What's new

Yellow | Facts About The Lytx DriveCam Program

joes bar and grill said:
Well them let them compensate you for your land seeing that you are so will to sacrifice for the greater good, I'm sure the people in the country they ship the gas and oil to appreciate your sacrifice. Why should a person be forced to give up anything they own for nothing more than corporate profit? Why should a farmer be forced to forgo planting a crop or orchard? Isn't raising food for the greater good?
Click to expand...

Once more for the last time, no one is giving up their land. Ownership is maintained but an easement allows for the installation and maintenance of a buried pipeline. At most a 40 to 50 foot wide right-of-way must be kept free of trees and tall shrubs so examination and potential maintenance can be performed by the pipeline company. The land owner is compensated for all of that. Yes, it may be uncomfortable for the owner but as I've said, if it is for the greater good then that must be taken into account. When the Interstate Highway System was being built thousands of property owners all across the country were compensated for their land and that land was completely taken not just partially utilized by way of an easement. Don't you earn your living driving on those highways and don't you feel they served a greater good for so many people and corporations too?

By the way, you mention corporate profit as though that is somehow a bad thing. Isn't the farmer you mention also expecting to earn a profit for his efforts? Or do you feel only certain entities should be allowed to earn a profit?
 
Triplex said:
Once more for the last time, no one is giving up their land. Ownership is maintained but an easement allows for the installation and maintenance of a buried pipeline. At most a 40 to 50 foot wide right-of-way must be kept free of trees and tall shrubs so examination and potential maintenance can be performed by the pipeline company. The land owner is compensated for all of that. Yes, it may be uncomfortable for the owner but as I've said, if it is for the greater good then that must be taken into account. When the Interstate Highway System was being built thousands of property owners all across the country were compensated for their land and that land was completely taken not just partially utilized by way of an easement. Don't you earn your living driving on those highways and don't you feel they served a greater good for so many people and corporations too?

By the way, you mention corporate profit as though that is somehow a bad thing. Isn't the farmer you mention also expecting to earn a profit for his efforts? Or do you feel only certain entities should be allowed to earn a profit?
Click to expand...
The farmer isn't claiming land that isn't his and claiming eminent domain. How about I take one wheel off of your car, put it on my 15 passenger van.I'll give you 10 bucks for it( it's worth 20), no big deal right my van will carry 15 people so it's for the greater good, you still have your car and a little money in your pocket, you can't use your car but you still own it and were "fairly compensated", oh and I get to make money.
 
Last edited:
joes bar and grill said:
The farmer isn't claiming land that isn't his and claiming eminent domain. How about I take one wheel off of your car, put it on my 15 passenger van.I'll give you 10 bucks for it( it's worth 20), no big deal right my van will carry 15 people so it's for the greater good, you still have your car and a little money in your pocket, you can't use your car but you still own it and were "fairly compensated", oh and I get to make money.
Click to expand...

Foolish and totally inaccurate comparison. Taking one wheel off my car makes the whole car unusable. Taking a small piece of land doesn't make the whole property unusable. Take the rest of the day and try to come up with something better. :smile new:
 
Triplex said:
Foolish and totally inaccurate comparison. Taking one wheel off my car makes the whole car unusable. Taking a small piece of land doesn't make the whole property unusable. Take the rest of the day and try to come up with something better. :smile new:
Click to expand...
But you can buy another wheel, for twice what you were fairly compensated
 
joes bar and grill said:
But you can buy another wheel, for twice what you were fairly compensated
Click to expand...

Joe, what started as a reasonably intelligent discussion of the issues has taken a turn to Bizarro World with your latest comments. Trying to compare an easement on someone's property to voluntarily selling a wheel from your vehicle at half the price you know it will cost you to replace is just plain ludicrous. But hey, have at it if you like. I think I've made my point. Have a nice day.
 
Triplex said:
Trying to compare an easement on someone's property to voluntarily selling a wheel from your vehicle at half the price you know it will cost you to replace is just plain ludicrous.
Click to expand...
No you misunderstand you don't have a choice , I'm going to buy your wheel give you 10 bucks for it and call it fair compensation, but hey you can still honk the horn and play the radio.
 
Triplex said:
Have cars pull small tanker pups. Just drop off an empty when you get close to running out and hook to a full one to continue your trip! :smile new:
Click to expand...

While returning from a trip to Oregon, I witnessed multiple flatbed sets with huge water? bladders strapped down while driving through Nor Cal and the central valley. I guess where there is a will, there is a way. Although now, Mt. Shasta snow levels are back to 2011 levels and lakes are 90% full.
 
joes bar and grill said:
No you misunderstand you don't have a choice , I'm going to buy your wheel give you 10 bucks for it and call it fair compensation, but hey you can still honk the horn and play the radio.
Click to expand...
What you're ignoring in your inaccurate comparison is that only a SMALL portion of property (a very large property in the case of a farm) is required to run a pipeline.

Your comparison is suggesting that by appropriating a comparably small portion of land, the ENTIRE PROPERTY is rendered useless. This is incorrect, and you know it. A FAIR comparison would be forcibly removing the radio from your car and being compensated so a busload of people have music to listen to.

And all things considered, you have failed to address exactly how the farmers you're defending will get fuel for their equipment if nobody wants oil and gas to be moved in any way. Too dangerous on a train, what if it derails? Too dangerous on a truck, what if it crashes? Build the refinery closer? I don't want that eyesore in my backyard! "I don't want that in my neighborhood." Well, nobody does. I guess Farmer Joe has to park his tractor and his harvester and go back to farming the old fashioned way because everyone wishes diesel and gasoline would just magically come out of a hose.

And for the record, if my radio was the only radio around to give that busload of people music, I'd consider it awfully selfish of me to keep it for myself. I can do without a radio, I still have the rest of my car...just like that farmer still has the rest of his land.
 
Canadian Flyer said:
What you're ignoring in your inaccurate comparison is that only a SMALL portion of property (a very large property in the case of a farm) is required to run a pipeline.

Your comparison is suggesting that by appropriating a comparably small portion of land, the ENTIRE PROPERTY is rendered useless. This is incorrect, and you know it. A FAIR comparison would be forcibly removing the radio from your car and being compensated so a busload of people have music to listen to.

And all things considered, you have failed to address exactly how the farmers you're defending will get fuel for their equipment if nobody wants oil and gas to be moved in any way. Too dangerous on a train, what if it derails? Too dangerous on a truck, what if it crashes? Build the refinery closer? I don't want that eyesore in my backyard! "I don't want that in my neighborhood." Well, nobody does. I guess Farmer Joe has to park his tractor and his harvester and go back to farming the old fashioned way because everyone wishes diesel and gasoline would just magically come out of a hose.

And for the record, if my radio was the only radio around to give that busload of people music, I'd consider it awfully selfish of me to keep it for myself. I can do without a radio, I still have the rest of my car...just like that farmer still has the rest of his land.
Click to expand...
What I'm talking about is the definition of "for the greater good" who decides that?, the people 500 miles away that benefit, the company making money,the person who has absolutely no say in the taking of property they bought and don't want to sell? By the way it was the wheel not the radio.
 
Canadian Flyer said:
What you're ignoring in younaccurate comparison is that only a SMALL portion of property (a very large property in the case of a farm) is required to run a pipeline.

Your comparison is suggesting that by appropriating a comparably small portion of land, the ENTIRE PROPERTY is rendered useless. This is incorrect, and you know it. A FAIR comparison would be forcibly removing the radio from your car and being compensated so a busload of people have music to listen to.

And all things considered, you have failed to address exactly how the farmers you're defending will get fuel for their equipment if nobody wants oil and gas to be moved in any way. Too dangerous on a train, what if it derails? Too dangerous on a truck, what if it crashes? Build the refinery closer? I don't want that eyesore in my backyard! "I don't want that in my neighborhood." Well, nobody does. I guess Farmer Joe has to park his tractor and his harvester and go back to farming the old fashioned way because everyone wishes diesel and gasoline would just magically come out of a hose.

And for the record, if my radio was the only radio around to give that busload of people music, I'd consider it awfully selfish of me to keep it for myself. I can do without a radio, I still have the rest of my car...just like that farmer still has the rest of his land.
Click to expand...
I do know that when a pipeline company wanted to run a water pipeline through my neighbors land they compensated him for the use of the right of way
 
if you missed it in the article here is a very important point
“There is no logical argument or construct to support it,” he said. “The only argument to support it is profit, and profit is not a justification for economic or political existence.”
 
joes bar and grill said:
if you missed it in the article here is a very important point
“There is no logical argument or construct to support it,” he said. “The only argument to support it is profit, and profit is not a justification for economic or political existence.”
Click to expand...

Ridiculous comment. If it were not for a quest for profit, no company/corporation would exist.
 
Triplex said:
Ridiculous comment. If it were not for a quest for profit, no company/corporation would exist.
Click to expand...
We were talking about eminent domain , in which a government entity takes land for the greater good. A corporation is a for profit organization, hence there is no greater good only profit. Read the article, look up the law, then tell me it's a ridiculous comment.
 
joes bar and grill said:
We were talking about eminent domain , in which a government entity takes land for the greater good. A corporation is a for profit organization, hence there is no greater good only profit. Read the article, look up the law, then tell me it's a ridiculous comment.
Click to expand...

A normal corporation (excluding not-for-profit entities) is undoubtedly a for profit entity. However, just because a corporation is benefiting from the application of eminent domain does not mean the ultimate result will not be for the greater good also. For instance, a for profit water company may utilize eminent domain to construct a water main under someone's property. Just because it's a for profit entity doesn't mean that there can't be a benefit for the greater good at the same time. You imply that just because a for profit company benefits from the application of eminent domain that there can't also be a "greater good" benefit. That implication is simply not true. A construction company benefits from a highway building project while at the same time the public benefits from the new highway. Application of eminent domain benefits both - the construction company and the public. It doesn't always have to be one or the other as you seem to think.
 
Triplex said:
A normal corporation (excluding not-for-profit entities) is undoubtedly a for profit entity. However, just because a corporation is benefiting from the application of eminent domain does not mean the ultimate result will not be for the greater good also. For instance, a for profit water company may utilize eminent domain to construct a water main under someone's property. Just because it's a for profit entity doesn't mean that there can't be a benefit for the greater good at the same time. You imply that just because a for profit company benefits from the application of eminent domain that there can't also be a "greater good" benefit. That implication is simply not true. A construction company benefits from a highway building project while at the same time the public benefits from the new highway. Application of eminent domain benefits both - the construction company and the public. It doesn't always have to be one or the other as you seem to think.
Click to expand...
You must be Stonys illegitimate brother
 
We had a Mall in this area that wanted to expand and they were allowed to use "Eminent Domain" to take people's houses for "market value". If a private business takes property with the blessing of the government it should be a windfall for the property owner.
 
The only problem with the Keystone Pipeline is where do we put it‼️:lmao:
wypxszo.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top