Malkin on The Donald

Crocket, I agree. Although Trump would not be anywhere near one of my top candidates, it is interesting at least to have someone with some business experience entertaining the idea of running for POTUS. It is disheartening to me that our choices usually seem to be limited to career politicians who have never met a payroll.
 
Of course Trump is not a serious candidtae. I would be surprised if he even takes this much further, and completely surprised if he actually files anything to run. He is a media ***** and is loving the attention. I would never do business with the guy but he is at least entertaining. His spots on the golf channel are classic. He is completely full of **** but he knows it deep down.

I do think a person like this is good every once in a while as they bring up topics and issues that politicians cant or wont bring up, even if they agree.

As to the eminent domain issue, I think you guys are giving Donald a bad time. This tactic is used every day by the feds, cities, states, universities, hospitals, developers etc. Highways get widened, universities expand, cities need growth to survive, it just happens. Individuals like Trump, can not bring eminent domain cases by themselves. There has to be a govenrmental agency that brings the action. Most cities that are actively seeking investment in their community, already have agencies set up to help developers with issues like eminent domain. They actively seek out the investment and tout their ability to handle issue like this for a project. If you want to pick on someone, pick on the city officials that grant these decisions (for the record, Trump lost in his case with the Coking lady).
 
Interesting article, TexasGolf.

State-guided capitalism vs. free form of capitalism. I guess the Communists in the PRC are CINO's? (and would state-guided capitalism = facism? or would another "ism" be more appropriate? Perhaps just a capitalist oligarchy)

I guess it's ironic in that we spent trillions over the last 6 decades to contain the USSR and wear them down until their regime collapsed under the weight of their unworkable economic system. And here we are about to be bested by a former communist state which adopted (sort of) our capitalist system (if not the representative democracy).
 
It's bad when Trump soes this and its bad when the government evicts lifetime tax payers out of their homes for being unable to pay property taxes eventhough they paid for their house. it pretty much proves that we have no realy property ownership in this country. we rent from the government.
 
Well, Uninformed sure is. He is saying that he doesn't begrudge Trump for doing everything within the law to get what he wanted. My comment is in regards to the mentality that we accept (and even encourage) businesses to act in a manner that we would not accept or encourage from one other on a personal level.
 
I agree with you there Johnny. By the same token it bothers me that we elected a community agitator to be POTUS. And we want to teach school kids not to be bullies? Does not compute. So when you stage a march outside a bank to disrupt their business and try to embarass them into making high risk loans, aren't you bullying?

I absolutely agree that we should expect better.
 
Oilfield - Nice agreeing with me...and then disparaging the evil left. Mine was not a political attack on either side but a commentary of how/why we legitimize business actions.

We should definitely expect better from everyone - you included.
 
bronco - I understand your position but I really hesitate to apply "common good" standards to eminent domain proceedings for private economic development projects - especially for limo parking lots. I think eminent domain is unsavory in general, but I can swallow it for actual PUBLIC common-good projects like necessary roadways. To suggest that a private landowner is an ******* for not selling her land to a casino developer for a limo parking lot is really, REALLY a stretch, IMO.

I think if a developer wants certain land, they should buy it. If they aren't able to buy it, they should look elsewhere. But I think they are definitely being ******** if they can't buy it and then look to the government to give it to them. And this was for a LIMO PARKING LOT!! I think it's ludicrous to suggest that this is an example where the "common good" outweighs private property rights to the point where the government should be able to take that property away from the owner.

And really, back on the Donald for a second, how could any self-respecting small-gov't conservative vote for a guy who says this:

"The fact is, if you have a person living in an area that’s not even necessarily a good area, and government, whether it’s local or whatever, government wants to build a tremendous economic development, where a lot of people are going to be put to work and make [an] area that’s not good into a good area, and move the person that’s living there into a better place — now, I know it might not be their choice — but move the person to a better place and yet create thousands upon thousands of jobs and beautification and lots of other things, I think it happens to be good."

I'm not saying you can't agree with his sentiment, but you certainly can't do it and say you are a conservative who supports limited government.
 
Of course Trump is not a serious candidate.

I wouldn't be too sure of that. Sarah Palin was certainly a serious candidate at one time, perhaps she still is.

Not that the Dems are immune from being idiots, but the Repubs are certainly doing their fair share lately.

I mean, how bad did Bush need to screw up, and McCain with picking Palin as VP, to get a black man with a Muslim sounding name elected President?
 
