|
Isn't there's a compelling strategic & economic interest in something like a pipeline? Even if you grant native ownership, won't that just mean it gets eminent-domained? Though considering the impacts of something like a pipeline, you may have to compensate at an above market rate, for possible long term damage. I'm not sure what a reasonable dollar figure would be, per hectare. edit: Civilized Fishbot posted:I'm a Jew and we got a whole country, we can give the Standing Rock back a few parcels of land in the middle of nowhere. rudatron fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Nov 4, 2016 |
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 13:08 |
|
|
rudatron posted:Isn't there's a compelling strategic & economic interest in something like a pipeline? Even if you grant native ownership, won't that just mean it gets eminent-domained? Though considering the impacts of something like a pipeline, you may have to compensate at an above market rate, for possible long term damage. I'm not sure what a reasonable dollar figure would be, per hectare. Eminent domain has a really high standard that the government has to meet, and then they have to significantly overpay. And a quick google search tells me that it's a lot harder to get eminent domain over land held in trust for Native Americans (as it should be) rudatron posted:Uhhhh, that may not be the best example here, buddy. It's actually a perfect example, the west is willing to tolerate everything incredibly lovely about Israel because of the Holocaust but we're unwilling to give the Standing Rock a few more acres despite the fact that that land was actually literally stolen from them Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Nov 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
I don't think sentimental & religious value factors into eminent domain though, so pushing on those points is nothing but obsfucation. Also it's just generally stupid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:15 miles is an arbitrary figure I chose to include the disputed pipeline land while leaving out anything else of note. quote:As for the government paying them current market value: don't you think genocide victims should have the right to dictate the manner in which they're paid reparations? quote:The land has spiritual and sentimental value due to both elements of the Standing Rock faith and the fact that it was stolen from them in genocide; its absence from their administration is gaping wound. The government doesn't have to seize that land to return it; it can just buy it back from its private owners. rudatron posted:Isn't there's a compelling strategic & economic interest in something like a pipeline? Even if you grant native ownership, won't that just mean it gets eminent-domained? Though considering the impacts of something like a pipeline, you may have to compensate at an above market rate, for possible long term damage. I'm not sure what a reasonable dollar figure would be, per hectare. twodot fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Nov 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Isn't there's a compelling strategic & economic interest in something like a pipeline? Even if you grant native ownership, won't that just mean it gets eminent-domained? Though considering the impacts of something like a pipeline, you may have to compensate at an above market rate, for possible long term damage. I'm not sure what a reasonable dollar figure would be, per hectare. there's neither compelling strategic or economic interest in building it near the reservation. there's only a political interest in that (signaled by the pipeline being moved away from whitey cause of pollution concerns)
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
Yeah, but the country, uh, 'given' to the jews, didn't come from land taken from Germany...
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Yeah, but the country, uh, 'given' to the jews, didn't come from land taken from Germany... Yeah, that was a bad example.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Condiv posted:there's neither compelling strategic or economic interest in building it near the reservation. there's only a political interest in that (signaled by the pipeline being moved away from whitey cause of pollution concerns) The issue with placing it next to the reservation, and then having that be used as grounds for a payoff, sets a bad precedent when it comes to any future pipelines, or really any large projects that use eminent domain at all. If having a pipeline near you means you deserve compensation, what about people near a dam, or near a highway? It would quickly blow up. On those grounds alone, I don't think you can grant them a payoff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
rudatron posted:You got to build it somewhere, and you're probably going to have to payoff someone wherever you decide to build it. This is a concept called an 'externality' and it's a very basic idea applied by public finance people and environmental economists all the time. If someone is doing something near your property that interferes with your property (i.e. building a pipeline that forces you to plan for a major spill), then it's fair to seek costs commensurate with the impact that it has on your property. Forcing externality creators to pay for negative externalities - or be paid for positive externalities - encourages socially beneficial construction twodot posted:I mean I assumed as much, but acknowledging this fact just gives me even less reason to think these rules are reasonable. (edit2: Like your previous set of rules could at least be justified as being based on some independent principles, the new set of rules is directly "I just think they should be allowed to block the pipeline, here are a set of rules engineered to allow them to block the pipeline") These rules are a compromise between total justice for genocide victims and compassion for those who've built lives on the land taken from those victims. If you believe that we should have such a compromise, then literally the least that can be done is giving the Standing Rock the small parcel of land that they say contains sacred sites.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
