I was disappointed when I heard about the change in South Dakota's standing. I also felt like that decision affected Iowa's decision. I look forward to more of your articles about this.
Thank you, Cheryl. This is an issue that I know too little about and most of what I know is from the headlines. Thank you for putting this on our radar screen.
Thank you Cheryl. John observed voters do have a say in this misuse of eminent domain. Voters can challenge candidates on whether they agree with the IUB decision and existing state law. If candidates disagree with the decision and law, candidates can be expected to provide legislative proposals to protect private law owners and our natural resources. For example, the law can be changed to further narrow the definition of 'public use'. The law could be amended to increase insurance and bond requirements for pipeline owners; Iowa could add a fee on the transmission of natural gas in Iowa to create a fund to compensate landowners and communities for future losses. Iowa did something like this with leaking underground storage tanks for gasoline.
Hi, Ralph. Thanks for your insightful comments. Narrowing the definition of public use would be a good start, for sure. Somehow, it seems there should be something in the definition of "public convenience and necessity" that directly ties it to tangible benefits to Iowans! (Beyond a few temporary jobs created during constructions---often not eventually filled by Iowans.)
You’re right Cheryl. legislative candidates should be able to state a position and to propose legislative remedies. Even pro pipeline legislators can be pushed to come up with legislative proposals to prevent future expansions of power by IUB.
In Tom Harkin's own words: "Government should not be able to take your private property for a private company, period." One of only three issues upon which he would campaign regardless of state or federal level. D's need to acquire discipline, focus, as unlikely as that is to happen.
My grandfather was the victim of eminent domain back in the early '70s for a park - a park! Sure, it's for public use, but does that mean someone should be denied his property so someone else can have a park?
In this case, don't forget the safety issues involved with the CO2 in this new pipeline. People could die!
Hi, Andrea. Oh, wow, that seems a dubious taking, for sure! I did want to get into the safety issues of the CO2 pipeline, but I will need to return to this. It is not over yet, but probably only a matter of time, following the completed process in North and South Dakota. Thank you for your insights!
Hi, John. Thanks! I don't know what it would take to help Iowans truly see that our legislators and executive branch do not truly care about them or their welfare! But let's keep looking for the answer.
I was disappointed when I heard about the change in South Dakota's standing. I also felt like that decision affected Iowa's decision. I look forward to more of your articles about this.
Thank you, Cheryl. This is an issue that I know too little about and most of what I know is from the headlines. Thank you for putting this on our radar screen.
Thank you, Kathi! Yes, it can seem abstract, but it does strike at the core of our basic understanding of what it means to be an American.
Thank you Cheryl. John observed voters do have a say in this misuse of eminent domain. Voters can challenge candidates on whether they agree with the IUB decision and existing state law. If candidates disagree with the decision and law, candidates can be expected to provide legislative proposals to protect private law owners and our natural resources. For example, the law can be changed to further narrow the definition of 'public use'. The law could be amended to increase insurance and bond requirements for pipeline owners; Iowa could add a fee on the transmission of natural gas in Iowa to create a fund to compensate landowners and communities for future losses. Iowa did something like this with leaking underground storage tanks for gasoline.
Hi, Ralph. Thanks for your insightful comments. Narrowing the definition of public use would be a good start, for sure. Somehow, it seems there should be something in the definition of "public convenience and necessity" that directly ties it to tangible benefits to Iowans! (Beyond a few temporary jobs created during constructions---often not eventually filled by Iowans.)
You’re right Cheryl. legislative candidates should be able to state a position and to propose legislative remedies. Even pro pipeline legislators can be pushed to come up with legislative proposals to prevent future expansions of power by IUB.
In Tom Harkin's own words: "Government should not be able to take your private property for a private company, period." One of only three issues upon which he would campaign regardless of state or federal level. D's need to acquire discipline, focus, as unlikely as that is to happen.
My grandfather was the victim of eminent domain back in the early '70s for a park - a park! Sure, it's for public use, but does that mean someone should be denied his property so someone else can have a park?
In this case, don't forget the safety issues involved with the CO2 in this new pipeline. People could die!
Hi, Andrea. Oh, wow, that seems a dubious taking, for sure! I did want to get into the safety issues of the CO2 pipeline, but I will need to return to this. It is not over yet, but probably only a matter of time, following the completed process in North and South Dakota. Thank you for your insights!
I share Kurt Lawton's view, this is a great column. I do not expect anything to change in this state until voters stop supporting those in power.
Hi, John. Thanks! I don't know what it would take to help Iowans truly see that our legislators and executive branch do not truly care about them or their welfare! But let's keep looking for the answer.
It's a great piece, Cheryl, and a continuing important story.
Thanks, Kurt! I appreciate your encouragement!