86-year-old has property taken from him for fracking pipeline

[ProfessionalLeftist]

At 10 a.m., residents from throughout the impacted area of Pennsylvania and New Jersey will rally at George Feighner’s home near Milford in Montague, NJ. Feighner, 86-years-old, had his property taken by eminent domain by FERC’s decision while still involved in legal appeals. Tree clearing up to his home commenced on Friday morning.

MORE...

http://ecowatch.org/2013/direct-action-protesting-fracking-pipeline/

[april]

1. this is so wrong on so many different levels...This must STOP!!!

[ProfessionalLeftist]

2. I feel so bad for this poor old guy. This is so damn unfair, unnecessary and cruel. n/t

[Ikonoklast]

8. How do you feel about dedicated high-speed rail lines?

[UnrepentantLiberal]

18. Why did you ask this question?

[Ikonoklast]

23. In order for a real high-speed rail line to be built on dedicated high-speed rails and not use

slower, crowded freight tracks will require the largest implementation of eminent domain laws since the birth of the Interstate Highway System.

People will be displaced, their homes and property taken for the use by whatever organization is in control of building any high-speed rail network.

Might be by government, might be private, but whomever builds it will use the force of eminent domain to secure the rights-of-way.

[tonybgood]

27. Wrong! If you use the Interstate Highway System to build high-speed rail, problem averted!

There would be no reason for an Interstate Highway System if high-speed rail were in place.

[thesquanderer]

32. We'd still need a highway system

High speed rail will not replace highways. People often need cars once they get to to their destination on the interstate. And the interstate highways are also used just for daily trips to get from point A to point B... people often need to only go an exit or two. The system serves many uses other than long distance trips between mass transit points, which is the only function essentially replaceable by high speed rail.

[Ikonoklast]

36. It would actually be more expensive using the existing interstates as a right-of-way.

That idea has already been discarded as not economically feasible.

And there would still be an enormous need for the highways; rail can not even remotely replace it at this time.

Currently rail has problems with freight capacity as it is.

[kentauros]

38. I was waiting for you to respond

so I could add to it

I think we need to detail why following existing road/highway rights-of-way are not feasible for anything but expansion of said roads. Those ROWs were created specifically for roadway expansion. The only thing that ever is allowed to follow a roadway are underground cables and utilities. Not even pipelines get to remain on a roadway's ROW for more than it takes to cross the same.

Now, the first thing to come to mind for why you wouldn't want rail to go along a highway is the nightmare of redesigning and rebuilding all those interchanges.

Here's another reason to keep that highspeed rail away from roadways: stupid drivers. Stupid drivers tend to run into things, including overhead support structures. Sometimes they hit them with sufficient force to warrant rebuilding the supports. If you build the overhead rail far away from the highways, when it does have to cross roads, the supports can be far enough away from the roads as to no longer be a "target" for the people that should be riding the train instead of driving.

[eggplant]

34. This is a false comparison

Fracking pollutes the environment and only benefits big oil. If someone wants to sell their land so they can build a pipeline, that's great. They can negotiate a fair price, or the pipeline can be built somewhere else. Having the government force the sale to build a pipeline that only benefits private enterprise is simply wrong, regardless of what Justice Stevens says.

High speed rail reduces pollution and benefits all. This was the supposed intent of emminent domain -- taking property (with fair compensation) for the greater public good.

We did it for the interstate system, and I doubt anyone would rather we went back to before we had that.

[Ikonoklast]

39. Pipelines fall under the same rules as public utilities when it comes to eminent domain.

This is nothing new in this country, you try fighting a utility over gas or power line routing in court and see where it gets you.

The 'greater good' excuse will win out almost every single time, and has for as long as there have been pipelines, power lines, and gas mains being built across private property.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

37. Big difference between high-speed rail,

which will pay dividends, and a big oil corporation extracting oil and gas and selling it to China.

I know from past experience that you're the anti high-speed rail guy. I won't waste my time arguing with you.

[Ikonoklast]

41. Really? When did I become the anti high-speed rail guy?

News to me.


And if you don't think that the CHSRA is using eminent domain in California to secure rights-of-way through privately held land for high-speed rail lines and that there are people in California who don't want to sell or see a rail line in their back yard, what is the difference to them if it's a public entity 'ruining' their land, or a private enterprise?

