• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Maple Farm Vs. Shale: Who wins?

KB

Diamond Member
Nov 8, 1999
5,098
152
106
I hate the abuses of eminent domain and there have been many, but there must be more to the story than what we are getting.

The article doesn't mention the exact compensation, just that the homeowner wants "fair compensation". Well what is fair compensation for this? Does a homeowner ever think compensation is fair in eminent domain cases? probably not. We need to know the compensation and the average price /acre for the surrounding land.

Second, the owners want to protect a "grove of 250 trees". The article makes the impression that they are a homegrown maple syrup farm and that these are productive maple trees, but it never mentioned how many are maple trees, if they are tapped and how much maple syrup they make. Based on the numbers from http://maple.dnr.cornell.edu/FAQ.htm, even if the 250 trees are all working maple trees, then the most they produce would be about 115 gallons of maple syrup. Maple syrup is hardly their bread and butter.

If these were pine trees they were looking to cut down would anyone bat an eye?
 

SNC

Platinum Member
Jan 14, 2001
2,167
200
106
I hate the abuses of eminent domain and there have been many, but there must be more to the story than what we are getting.

The article doesn't mention the exact compensation, just that the homeowner wants "fair compensation". Well what is fair compensation for this? Does a homeowner ever think compensation is fair in eminent domain cases? probably not. We need to know the compensation and the average price /acre for the surrounding land.

Second, the owners want to protect a "grove of 250 trees". The article makes the impression that they are a homegrown maple syrup farm and that these are productive maple trees, but it never mentioned how many are maple trees, if they are tapped and how much maple syrup they make. Based on the numbers from http://maple.dnr.cornell.edu/FAQ.htm, even if the 250 trees are all working maple trees, then the most they produce would be about 115 gallons of maple syrup. Maple syrup is hardly their bread and butter.

If these were pine trees they were looking to cut down would anyone bat an eye?
Why is the productivity of the trees an issue? The owners of the property don't want the trees removed, they don't want to sell the property, the productivity of the trees is a non issue. The abuse of a for profit company being able to take property from a person is the issue. As for the value of the property it should be 1$ less then it would cost for the pipeline to run through the next route it can take. So if going through this property saves the company $1,000,000.00 over the next available property then this property should have a value of $999,999.00 else take the longer route. No need for ED, there is someone there who is willing to sell their property, why force an unwilling owner to give up his property to save a gas company money? This project is not for the betterment of society but for the profits of a gas company, ED should not be used here.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
Why is the productivity of the trees an issue? The owners of the property don't want the trees removed, they don't want to sell the property, the productivity of the trees is a non issue. The abuse of a for profit company being able to take property from a person is the issue. As for the value of the property it should be 1$ less then it would cost for the pipeline to run through the next route it can take. So if going through this property saves the company $1,000,000.00 over the next available property then this property should have a value of $999,999.00 else take the longer route. No need for ED, there is someone there who is willing to sell their property, why force an unwilling owner to give up his property to save a gas company money? This project is not for the betterment of society but for the profits of a gas company, ED should not be used here.
Exactly, and well said. Eminent domain should never be used for a non-governmental entity. Ever. If a private service is deemed necessary for the public's welfare, such as a railroad acquiring land or an oil company needing a pipeline, then that acquisition should be moved to the government, reasonable prices paid (I suggest 25% above appraisal for anyone holding the property more than five years, just to weed out the politicians & hangers-on taking advantage), and reasonable rents arranged for the private company. Otherwise, if a private corporation wants a piece of land then it can damned well buy it at the going rate - which is what its owner will take for it.

Kelo v. New London is hands down the worst SCOTUS decision in the last fifty years. It literally allows government at any level to take whatever any rich person or corporation wants from anyone who isn't rich or powerful, for whatever that rich person or corporation wants to pay.
 

SNC

Platinum Member
Jan 14, 2001
2,167
200
106
So it happened, FEDERAL marshals with AKs and plenty of extra plastic cuffs made sure the owners of the land know who was in control of things. Yep the federal government is providing armed marshals as protection against land owners so that a gas company can cut down their trees. The pictures are ugly. I would either be dead or in prison if this were my land. The first fucker that set foot on my land without an invite would have had either a .44 mag or .375 mag, depending how far away they were. Let the feds kill a US citizen for protecting his property. Mutherfuckers!
 

SNC

Platinum Member
Jan 14, 2001
2,167
200
106
Uh...I HIGHLY doubt federal marshals would be armed with AKs
I don't think many would, but there were several there along with a bus to haul away those who dare to protect what they own.
Its a sad state we are in today.


 
Last edited:

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
103,535
18,093
136
ummm those aren't AK's, bro.

BUT! I think that is a piddly detail that misses the point. This looks real bad if true. Amazing that the Feds of any department would so willingly lose the upper ground like this after having the general public's back in the recent Bundy fiasco(s).
 
Last edited:

SNC

Platinum Member
Jan 14, 2001
2,167
200
106
ummm those aren't AK's, bro.

BUT! I think that is a piddly detail that misses the point. This looks real bad if true. Amazing that the Feds of any department would so willingly lose the upper ground like this after having the general public's back in the recent Bundy fiasco(s).

Not really sure where that came from! ARs not AKs! Fingers were engaged before the head.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY