Dakota Access Pipeline Protests

[Gary Childress]

I didn't see another thread dedicated to this (apologies if I missed one). I'm curious what people here think on this. The local resistance seems determined but the vested interests of the businesses involved must be enormous. I guess we'll see what matters most here, oil or people's drinking water.

A couple key questions might be:

1. Do we really need this pipeline? Or is there an alternative to building it?

2. If the pipeline is vital, then is there any alternative to building it through anyone's "back yard?"

3. If it's vital and it needs to go through someone's back yard, then who's back yard do we build it on?

The Standing Rock Sioux tribe’s protest of the Dakota Access Pipeline is showing no signs of losing momentum.

Last week, protesters looking to block the construction of the massive oil pipeline in North Dakota scored a significant, if temporary, victory as three federal departments halted the project and placed it under review, overruling a federal judge’s denial of the tribe’s request for an emergency injunction.

The protesters have argued that the pipeline construction will disturb sacred lands and burial grounds. In addition, the tribe is worried about the environmental impact of the pipeline, since it will run under the Missouri River, which supplies the tribe’s drinking water.

The tribe has attracted thousands of supporters to its protest site, including representatives of more than 200 other tribes. Solidarity demonstrations have been held throughout the world.

On Tuesday, Kelcy Warren, CEO of Energy Transfer Projects, the pipeline’s developer, defended the project that will transport oil across 1,200 miles from North Dakota to southern Illinois. In a letter, Warren downplayed its cultural impact and called the protesters’ water safety concerns “unfounded.”

. . .

The first Keystone XL pipeline was supposedly the safest one ever built and it spilled oil 12 times in its first year of operation. One of those times, there was a 60-foot geyser of oil in South Dakota that a local rancher just happened to see and called into the pipeline company. And with this pipeline in particular, they originally proposed to build it near Bismarck, but they determined that it’s a more highly populated, higher-income part of the state and they were worried about the stress to their water supply. So they moved it out to the edge of the Standing Rock Sioux reservation and its drinking water supply. I think that decision is a perfect example of what sparked such an outrage here.

. . .

The short answer is it’s easier for the industry to build these without significant opposition in places where there are lower-income communities. There are the massive oil spills you hear about on the news several times a year, but there are hundreds of others that happen too.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ne-protests-water_us_57d85a51e4b0aa4b722d12b1

 

[W|M]

BLM activists are also supporting the fight against corporate greed in Dakota

If I were able to go there, I'd be there

 

[FriendlyFire]

South / Republicans have made it cheaper to pay fines then do preventative maintenance that seems to be the main problem and one that is not being addressed.

At most the pipeline will be delayed. If were lucky maybe some more safety features will be ordered
This is Republican state after all.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The way the Corps has begun avoiding this transparent process is through what’s called nationwide permit 12. It’s essentially a blanket permit for pipelines up to a half-acre of impact, a pre-issued permit. The Corps has begun treating these 1,200-mile pipelines like a series of half-acre projects that each qualify under that exemption. This is a general permit that doesn’t mention oil spills or climate impacts and never talks about Native American tribes and cultural significance and sacred sites.

Is this not a sufficiently transparent charade to just put someone in jail and call it a day?

"Oh, it isn't a 1200 mile pipeline, it just goes from right over there (where it connects to a pipeline) to right over here (where it connects to another pipeline)."

You are telling me that there are people who can say that with a straight face?

 

[Commodore]

The short answer is it’s easier for the industry to build these without significant opposition in places where there are lower-income communities.

Ain't that the truth. I remember some low-income housing neighborhood getting completely leveled here to make way for a shopping mall and other assorted businesses. At first the developer tried to purchase all the homes from the owners, but they all refused. So with that plan failed, they got the local government to declare all the homes in that neighborhood as condemned, which allowed for the forcible eviction of all the residents without compensating them for their homes under the pretense of it being a "public safety" concern. Since it was low-income housing, they were in generally poor shape, so it wasn't hard for officials to find something in each house that justified them being declared condemned. Once all the residents were evicted, the houses were leveled and the construction of the mall commenced.