rudatron posted:You got to build it somewhere, and you're probably going to have to payoff someone wherever you decide to build it. i question this. first of all, i don't think there's a valid strategic or economic concern to build this pipeline. the pipeline is not going to increase employment much at all, and i don't see that the US as a whole would benefit enough from its construction to justify its constuction, even if you think eminent domain for economic reasons is valid. as for strategic reasons, i don't see how a pipeline is strategically better for the us than the railways we already have, especially considering pipelines are much less secure than rail transit. second of all, i don't think eminent domain for economic reasons is ever justifiable. from an economic standpoint you prevent those who would sell from maximizing the return on their property, and from a justice standpoint money is a poo poo analog for property for those who would never sell. quote:The issue with placing it next to the reservation, and then having that be used as grounds for a payoff, sets a bad precedent when it comes to any future pipelines, or really any large projects that use eminent domain at all. If having a pipeline near you means you deserve compensation, what about people near a dam, or near a highway? It would quickly blow up. On those grounds alone, I don't think you can grant them a payoff. as someone mentioned, all those examples are externalities. we are in the ecological mess we are because of our refusal to appropriately price poo poo for externalities, so you can imagine that I would in fact like such things to be factored into eminent domain IF we are going to allow it for the idiot reasons we use it for today. Condiv fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Nov 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i question this. first of all, i don't think there's a valid strategic or economic concern to build this pipeline. the pipeline is not going to increase employment much at all, and i don't see that the US as a whole would benefit enough from its construction to justify its constuction, even if you think eminent domain for economic reasons is valid. as for strategic reasons, i don't see how a pipeline is strategically better for the us than the railways we already have, especially considering pipelines are much less secure than rail transit. second of all, i don't think eminent domain for economic reasons is ever justifiable. from an economic standpoint you prevent those who would sell from maximizing the return on their property, and from a justice standpoint money is a poo poo analog for property for those who would never sell. If the tribe actually legally owned the land (which of course they don't), the federal government would probably just expect Dakota Access LLC to buy the land from the tribe the way that it's bought the land from everyone else. And if the project were really worth more as a pipeline than it's worth to the tribe, that transaction would happen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:If the tribe actually legally owned the land (which of course they don't), the federal government would probably just expect Dakota Access LLC to buy the land from the tribe the way that it's bought the land from everyone else. And if the project were really worth more as a pipeline than it's worth to the tribe, that transaction would happen. if they don't legally own the land does eminent domain even enter into play? anyway, this quote:And if the project were really worth more as a pipeline than it's worth to the tribe, that transaction would happen. is what should be happening. there would probably be people who refused to sell, but the government should not be in the business of forcefully taking land for the economically powerful of the day, such power is way too prone to abuse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Condiv posted:if they don't legally own the land does eminent domain even enter into play? anyway, this No, you can't seize land from people who don't have it quote:is what should be happening. there would probably be people who refused to sell, but the government should not be in the business of forcefully taking land for the economically powerful of the day, such power is way too prone to abuse. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Nov 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
in any case, i stand with the sioux on this. even in the worst case where they truly have no legal recourse against this, it's unconscionable to continue to practice the oppression of minorities like this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
The legalist / jurisdictional argument is really loving stupid for any number of reasons. The following is all you need for "justification" to protest: The pipeline was originally to cross the Missouri River on private land north of Bismarck. There were concerns about risks to the water supply, so the project was moved to the current location near the Standing Rock reservation. The pipeline is currently being built across the Missouri River on private land just north of the Standing Rock reservation. There are concerns about risks to the water supply as well as to sacred and archaeological sites but gently caress you, get out of the way or we'll send in more cops. Gosh, I wonder why the people of Bismarck get to have a say in protecting water resources near their city while the Native Americans don't. HMMM. As an aside the term "Sioux" is not preferred by many tribal members as it's a French adaptation of a name used by other tribes, not the name they call themselves. Lakota, Dakota, or if you know their nation/band that's even better (Sicangu, Oglala, Hunkpapa, Yankton, etc).
