, whose 200-acre farm is across the road from the Crawford's, wouldn't say how much TransCanada paid, but feels he was fairly compensated for his 7 acres. He does wish they would use American-made steel for the pipe and hire local workers. He, too, feels they bullied landowners, but is realistic. Pipeline money helps keep his 100 head of cattle roaming the pastures. It could help him and his wife as they age. "To be quite honest, I'd like to see another one come through because they pay good," Duncan said. __ Plushnick-Masti can be followed on Twitter at https://twitter.com/RamitMastiAP __ Website: www.standwithjulia.com

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/17/keystone-xl-construction-texas_n_1972613.html

*************************

Here's a link to the eminent domain map. It needs a Google widget to view it, unfortunately. It shows Illustrated above are TransCanada’s eminent domain filings by county. Currently, only Texas data is available. Landowners typically fall into one of three categories:

Those who have willingly signed a lease with TransCanada
Those who have begrudgingly signed so as to avoid legal action, and
Those who have been forced to give right away to TransCanada due to eminent domain proceedings.
Only the last group is represented here. Of the roughly 800 properties the pipeline crosses in Texas, a little over 100 have been taken by eminent domain, or 12.5%. Read more about Texas landowner opposition here.

Do you know Ted Cruz voted for this?
http://keystone.steamingmules.com/maps/keystone-xl-eminent-domain-map/
 
Top