 

[MobBoss]

Well, that's called eminent domain. And yes, it's legal.

I thought the pipeline only went through federal land and not through anyone's private property or such.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I thought the pipeline only went through federal land and not through anyone's private property or such.

You are correct. Immanent domain actually has nothing to do with the matter at hand that I can see.

It is absolutely absurd though that a "pipeline to nowhere" a couple hundred feet long can be proposed and approved that "just happens" to connect on each end to a similar "independent project" without anyone recognizing that when they get caught at it the world is going to cave in on them. It is such an absurdly obvious avoidance of regulation that I can't believe anyone would really try it...but apparently they have.

Unless I'm completely missing the facts and buying some hyped up accusations here, but it sure looks like it holds together. This is Army Corps of Engineers, which is more up your alley than mine. What do you think? Are they likely to play that kind of edgy legal maneuvering game?

 

[MobBoss]

Well, I have to admit i'm pretty ignorant as to the specifics of the pipeline in general. I've only read a bit about the protests and saw a map that outlined the path of the pipeline as planned. My understanding is that the planned route goes over ancient indian ancestral land that is not now reservation land, and controlled by the federal government. So, legally, the tribe has very little right in actual opposition of the pipeline, thus the reason for all the media coverage - it's perceived that public outcry is the only path to win for them.

 

[Zkribbler]

...they got the local government to declare all the homes in that neighborhood as condemned, which allowed for the forcible eviction of all the residents without compensating them for their homes under the pretense of it being a "public safety" concern.

That doesn't sound quite right. The Constitution permits the taking of land only with "just compensation."

What generally happens in eminent domain cases is that the government low balls "market value." A low ball offer on dilapidated property is going to be next to nothing, but not exactly nothing. I understand that, at least in Los Angeles, lawyers are taking these cases on a contingency basis. They get paid a percentage of the difference between what the government offers and what the jury awards at trial.

 

[W|M]

Since when does the US government care about such petty things about ''the Constitution''?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well, I have to admit i'm pretty ignorant as to the specifics of the pipeline in general. I've only read a bit about the protests and saw a map that outlined the path of the pipeline as planned. My understanding is that the planned route goes over ancient indian ancestral land that is not now reservation land, and controlled by the federal government. So, legally, the tribe has very little right in actual opposition of the pipeline, thus the reason for all the media coverage - it's perceived that public outcry is the only path to win for them.

True. But they do have a seemingly valid complaint in that (apparently, and I haven't independently verified this) the thousand mile pipeline is being built with no environmental impact report through an obvious ruse where it is planned, approved, and built in sections a couple hundred feet long which are too small to require an EIR, with the Army Corps of Engineers, who are the responsible agency since it is on federal land approving each piece in turn as if they are just a short stretch of pipe in the ground and their connection to neighboring projects is just "incidental" rather than being the very obvious function of the entire project series of independent projects that happen to be being done by the same company in a coincidentally connected series.

It almost seems too obviously scandalous to believe anyone would try such a thing...but only almost.

 

[MobBoss]

Ah, ok. Well, I actually have a little bit of experience in this as just in the last few years, Washington state mandated a change in our existing rail that would increase high speed rail though my city by 16 runs a day as opposed to the handful that usually occurred. Part of that required EIRs for various stages of the rail, mostly where the rail would require overpass creation where existing rail crossings existed.

I guess the point being I could see where the federal law has published requirements for EIR in these situations, and from what happened here, it was certainly done section by section for the simple reason the environment changed over just a few miles or so (i.e. from wetlands to woodlands, to rural area, and then inner city industrial). So in that aspect, it kinda makes sense that they would do it that way.

 

[Commodore]

That doesn't sound quite right. The Constitution permits the taking of land only with "just compensation."

It was a loophole in the system that was exploited. Apparently they could take possession of the homes and evict residents without compensation since the homes were deemed unfit to live in. Since the land was now township property they could do with it as they pleased and "decided" to sell the land to the developer.