McCain was a terrible nominee. Sarah Palin got him into the race for a while, even put him in the lead in some poles, but when the economy tanked, we decided as a country that someone with zero business experience could bring us back.
brickwall.gif
 
I completely understand your point, but just happen to disagree with you.

I'm not saying Trump is the ONLY ******* in this case, but he's certainly an ******* IMO. I say that because he built his project AROUND this piece of land, knowing he hadn't been able to procure it through a purchase money contract, and then looked to the government to kick the property owner out. He didn't HAVE to develop around the property, but he did it anyway and then threw up his hands and asked the government to kick someone out of their privately owned property so he could have a limo parking lot. So what if the city egged him on. It makes them ******** as well, but not the ONLY ********. Trump doesn't HAVE to build a project the city wants, does he?

I understand the value that development has to areas, but I also happen to value private land ownership, even when it stands in the face of what could be a good economic development project. Eminent domain is nasty business but we tolerate it, and should tolerate it, for public projects that meet a high standard. I don't think a limo parking lot meets the standard necessary for kicking someone out of their privately owned land. Perhaps you do, I don't really know.

Trump wants an expansion (or greater use) of the Kelo ruling and I am definitely against that. I think we've crossed a line when we're using eminent domain to enrich a private developer for a private economic project - and I think the public officials who approve such a measure are ******** along with the developer who asks the public officials to kick private landowners out. If I ask you to go punch someone in the face and you do it, I can sit back and say "well I didn't punch them, he did", but I'm still a part of the attack and an *******.

Again, it goes back to what we would expect from each other on a personal level and I fervently believe we would expect more of each other than that.

By the way, do you know what happened to the Kelo property after it was stolen from the homeowner? NOTHING. They didn't even develop it!
pukey.gif
I have no doubt Donald would use this property for a limo parking lot, but the Kelo decision and subsequent non-development should make us all extremely skeptical of eminent domain takings that seek to enrich a private developer and are not for public use.
 
Roger - I appreciate your post and you are right - there are some Conservatives that are for a much smaller federal gov't and much larger local gov't. I believe that group to be a very small minority of the people who clamor for reduced government, but you are right in that they do exist. I probably have a lot of common ground with those folks. However, when the constant mantra is for getting government "out of our lives", the distinction is RARELY made that what is wanted is the federal gov't out of our lives and replaced by the local gov't IN our lives.

In the case of eminent domain and Kelo, I believe the Court perverted the meaning of "public use" in allowing the taking by the local government. I would have a hard time believing that the mass or majority of Conservatives who have been clamoring for less government intrusion would be just fine with this kind of government intrusion simply because it is on the local level. The argument has been mainly about less government, not just a shift in where the intrusion comes from.
 
BTW, we used to have a ranch. Eminent domain was used to place a pipeline through it. If we didn't allow the pipeline it would have cost a lot of money for the company to find an alternative route. On the other hand, it isn't necessarily safe to have a pipeline running through your property. Any opinions on my case?


What?

You say that eminent domain was used to place a pipeline on your property then say that if you had not allowed it then the company would have had to pay a lot more to place it elsewhere? I guess I don't know what eminent domain means, because if you lose an eminent domain case you don't have the option of telling the company/govt to go elsewhere.

My opinion on your case? If what you wrote is true then you should have gotten a better lawyer.
 
BTW, we used to have a ranch. Eminent domain was used to place a pipeline through it. If we didn't allow the pipeline it would have cost a lot of money for the company to find an alternative route. On the other hand, it isn't necessarily safe to have a pipeline running through your property. Any opinions on my case?
__________________________________________________

if your ranch was in a gas unit, i imagine the lease holders lease rights were used to run the pipeline through it, not eminent domain.
 
The Link



Pipeline Eminent Domain and Condemnation Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

The following questions and answers provide, as a public service, basic, general information about pipeline companies in Texas and their powers of eminent domain. This information is not legal advice and has no legal force or effect. Persons with specific legal questions or who may be dealing with pipelines regarding eminent domain and condemnation issues may need to retain an attorney. The Railroad Commission is prohibited from providing legal advice, representation or interpretation of laws to private individuals.

Q: Does the RRC have to approve the route of a proposed pipeline?
A: Generally, no. The Commission does not have the authority to decide the route a pipeline takes. The exception to this is when the pipeline contains “sour gas” (hydrogen sulfide) because of its toxicity at certain levels.

Q: Who determines the route a pipeline will take?
A: The pipeline route is determined by the pipeline’s owner/operator.

Q: Does a pipeline operator or construction company have to notify the RRC before beginning construction on a pipeline?
A: Yes, the Railroad Commission must be notified when the construction involves a pipeline longer than one mile. Commission rules require the operator to file a pre-construction report 30 days prior to the commencement of construction. However, new construction on natural gas distribution systems of pipelines less than five miles are exempt from this reporting requirement.

Q: How can I get a copy of a new construction report?
A: You can obtain a copy of a new construction report by calling the Safety Division at (512)463-7046.

Q: What is the typical width of a pipeline easement?
A: Unless specified in a right-of-way agreement, the standard easement is set by statute at a width of 50 feet (Texas Natural Resources Code, §111.0194).

Q: How close can a pipeline come to my house or other permanent structure?
A: There are no minimum setback requirements concerning natural gas pipelines and structures. However, a hazardous liquids pipeline must be buried an extra 12 inches in addition the 36 inches/3 feet depth that pipelines must be buried at when installed, if the hazardous pipeline is within 50 feet of a permanent structure. Examples of hazardous liquid pipelines are any pipelines other than natural gas pipelines.

Q: How deep does a pipeline have to be buried?
A: A minimum of 3 feet depth. However, pipeline operators are not required to maintain this depth if erosion occurs after the pipeline’s installation.

Q: Do all pipeline operators have the power of eminent domain?
A: Generally speaking, common carrier pipelines in Texas have a statutory right of eminent domain. Common carrier pipelines are operators that transport oil, oil products, gas, carbon dioxide, salt brine, sand, clay, liquefied minerals or other mineral solutions.

For example, a pipeline transporting hazardous liquids would be a common carrier, and would have the right of eminent domain. A ‘common carrier’ pipeline transporting natural gas would be a ‘public utility’ (more commonly referred to as a ‘gas utility’), and also would have the power of eminent domain. The Railroad Commission does not have the authority to regulate any pipelines with respect to the exercise of their eminent domain powers.

Q: How can I tell if the company that wants to cross my land has the power of eminent domain?
A: The Railroad Commission can inform you as to the status of a pipeline as either a gas utility or a common carrier, both of which have a statutory right of eminent domain. For information on natural gas pipelines, call the Railroad Commission’s Utility Audit Section at (512) 463-7022. For information on other pipelines, call the License & Permit Section at (512) 463-7167.

Q: How can we contact pipeline operators authorized by the Railroad Commission in Texas?
A: The Railroad Commission provides a listing of authorized operators on the Commission website (PDF) that is updated monthly. You can view the actual T-4 Permit in the Commission's searchable online application atThe Link Click here to view the instructions on how to search for T-4 Permits.

Q: What is a T-4 Permit?
A: This is a permit issued by the Railroad Commission to operate a pipeline in Texas. An application for a T-4 Permit must be filed by an operator with an approved P-5 Organization Report (this report is required by the Railroad Commission and lists pipeline company officers and the financial assurance amount.) on file with the Commission, and must include a digitized map of the pipeline(s) to be covered by that T-4 Permit.

Q: Do all pipelines in Texas have to have a T-4 Permit?
A: Generally speaking, yes. There are two exceptions, however: lines that never leave an oil or gas production lease, and distribution lines to homes and businesses that are part of a gas utility distribution system.

Q: What is a P-5?
A: A P-5 Organization Report and financial security (bond, letter of credit, cash deposit, or well-specific plugging insurance policy) are required of all companies performing operations within the jurisdiction of the Commission, including pipeline companies.

Q: Where can I get more information on pipeline easements, eminent domain, and condemnation proceedings?
A: A good source of information on these issues can be found at Texas A & M University’s Real Estate Center’s web site, atThe Link From that page, select a topic from the left side of the page, such as “Condemnation,” or “Easements.”

Q: If my property has been condemned for a pipeline easement, does the RRC want to be notified?
A: Yes. If your land has been condemned for a pipeline easement, the Commission would like to be informed, since there is no requirement for the operators to notify the Commission. This will help ensure that the operator is properly classified as either a gas utility or a common carrier, depending upon the commodity being transported. Please notify the Utility Audit Section at (512) 463-7022.

Q: What rights do I have as a landowner?
A: We suggest that you review the Texas Landowner's Bill of Rights published by the Texas Attorney General's office.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top