I don't think the land owners need any reason, good or bad, to oppose any use of their land that they don't approve. The right to own private property is essential to freedom and liberty and the individual rights of man.

The viros don't oppose eminent domain, they favor it for collectivism and for preservationism. Some of them supported the Kelo decision and others opposed it only because they are opposed to economic development. They are the anti-industrial revolution trying to use government to prevent energy production and destroy private property rights.

In this case the viro activists have been trying to prohibit the pipeline through "wetlands", which government designations are themselves destroying private property rights. They claim to be for "safety" and fear "leaks" while ignoring that shipment by railroad as the alternative is less safe. But the viros have been trying to ban that too. In the name of "safety" from any industrial risk they want to shut down civilization through de-development and restrictions to "renewable energy". This is the politics of the eco "sustainability" sacrifice people to nature ideology.

The Botsfords in particular say they are opposing “trying to suck the last oil out of the Earth” and are only opposing the eminent domain because they don't like the particular planned use of the land. They are also voluntarily in a "Federal conservation program", most likely also meaning that they are getting government money for it.

No sympathy for these clowns, not without dropping the political and philosophical context. It's the chickens coming home to roost. "Poetic justice" by an unjust means.

This issue is about 'who you know' being more important than the rule of law protecting private property.
The owner claims he would never sell, but the company only made a token offer of $50k and apparently decided to let the state steal the land from the owner on the company's behalf. I'd hate to be in the position of the manager that has to do this deal, but he apparently hasn't tried to find out what the seller really wants. Maybe a $250k donation to an environmental charity plus $25k for the seller would move them along (with NDA contract.) The buyer is a lazy looter who doesn't want to deal with a free market solution. The property rights of a small land owner are just as important as the rights of a well connected conglomerate.
Scratch ND off the relocation list. (But it has lots of govt nuclear targets and a lousy climate anyway.)

Exactly right, Salty.

There was a national uproar over the Kelo decision. The principle is still being fought in legislatures.

A "revolution" would only cause more destruction. If you can't win votes how do you expect to win a war?

Shortly after Keloe was handed down, I recall reading a story where the community where one of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court lives (I want to say that it was Justice Breyer, but I'm not completely certain) went to court to claim the justice's home and property under eminent domain because they had a 'developer' who wanted to build an ice cream parlor or a Jiffy-Lube or something. It goes without saying that the suit sank without a bubble. I suppose the old adage holds true: How much justice can you afford?

That's what happens when the conversation turns from, "We need it" to, "I want it".

Ooppss better be careful with the "R" word, the NSA has me pegged now as "non conformist"...

I remember that decision, and was amazed at how little anyone cared. That decision solidified for me that the rights of the individual and the assurance of security we had in the Constitution and BOR was dead. Now it is not just the Govt, but business that can loot your earnings. Can't wait for what happens in 2017 when they start taxing health plans.We do need a revolution.

This points out just how horrible a decision Keloe vs. New London was.

Another article on the current state, where a judge ruled it is ok to take someones private property for business:

http://bismarcktribune.com/mobile/art...