In their eyes, the end result is the same, whether it's for the public good or not.


Oh, and the CHRSA is using hundreds of millions of dollars, taxpayer dollars, to upgrade privately-held rail beds so they can use them.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

43. Nice lobbying, bro.

[Ikonoklast]

45. Damn them pesky facts!

[rhett o rick]

3. Why is this going forward in the US? nm

[ProfessionalLeftist]

4. One word: GREED. n/t

[rhett o rick]

9. Sorry, I meant, who is approving the land theft? nm

[ProfessionalLeftist]

11. The USSC

http://www.sgrlaw.com/resources/trust_the_leaders/leaders_issues/ttl15/837/

[rhett o rick]

12. I understand what the process is, but I believe a judge has to make the decision whether or not

it's for the public good. This pipeline is not for the public good. Only for the good of corporations.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

16. According to this, the final arbiter was the FERC

The energy regulatory commission is reviewing whether to grant requests by Feighner and several New Jersey environmental groups to reconsider its May decision approving the pipeline route.

If it doesn't, Feighner will have little recourse. Under federal law, gas companies whose projects have been approved are empowered to acquire land by eminent domain if they can't reach agreement with property owners. TGP already has offered Feighner $17,000 for the right of way through his land, according to a court filing.

Meanwhile, Feighner and his wife sit out on their back patio at night and gaze at their unspoiled hillside of dense forest that soon may be forever altered. Feighner said he wouldn't have taken on such a daunting legal challenge if he didn't feel there was a clear alternative.

"I've asked myself that a lot, and I honestly have to say I would have taken the advice of my friends and relatives who've basically told me I'm on a fool's errand with this and that I can't prevail over Tennessee Gas and the government," he said.

http://articles.philly.com/2012-09-05/news/33583246_1_pipeline-fight-underground-pipeline-park-service/2

[Arcanetrance]

5. I watched that movie wall-e with my 9 year old nephew it amazes me how that seems to be

Our future. Somewhere the people need to step up and fight back

[davidthegnome]

6. What sort of legal process

did they have to go through to take his land? Anyone know?

[ProfessionalLeftist]

10. Not sure what notification or timetables are involved

A quick Google found this which doesn't really cover that:

http://www.sgrlaw.com/resources/trust_the_leaders/leaders_issues/ttl15/837/

But it does include this disturbing paragraph:

... no compensation is possible for the subjective value of these lands to the individuals displaced and the indignity inflicted by uprooting them from their homes." Although the Fifth Amendment requires "just compensation" for property taken for public use, the compensation often falls woefully short of just. For example, in establishing the price, the government does not consider the very thing that supposedly justifies the condemnation: the more profitable use to which a private developer will put the property. Instead, local governments typically hire appraisers who establish low property valuations based on the current use of the property and then threaten the use of eminent domain to intimidate property owners to sell at below-market rates. Local governments also avoid paying relocation costs for businesses and homeowners and ignore the value of "good will" and other intangible value implicit in the reputation or location of a business. Likewise, as noted by Justice Thomas, the government's idea of just compensation does not take into account the subjective value of a property owner's home.

[FreeJoe]

7. what is a fracking pipeline? nt

[sakabatou]

26. My guess is that it's the fluids used for fracking.

[FreeJoe]

47. I don't think that makes sense

A well is fracked very few times during it's life. Going through the expense of building a pipeline for those occurrences seems incredibly inefficient.

[kentauros]

30. Considering the news source,

I would guess any pipeline that pumps products derived from fracking, i.e., natural gas and crude oil.

The fluids used in the actual fracking process are usually trucked in. Water is often tapped from local aquifers for that kind of fracking fluid, while brine is piped in.

Brine has been used as a fluid to help with petro-drilling for decades. Before the fracturing process was invented, drillers would pump brine into the underground reservoirs to lift any oil that they could no longer pump out. They do the same thing in salt-dome storage facilities.

[FreeJoe]

48. That makes more sense

Diluting the term "fracking" to apply to anything involved in the natural gas production industry doesn't seem like a good long term strategy.