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:Gosh, I wonder why the people of Bismarck get to have a say in protecting water resources near their city while the Native Americans don't. HMMM. Actually meeting with the Corps probably didn't hurt.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:21
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Condiv posted:if they don't legally own the land does eminent domain even enter into play? anyway, this Yet they still would anyway. Sections of this very pipeline through Iowa were obtained via eminent domain because there were holdouts who refused to sell.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Actually meeting with the Corps probably didn't hurt. The Corps didn't listen to Standing Rock concerns in the 60s, when they destroyed entire towns, why should the Standing Rock expect them to listen now
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Yet they still would anyway. Sections of this very pipeline through Iowa were obtained via eminent domain because there were holdouts who refused to sell. i doubt the need of such a pipeline, and the people who refused to sell should not be forced to sell (especially at "fair market value") to suit the needs of private interests
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:The Corps didn't listen to Standing Rock concerns in the 60s, when they destroyed entire towns, why should the Standing Rock expect them to listen now because it's 2016 and they listened to five other reservations' concerns and repeatedly asked if standing rock had concerns maybe?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Listening to the American government gets you death marched hundreds of miles away.The audacity of these people to distrust their government!!! Also, this thread taught me that, technically, the vast majority of any given city is unoccupied. Go to the window and look outside. Do you see people standing crammed shoulder to shoulder as far as the eye can see? If not, that land is unoccupied and subject to potential land claims and reparations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:The Corps didn't listen to Standing Rock concerns in the 60s, when they destroyed entire towns, why should the Standing Rock expect them to listen now That's a great point. Let's put that attitude into risk/reward terms to see what we get. Work with the Corps for 2 years ---> Your sites maybe get hosed Don't work with the Corps for 2 years ---> Your sites definitely get hosed Either way it's too late except for specific objections to the water crossing. The rest of the pipeline in the reservation's area is already constructed on private property. Any sacred sites SR could've pointed out have already been hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:That's a great point. Let's put that attitude into risk/reward terms to see what we get. Cool, more Might Makes Right bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:What if we agree that the Standing Rock should be able to decide whether pipelines are built or not built on land so long as: Tias posted:The SR Lakota have, like all the indian nations at the site, all but wiped out by a policy of extermination by the state that now tries to ram a big gently caress-off oil pipe through their water supply. On their site may be a lot of concerned citizens, but on the other you have the USA CoE, security companies and some extremely rich people who rarely have an qualms about buying off the justice system. We're lucky things haven't gotten uglier, and should support their cause. Condiv posted:i doubt the need of such a pipeline, and the people who refused to sell should not be forced to sell (especially at "fair market value") to suit the needs of private interests Stickarts posted:Also, this thread taught me that, technically, the vast majority of any given city is unoccupied. Go to the window and look outside. Do you see people standing crammed shoulder to shoulder as far as the eye can see? If not, that land is unoccupied and subject to potential land claims and reparations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
blowfish posted:because it's 2016 and they listened to five other reservations' concerns and repeatedly asked if standing rock had concerns maybe? according to the achp the standing rock sioux did communicate with the corps and were ignored: quote:Additionally, we remain perplexed by the Corps’ apparent difficulties in consulting with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. We are in receipt of letters from both the THPO and the Chairman sent to the Corps throughout 2015, informing you of the tribe’s interests and concerns regarding this project, and requesting Section 106 consultation meetings. The THPO clearly objected to the Corps’ determinations, which should have triggered further review and consultation pursuant to the Section 106 regulations. The THPO http://indigenousrising.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/nd-sd-ia-il-coe-r-dakota-access-pipeline-project-con-15mar16.pdf
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Most utilities are semi or wholly privately owned these days, and eminent domain is more or less essential to having a functional utility infrastructure. utilities are arguably a public good (though I still disagree wholly with eminent domain conducted in the name of economic interest). the dap will not serve any public good, it only exists to bolster profits for private entities.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Most utilities are semi or wholly privately owned these days, and eminent domain is more or less essential to having a functional utility infrastructure. This brings up a good point because this is actually part of the problem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i doubt the need of such a pipeline, and the people who refused to sell should not be forced to sell (especially at "fair market value") to suit the needs of private interests yeah the point of contention should be "less oil pipelines" not "no oil pipelines within sight of this specific reservation"
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