If I remember correctly (since this was a long time ago), the residents who were evicted did end up filing a lawsuit and were eventually compensated for their homes, but that doesn't change the fact that they were bullied out of their homes because they were low-income and were an easy target.

 

[Old Hippy]

It was a loophole in the system that was exploited. Apparently they could take possession of the homes and evict residents without compensation since the homes were deemed unfit to live in. Since the land was now township property they could do with it as they pleased and "decided" to sell the land to the developer.

If I remember correctly (since this was a long time ago), the residents who were evicted did end up filing a lawsuit and were eventually compensated for their homes, but that doesn't change the fact that they were bullied out of their homes because they were low-income and were an easy target.

when it made the news they did not have to be 'blighted'property, but it was job creation being in the public interest that changed

Stevens's opinion provoked a strongly worded dissent from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who wrote that the ruling favors the most powerful and influential in society and leaves small property owners little recourse. Now, she wrote, the "specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062300783.html

 

[EgonSpengler]

It was a loophole in the system that was exploited. Apparently they could take possession of the homes and evict residents without compensation since the homes were deemed unfit to live in. Since the land was now township property they could do with it as they pleased and "decided" to sell the land to the developer.

If I remember correctly (since this was a long time ago), the residents who were evicted did end up filing a lawsuit and were eventually compensated for their homes, but that doesn't change the fact that they were bullied out of their homes because they were low-income and were an easy target.

In Boston's West End, bulldozed in 1958, members of the City government conspired to have the neighborhood condemned by slowing or stopping municipal garbage collection so that trash piled up in the streets. As usual, the neighborhood was populated by poor & working-class people, a lot of post-War immigrants; Italians, Poles, Ashkenazi Jews, some Irish - Leonard Nimoy grew up there. In 2015, the director of the Boston Redevelopment Authority issued a formal apology for the whole thing.

So, yeah, without reading the details, I have no problem believing the Dakota Sioux are getting screwed by this project. Happens alla time.

 

[MobBoss]

It was a loophole in the system that was exploited. Apparently they could take possession of the homes and evict residents without compensation since the homes were deemed unfit to live in. Since the land was now township property they could do with it as they pleased and "decided" to sell the land to the developer.

If I remember correctly (since this was a long time ago), the residents who were evicted did end up filing a lawsuit and were eventually compensated for their homes, but that doesn't change the fact that they were bullied out of their homes because they were low-income and were an easy target.

The word for this is abatement, and it deals with property where the owner has decided to stop keeping up the appearance of the property (or sometimes it's just been abandoned) and it becomes an eyesore. The community has a vested interest in doing something about it because usually such property attracts crime (abandoned homes often get broken into to become drug dens, etc.) or vermin (abandoned properties also quickly become dumping grounds).

How this works is the city notifies the legal owner of its intent to clean up the property but charge the owner for having to do it (and sometimes 'clean up' means bulldoze down flat). If the owner doesn't pay, the city has a variety of paths to either take possession of the property or force its sale to recover it's costs.

In reading some of the above comments, it would appear most comments blame the government for wrongful action; but there are two sides to this coin - would you want to live in a city that refused to act if the house next to yours became abandoned and a haven for roaming drug users? Municipalities need legal tools to be able to deal with such issues, but without abusing their authority to do it. Sadly, its ever a tale of who's viewpoint you listen to about that sort of thing - one side will always point fingers/blame at the other.

 

[Gary Childress]

In reading some of the above comments, it would appear most comments blame the government for wrongful action; but there are two sides to this coin - would you want to live in a city that refused to act if the house next to yours became abandoned and a haven for roaming drug users? Municipalities need legal tools to be able to deal with such issues, but without abusing their authority to do it. Sadly, its ever a tale of who's viewpoint you listen to about that sort of thing - one side will always point fingers/blame at the other.