[rhett o rick]

13. We need to let our Congress-Critters and the President that this pipeline must be stopped. nm

[ProfessionalLeftist]

14. Problem is, Obama promised in his SOTU . . .

. . . to "speed up new oil-and-gas permits and remove red tape" so I'm assuming he was referring to such things as fracking, which I understand he wholeheartedly supports. Happy to be proven wrong about it though.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

15. solidified here :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

sP

[ProfessionalLeftist]

17. More interesting details of this story here:

And it's interesting to note that even a Republican Senator was against the route through Feighner's property...

That pipeline, and a new one planned to capitalize on increased production from Pennsylvania's new gas fields, are at the heart of a battle involving two states, a gas company, dueling decades-old documents, the federal government, and Feighner, whose property sits smack-dab in the middle of the new pipeline's route.

It's a position the 86-year-old Feighner, who worked in the oil industry as a chemist for more than two decades, never thought he'd find himself in - and one he doesn't appear to relish.

. . .

TGP's proposed route for the 17-mile pipeline that is part of its Northeast Upgrade Project runs alongside the existing line - except for the half-mile segment through the park east of the Delaware River.

The new line would detour along the river on the Pennsylvania side and then southeast through New Jersey, and Feighner's property, before rejoining the existing line a few miles farther east. The proposal was approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in late May.

Feighner called the route around the park "divorced from reality." In a letter to the National Park Service, Sen. Pat Toomey (R., Pa.) questioned the logic of using the route when it would "cause such useless destruction."

The reality is complicated, according to John Donahue, superintendent for the park.

TGP would need to widen the existing path through the park to build the new pipeline next to the existing one, and only Congress has the authority to approve a new right of way through national parkland, he said.

http://articles.philly.com/2012-09-05/news/33583246_1_pipeline-fight-underground-pipeline-park-service

[ProdigalJunkMail]

19. the seizure of ANY property by the gov't for PRIVATE use

should be anathema to both parties... it is so outrageous that any of this garbage is allowed. it effectively means you do no own (nor CAN you own) anything.

sP

[ProfessionalLeftist]

20. I agree.

In this case, apparently only Congress (ha-ha, that's a laugh) could approve the add'l pipeline going thru a state park rather than through this man's property. Absent that, the FERC and the NPS apparently get final dibs, with the property owner (who isn't even against the pipeline and used to work for an oil company) has nothing to say about it. It's bullshit, from what I can tell about it.

To be clear, I'm against the damn pipeline no matter where it goes and against fracking. I'm against it going thru a state park. I'm against it going thru this man's property. I'm against it anywhere. And I feel bad for an old guy being needlessly tossed off his property or having it destroyed for no damn good reason, so some freaking oil/gas company can get richer. And they're only giving him $17,000? Insult to injury. Damn.

[backtoblue]

24. He should get back any property taxes that he has made to keep his land. (from the corpoation taking

his land) Imminent domain should NEVER ever ever be used for private corporations or people for profit. If this man's property is not secure against seizure, than no one's is.

p.s. I cry for his trees too.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

35. Totally agreed. n/t

[FreeJoe]

49. Think about the consequences

If we didn't allow for the use of eminent domain for any "private" use, we wouldn't have (or would pay much more for):

1) Gas or oil pipelines
2) Telephone lines
3) Electric power lines
4) Cable tv lines
5) Cell towers
6) Railroads

We could nationalize those industries to make them public in stead of private, but that wouldn't change the fact that those things would still get built. My understanding is that FERC already regulates the building of pipelines and that they generally must be built as common carriers to use eminent domain.

I know that oil and gas pipelines aren't popular here, but think about some of the consequences of not having them. You can see one consequence in North Dakota right now. Their oil production outstrips their pipeline capacity. People there are have resorted to a combination of trucking and rail transport to get the oil to market. Those options work, but they are expensive and much worse for the environment than pipelines.

The natural gas market in the US wouldn't virtually not exist without pipelines. In the long run, that might be a good thing, but in the short run, that would mean a lot of bad things. First, we'd be burning a lot more coal. Coal is pure carbon, so it releases a lot more CO2 when burned than does natural gas. Natural gas is also used as a feeder stock for a lot of chemical plants. It is the recent drop in natural gas prices that has started a resurgence in the US chemicals industry. Cheap local chemicals, in turn, is spurring an increase in US manufacturing.

