Texas landowners fighting XL Pipeline, should the State be able to take private land giving it to a private company?

Comments

Comments

• If you think that the pipeline and what it carries is so bad, then I hope that you use any petroleum products to provide your transportation.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on February 14th, 2012

• I believe this pipeline is for exporting oil to other countries. Not for our consumption. If it leaks and ruins water supplies I'm sure the chinese won't care. I think if is for us to use then maybe some risks might be ok. But not for exporing to other countries to increase profits and keeping our supply here low so they can raise the pricees here!

  • Report
  

  by Erin on February 14th, 2012

• 1. They have been pretty clear that the pipeline is to transport oil for our use, not the Chinese. What evidence do you have that disproves this?
  
  Do you have any idea how many oil pipeline we already have in this country? Do you know how many time they leak? From this argument, one would think that this was the very first such pipeline that we have tried to build and that we don't have a track record at which to look. Sorry, but thi is not the case. We have been building these kind of pipelines for decades and they have the best safety record out of all the means of transporting oil.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on February 15th, 2012

• Hi Glen,
  I have not heard that the oil would be used for us. If that is so then, I might not be as opposed as I am. I have heard it's going to the gulf refineries for the purpose of refining and putting it on tankers in the gulf for overseas delivery. If it was for us there are closer refineries that could be used without effecting the ecology incase of an accident. The problem is even with a good safety record, One spill could ruin a water supply for quite a long time. Why risk it? a rerouting would avoid this and satisfy many people. I believe Obama is looking into this.I think we need to look up just what the pipeline is going to be used for.
  
  Erin

  • Report
  

  by Erin on February 15th, 2012

• Glen, I found this article
  http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/on-energy/2011/12/16/the-benefits-and-drawbacks-of-the-keystone-xl-pipeline

  • Report
  

  by Erin on February 15th, 2012

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• Luckily they have a good way around that which they use around here all the time... just re-asses the property and jack the taxes way up so the owner has to sell. And then another farm turns into a suburb...

  • Report
  

  by TheGrimReefer on February 14th, 2012

• ah, one more stipulation applied to all... the government must be willing to buy property at the value they assess it in order to collect the taxes on it. if someone says "I do not want to pay this tax" the government must say "fine, then we will deduct that from the price by which we buy it from you" ...
  actually I like this alternative better than imminent domain at 125%. if they want to tax you out of there then they are free to tax it for what ever land value they want... but at any time you can just say "nope, it is yours" and they have to pay you the price they assessed it for.

  • Report
  

  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on February 14th, 2012

• The local govt doesn't buy it though.. it's the housebuilders.
  Personally I think the land belongs to the landowner. It can have value to them not measurable in dollars. It can be irreplaceable. It can be a beautiful area with forest and rivers that the landowner simply doesn't want destroyed. If the corrupt govt wants to turn it into another walmart or goddamn subdivision, they can pay whatever the owner asks or they can give up their plans.

  • Report
  

  by TheGrimReefer on February 14th, 2012

• if the local government is doing it at the behest of the house builders then the housebuilders would end up paying the massive bill.
  
  everything is replaceable. the only thing which can not be bought with enough money is time and even that is bought vicariously.
  yes, if they are not willing to pay what the owner asks then they should have to give up their plans, but by asking X ammount the owner himself is stating that as the value and thus he can not complain about being taxed at any value less than the value he stated.

  • Report
  

  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on February 14th, 2012

• The builders don't care though. Even at a very inflated price, they will sell 1 acre of that land for what they paid for 100 acres. They don't care what it costs, 'cause they'll make it into hundreds of tiny lots and squeeze half-million dollar houses on each one. They can put 500 houses after destroying a large farm, so the tax burden is distributed over 500 people, but the one farmer has no chance. And then what can he do? Even at the inflated price he got, he can't just go buy another farm. There goes his way of life.

  • Report
  

  by TheGrimReefer on February 14th, 2012

• if the builders don't care then the dude will get rich and hte builders will go bankrupt because noone can afford it.

  • Report
  

  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on February 14th, 2012

• The dude will get rich but maybe he's not greedy like that and he just wants to keep the family farm. Coulda been his grandfather's and he wanted to pass it down to his son.
  
  The builders won't go under. They can pay 10 million for 100 acres because each acre will have 6-8 500k houses on it when they're done. So they make 290 million instead of the 300 they would have made if the land was very cheap. Land is not bothersome as an input cost. On the other hand, there's no way the farmer can pay taxes on a 10 million dollar property of only 100 acres.

  • Report
  

  by TheGrimReefer on February 14th, 2012

• you are assuming he can find people who can afford those prices

  • Report
  

  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on February 15th, 2012

• Well, they can and do. Most recently 80 acres of farmland along the river was plowed over to put in new houses. Some will be these new giant townhouses where the building is 3/4 the size of the lot. Thanks to 30 year mortgages, anyone can afford anything!
  
  And if the builders screw up and face bankruptcy, I'm sure they'll get bailouts or massive tax breaks.

  • Report
  

  by TheGrimReefer on February 15th, 2012

• ok, then that one person is more important in your book than the couple hundred who how have houses.
  
  but I do agree with you that I am sick of teh government saving companies from their idiot executives without punishing those executives with poverty.

  • Report
  

  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on February 15th, 2012

• Of course. There are always going to be more people. There isn't going to be more land. Especially farm land. You can't take a guy's farm just because more people want overpriced and oversized junk houses and the city wants a larger tax base.

  • Report
  

  by TheGrimReefer on February 15th, 2012