Not sure. If the homes were being lived in then I think the government should at least compensate the owners fair market value for their property. Evicting people to get their property for free doesn't sound fair in my book under the circumstances mentioned in Commodore's post.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

In reading some of the above comments, it would appear most comments blame the government for wrongful action; but there are two sides to this coin - would you want to live in a city that refused to act if the house next to yours became abandoned and a haven for roaming drug users? Municipalities need legal tools to be able to deal with such issues, but without abusing their authority to do it. Sadly, its ever a tale of who's viewpoint you listen to about that sort of thing - one side will always point fingers/blame at the other.

It isn't always a tale of who's viewpoint you listen to. It is often a tale of whether the city lets ethics guide them in their use of the tools.

Abatement is a useful tool for exactly the reason you describe. Literally everyone is going to agree that if there is an abandoned property in a neighborhood and the owner either can't be located or refuses to deal with any upkeep the city needs a tool to deal with that.

However, that same tool can be used by an unscrupulous city government in perpetrating a wide variety of misdeeds. Being outraged by such abuses isn't a "question of viewpoint."

 

[Old Hippy]

.

In reading some of the above comments, it would appear most comments blame the government for wrongful action; but there are two sides to this coin - would you want to live in a city that refused to act if the house next to yours became abandoned and a haven for roaming drug users? Municipalities need legal tools to be able to deal with such issues, but without abusing their authority to do it. Sadly, its ever a tale of who's viewpoint you listen to about that sort of thing - one side will always point fingers/blame at the other.

you made some good points on why homes can be commandeered, mainly because of how they can be responsible for degrading the value of neighbouring property But what happens when a government takes all the homes including yours to build a new sports arena or mall or highway. Its in the community interest its been decided it will create jobs, enhance the whole city.You just don't want to move for valid reasons like all the money spent on making it the best home in the street or you think in just a few years gentrification will transform the suburb as yuppies discover it merits.
the local Municipality probably has councillors who have close ties with the property developer and once announced a good property with million dollar views across rail yards and the river to the city skyline becomes worthless on the open market so a property developer can acquire it dirt cheap. Regardless of how many poor people have their homes their because it was cheap to buy or that it will take place in 5 years time, leaving people in limbo.

Sometimes fingers need to be pointed as fairness often involves someone abusing their authority.


viewpoints

Spoiler :

Link to video.

 

[metalhead]

I didn't see another thread dedicated to this (apologies if I missed one). I'm curious what people here think on this. The local resistance seems determined but the vested interests of the businesses involved must be enormous. I guess we'll see what matters most here, oil or people's drinking water.

A couple key questions might be:

1. Do we really need this pipeline? Or is there an alternative to building it?

2. If the pipeline is vital, then is there any alternative to building it through anyone's "back yard?"

3. If it's vital and it needs to go through someone's back yard, then who's back yard do we build it on?

We don't need pipelines at all. If pipelines don't exist to transport oil to refineries, then the oil is simply transported by other means - typically by rail, sometimes by truck or ship depending on where it is going to/from. Since pipelines make transporting oil cheaper, so the oil that makes it to the refinery is a couple bucks a barrel cheaper than it would be if transported by rail. This pretty much exclusively benefits the company that pumps the crude, maybe some benefit to the refining company as well.

They shouldn't go through anyone's backyard, IMO, unless they can convince people to sell the right-of-way. Eminent domain for a pipeline is absurd. Now, pipeline opponents tend to make environmental arguments, but those are pretty silly - the cost savings aren't nearly enough to spur oil development which otherwise wouldn't happen, and pipeline oil spills, while far more devastating where they happen than a train or truck spill (less so than a maritime spill, obviously), do happen far less often. The other side of this is that the public benefit in terms of the environmental benefit of preventing spills is unproven at best, especially where pipelines cross major rivers. A pipeline spill in a river is a major environmental disaster.

So, taking people's property for pipelines should not be considered a public good sufficient to allow for eminent domain, but of course eminent domain is interpreted stupidly broadly, so there's no getting around the precedent. But pipelines are not vital, not necessary, and not of any provable benefit to the public.