To me, pipelines, like rail lines, roads, and electric lines, are a necessary evil. FERC should work hard to minimize the social costs of their creation, but I don't think we can ban them. I also think that fracking is here to stay. WE should focus our energies on making sure that it is well regulated. That means full disclosure of everything going down well before it goes there. That means a complete and audit-able trail showing how the fluids are shipped, stored, and then disposed of. It means testing of all nearby water before and after fracking occurs. It also means very stiff fines for things like leaks into the environment. Just saying "no" isn't going to work.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

50. so screwing people

by not paying them a fair rate for their land or other property is ok with you then? this is the problem i have ... they are not buying that land, they are taking it and offering a pittance. and who is the arbiter of price should it come to a disagreement (which it usually does)? that's right... a branch of the government. no conflict of interests there...

sP

[FreeJoe]

52. Fair Market Value

I agree that people shouldn't be paid any less than fair market value. That's true in any eminent domain taking. Honestly, I think that it should be something like FMV + 10% or even 20% to make up for the hassle to people forced to sell.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

53. oh, that that were true

but mostly they get screwed and lose tons of money/value...

it is as it has always been...

sP

[savannah43]

21. To treat this gentleman like this is inexcusable. Where is Christie now? Where is BHO?

Can't someone be a hero? This is just wrong.
Why do real people have to pay any taxes at all? We get nothing for them. Let the corporations pay for everything, because they take everything they want.

[Marrah_G]

22. THIS IS WRONG!!!!!!!!!

[busterbrown]

25. Boy, This would really confuse the “Don’t tread on me idiots”..

Where are the Tea Baggers? Why are’nt they out here fighting for “Liberty and Freedom”?

[savannah43]

28. There is a dark cloud forming over this country. Very dark.

Corporations have stolen this country through the people they have put in place in the "government." This has just become undeniably obvious. Whatever laws benefit them are written and then upheld by the corrupt SCOTUS. This will get quite ugly. This could be the theft heard 'round the world.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

44. Not to mention taking over the media as well.

Hey, wouldn't you rather be talking about the cruise from hell? Have some Soma, you'll feel better.

[glinda]

54. Problem is, is that it is Global-Cabals This is no longer about dealing with US Companies.

And the bottom line is they don't give a shit. That is why the whole Country is under environmental attack. WHy should Corps(e) that are invested Globally care about our Country even though they appear to be "of" this Country.They hide their money in other Countries and work hand in hand with private interests and connections that they have made elsewhere. They are "mining" the resources that we have worked hard to protect.

[WillyT]

29. GODDAMMIT !!!

& Rec !!!

[GoCubsGo]

31. It's going to happen with the Keystone XL pipeline, too.

I wonder how many of it's cheerleaders, especially the brain-washed righties who think it's a great "job creator", are aware of this. How many of them are willing to see people lose their property to this thing just so they can see Obama and liberals "lose"?

[ProfessionalLeftist]

33. No doubt. n/t

[penndragon69]

40. One word...

FASCISM !

[INdemo]

42. For residents like me that live in the midwest...

don't think for on second that we are immune to this..Cause its coming to us. Its about money and if anyone believes that states won't cash in on this "environmentally safe" natural gas exploration think again. I think states with a Republican majority it will be much easier but Democrats or Republican controlled statehouses, it just a matter of time before we are forced out of our homes,either by means as witnessed in this article above or by unfit water and soil around us.
A free country..no The greatest country on earth? don't think so..Caused by Republicans being owned by corporate energy companies ..yes.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

46. I don't think anyone's immune when money is to be made

and as long as corprats who stand to profit own and control local and federal government instead of we the human voting people.

[indepat]

51. Typically property can be taken through eminent domain for any public purpose: public purpose

in this instance involves destroying a person's home and property and the environment solely for corporate greed. Destroying a person's home and property and the environment for corporate greed therefore meets the eminent domain requirement of public purpose, i.e., corporate greed, like the 2nd Amendment, trumps all else, is in the public interest.

[Ilsa]

55. It's not even for the common good since the

Resource produced is being sold to foreign interests since the US has a surplus. It's all about corporate greed.