However, the environmentalists do not believe in private property rights. The good of the many outweights the good of the one. I see no reason not to make them live by their own beliefs.

You are right in this case, but you shouldn't be.

Gas pipelines could reasonably be considered public utilities, as individual citizens generally buy their natural gas from the public utility. Oil pipelines, by contrast, go to Cushing, Oklahoma, and then eventually to Houston, Texas, before they are sold by non-utilities to the consumers. It really is a fundamentally different case than natural gas pipelines, but it is not being treated as such.

I do not see how you can say it is not about taking it for business. It is a private company wanting to take land for their pipeline. Using authority they have no claim to. It is not the State wanting to put in a pipeline, but a private company. You seem to e hung up on the fact they are "enviros". I don't see that as part of this. I am concerned someone can take your land (and thus do violence on the individual), for a company's benefit. They can just go around them. This company also has a nasty record for spills and crappy work, including using pipes that are damaged and have been dropped. I think the landowner has the right to tell them to go away. I don't care if he supports UFO alien immigration, his politics are not part of the basic case. Sorry to disagree but I don't see it any other way.

Yes.Yes. A thousand time yes.

Good point jbrenner. I agree, no pipeline serves the immediate public good, and I am not all that thrilled with any use of the term "public good" the people using it tend to use it for whatever they are paid to, vice an objective valuation.

Exactly my point, that would be a good case to cite in this one when they go to court, although I am sure they will lose.Part of my concern is there is almost no point to going to court anymore, just use the money to move.

ewv, if you think in this day of dishonest politicians, Federal State and Local government that is drunk on it's own power and authority, and you can vote your way out of it, I think you will be disappointed. If we had a fair, honest system that was based on truth and honesty, different story. But I see this case as a warning that it is getting worse and worse and soon you will find someone show up and tell you to move out in 24 hours because the government wants you house. It is too late at that point to change anything. Look at the clown collection running for President, do you really think any of them will give a fly fart about your rights? Even with trumps bombast, Ben Carson is the only one who is seemingly concerned enough to respect the law, and he has no chance (which is too bad).

I do agree with you there, that case was another sell out to the gov't. I thought the homeowners had every right to keep their property just as they want it,the developers should have just had to suck it up.

Exactly Dog! I am appalled they got away with this, but not surprised.

I am not sure where you are going here, are saying you are ok with ED, but not in this case? Donations etc aside, the bottom line I see here is that no one has a right to take your property, and I question whether ED has a legal or moral justification or basis. I would say the private property rights in the Constitution and BOR overrides it, despite what some of the purchased courts have said.

freedom, I agree with you. This stinks of money and politics. I do not believe ED has authority to take land for private use, and to say moving oil serves the public is pure BS.

ewv, I see the enviro angle, but I did some reading in a couple other articles, and they basically seem to want to have their 160 acres and leave it as it is. I can't separate the abuse of government power and selling of authority, just because I disagree with their politics. Just because they are opposed to oil drilling, is no reason to say that they don't matter. They should be able to NOT have a pipeline through their land, simply because this is not a public project, it is private. To me this is a case of private property rights vs govt and business. The individual is losing to both of those power blocks, as was described in AS.

ewv, I can see your point, but setting the base reason aside, the fact the company somehow obtained the rights to use eminent domain, which is a govt only reserved right, is disturbing. If that is allowed to continue, then anyone can make a business in Delaware, go to the state where something they want and can't get, and take it with such tools. I bet the money trail in all this was deep and thick. Lots of officials in North Dakota are richer tonight. This is looting on a grand scale.

The landowner is free to decide how to use his property so long as said usage respects individual rights. We have no right to his land if he owns it according to objective law. The reasons he gives are superfluous from the point of view of the law. There is no existing objective contract which indicates something other than absolute ownership. Imminent domain would have an objective sense only insomuch as it would protect individuals from the coercive use of force. Case in point: People are free to make stupid decisions. Ban the use of imminent domain for all but law enforcement and protection from aggressors. If the organization cannot influence him to sell his property, then another method must be used to transport the oil.

Back in the 1930s, pipelines were treated as common carriers, thanks in large part to Huey P. long. It seems that things will be defined in any way that suits government purposes. It all boils down to theft.

That was supposed to be "Botsford", not "Bosford" and "Botsworth".

Eminent domain has been used for pipelines long before Kelo, let alone 2014. Gas pipeline companies were given eminent domain authority under Federal law in the late 1980s or early 1990s. According to one of the articles on the Botsford case the pipeline company is a "statutorily defined public utility". Eminent domain for privately owned 'public' entities like dams has been used since the beginning of the country. See Clarence Thomas' minority opinion on Kelo giving this background. The Botsford case is not about the Kelo decision.

You're right in that this is being treated as a public utilities case based on the following incorrect decision:

http://www.hh-law.com/puc-decision-su...

An oil or natural gas pipeline should not be treated as a public utility. It is owned by the oil or natural gas company. This case should parallel the Keloe vs. New London case, but because of incorrectly established precedent, it won't be.

I think it is reasonable that a utilities commission should have some oversight authority via the permitting process, although definitely governments have generally taken this way too far.

This isn't about the Kelo decision. It's a public utilities compensation case. Kelo went far beyond taking property for "public use", which includes public utilities like pipelines.

It wasn't intended as a serious law suit against Breyer, it was a protest stunt to make the point of how ridiculous he is.

This is the same case about Botsworth. It's not about taking private property for business, it's the same eminent domain case based on takings by public utilities established long ago. The pipeline company is a "statutorily defined public utility."

He says he's still trying to stop the taking, but he can't. He can only argue in court over the amount he is paid: "My point is I don't want to go to court and argue over how much they should pay me and get that settled by the court because I don't want to be doing business with them. I don't want their money." But he has lost that: "The trial, scheduled to begin Tuesday in Grand Forks, is only to determine the company's compensation for the land west of Emerado".

Botsford does not oppose eminent domain, he is trying to use the courts as a circus to promote his viro ideology as an exception: "Botsford said Enbridge's actions represent an 'abuse' of eminent domain. His unwillingness to allow them to use the property also stems from his concerns about fossil fuels' effect on climate change."

According to the other article Bosford is a "retired Indian law attorney" and Indian activists will be at his trial. Here is the bottom line from these loons, and it's not about private property rights: "Unspent donations will go to environmental groups Plains Justice and Honor the Earth".

Every state has implemented eminent domain for utilities. Pipeline companies can take land by eminent domain under Federal law. Eminent domain for public utilities is much older than the Kelo decision.

A typically misleading aspect of the article is the statement, “Using eminent domain is always a last resort... We strive to reach amicable [sic] agreements with all of the landowners along our pipelines” and the statement or implication that all the other landowners are expected to be willing sellers after "negotiation". Government agencies, including the National Park Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service, always claim that property not taken under direct court order is bought from "willing sellers".

In fact, the "negotiations" rely on holding a gun to the property owners' heads (or at least an obvious bulge under the coat stuck in their ribs). Ordinarily the only legal issue in a condemnation case is the amount to be paid, not whether the property can be taken, and the amount paid must legally be only "fair market value", not what it is worth to the owner even if he is willing to sell.

That is the kind of coercion the property owner is under in the "negotiation". Most owners give up under that threat and sell without the expensive futility of a court case to try to stop the taking and the costs of legal fees to try to get more compensation. Yet we are constantly told the former owners were "willing sellers" if they aren't ordered by a court to sell. Using eminent domain as a "last resort" is the threat to take the land; it is eminent domain. Calling it "amicable" adds insult to injury.

But offering a $250,000 donation to a viro organization would only compound the injustice. The Botsfords have already said they will not willingly sell at any price. There is no such thing as a fair price for something that is not for sale. The issue is property rights, not pandering to viros by paying them Indulgences for evil pipelines contrary to the viro 'morality' of human sacrifice to nature.

There is more than enough of that already, for example with "wetlands mitigation" in which property owners must pay off government agencies or NGOs like The Nature Conservancy in penance for using their own property contrary to the viro creed. Another big example is the "carbon credits" scam, in which Indulgences must be paid for the sin of producing energy. And Federal land acquisition for preservationism is claimed to be a repayment to Mother Earth for the sin of industrial civilization, drilling for oil in particular (this is one of their arguments pushing for a Federal annual entitlement of $1 billion/year for land acquisition bypassing limits of Congressional appropriations).

Paying off the Botsfords with a distorted amount to a viro organization would ignore the moral issue of eminent domain, transferring it to martyrdom for a phony viro "idealism", while paying an outrageous amount of money for them to do more damage somewhere else.

The article, the viro movement and this activism are about much more than a court case (which they will mostly likely lose -- eminent domain for utility and pipeline easements has been legally established for a very long time). They are presenting themselves as "idealists" -- and most likely soon to be "martyrs for the idealist cause"-- while, along with the article, ignoring the hypocrisy and the morally destructive goals, including the destruction of property rights with "wetlands" regulations they are using and more.

In my thinking, the reason doesn't matter. It's ownership of private property and that's what the court case will be about. The landowners may well gain a lot of publicity for their belief systems, but every win in court for ownership of private property is a win in the war of maintaining individual rights.

Rights are in no way conditioned on beliefs or actions (except tort). They all must be enforced in each and every case, or they're not rights any longer. It's the right that's being defended, not the people.

We know that. They don't, and argue for an anti-property rights environmentalism instead. Property rights must be defended in principle, but this is worse than having to defend the right of free speech for pornographers as the "least attractive practitioners".-- because the misanthropic nihilistic nature-worshiping viros are worse than pornographers. That is why it is important to look at the whole philosophical and political context and not dismiss it as: "an environmental agenda" is irrelevant, let alone "is ok". It isn't. That is the agenda that is leading the charge today against property rights as well as the right to civilization. Nor is saying 'they have a right to do what they want on their own land" enough in response to an article like that.