Condiv posted:according to the achp the standing rock sioux did communicate with the corps and were ignored: Condiv posted:utilities are arguably a public good (though I still disagree wholly with eminent domain conducted in the name of economic interest). the dap will not serve any public good, it only exists to bolster profits for private entities. CommieGIR posted:This brings up a good point because this is actually part of the problem. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Nov 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Because they wanted the Corps to review construction outside of the river crossings, which is not their jurisdiction per the denial of their motion. The fact that the Corps has no basis for adjudicating their claims outside of areas identified by the Corps as being impacted by the river crossings is something the tribe seems unable to accept. the achp is a part of the federal government and not associated with the standing rock sioux, so would you kindly explain why they can't accept the corps' explanation instead of deflecting to "well the tribe is just wrong"? quote:You could say the same about any energy infrastructure project. Your distinction is arbitrary, and eminent domain has no bearing on the Sioux claim because the land adjacent to their reservation was sold willingly by the previous owners. it may not have an effect on land adjacent to the sioux, but there is plenty of private owners along the pipeline that are having eminent domain used to seize their lands against their will. quote:Landowners across Iowa are concerned about the implications of allowing the state to condemn privately owned land, particularly agricultural land, on behalf of a company that has not demonstrated any substantial public benefit to the residents of Iowa. In March 2015 a Des Moines Register poll found seventy-four percent of Iowans opposed to the use of eminent domain condemnation on behalf of a private corporation. as for the distinction, it is not arbitrary. please explain how a pipeline meets the public use requirement of the 5th amendment? blowfish posted:yeah the point of contention should be "less oil pipelines" not "no oil pipelines within sight of this specific reservation" disagreed. i agree "less oil pipelines" is a good thing to argue for, but environmental racism is something we have to combat specifically by making it harder to put potential pollutants near oppressed groups. in fact, doing so would probably help a lot making "less oil pipelines" a reality Condiv fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Nov 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:No, I want to talk about your "land reform" idea more. Are you still in favor of it? Do you still think displacing 1.6 million people is in the interests of justice? See, psychologists say that you're supposed to give people an "off ramp" to changing their minds, a way to save face and not look like they backed down. Otherwise they'll double down in order to save their ego. But what you said was so wrong headed that I want to see you either repudiate it or try to defend it. Our task as we proceed into the future as a society is to balance justice with other concerns about the impact of such a massive transfer of land. There are compelling arguments to give the tribes every single molecule of the land that was stolen from them, and to pay them millions for every single man, woman, or child who was killed in a US-led massacre or kidnapped from his or her parents, because that's how we establish as a world society that this can and will never happen again, that crimes against humanity cannot benefit the criminals. Which is justice, recompense, and deterrence all rolled into one. That would be ideal. Of course, to do so would also probably hurt a lot of people who really didn't do anything wrong. Innocent residents of places across America who just chose to live on land which was stolen by rapists and murderers before they were born. We'd have to provide for them too, because justice demands that people have a basic standard of living that includes financial security, a place to live, the ability to raise a family, etc. So justice demands that we provide for them. At the same time, we're going to have to implement reparations for slavery and Jim Crow and redlining, right? And that's going to be incredibly pricey for the government, and it's going to be incredibly hard to figure out who gets the money and how much each person gets. But it's ideal. The ideal implementation of justice - where we right all distributional wrongs and provide for all people - is so expensive and logistically mindboggling as to be fundamentally unworkable in our present world. So we need something that's a lot more moderate, something that listens to the Standing Rock and gives them at least a little of what they want. As it happens, they're only asking for a little! They don't even want direct ownership of any land, they just want to be able to dictate whether a pipeline is built on land that neighbors them! Land which was stolen from them by rapists and murderers. Land which they say contains sacred artifacts. Land which they say would be ruined by the construction of the pipeline. This land was seized from them by the US government because it was seen as too valuable for the Natives to have it; if we continue to refuse Native control over it because of the potential value of the land for pipeline construction, we are directly endorsing the genocide which was practiced against the Standing Rock. TL;DR What I really want is full reparations for everyone, a robust social safety net, clear and effective international law on genocide and the use of government force, and unicorns to be real. I view hearing the Standing Rock about the DAPL as the minimum we can do, a reasonable compromise between the demands of justice, the demands of social welfare, and the limits of the modern world to redistribute capital and power. There are a billion compromises that we could also do, a billion combinations of rules to negotiate how we're going to heal the gaping wound of the Native American genocide without opening up a lot of other wounds in the process. In every one of the compromises that are remotely reasonable, there is no DAPL unless the Standing Rock consents. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Nov 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
Condiv posted:the achp is a part of the federal government and not associated with the standing rock sioux, so would you kindly explain why they can't accept the corps' explanation instead of deflecting to "well the tribe is just wrong"? ACHP: "But the pipeline wouldn't be built without the 209 permitted crossings, so you should expand the scope of your remit to include the entire pipeline." CoE: "No, because that isn't our jurisdiction." ACHP: "But whhhhy? It would be so much easier to challenge in court if it was!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:CoE: "Our remit is to assess and permit places where the pipeline crosses waterways." and this? quote:The THPO clearly objected to the Corps’ determinations, which should have triggered further review and consultation pursuant to the Section 106 regulations it seems to be their wheelhouse tbh, so I assume the achp knows what they're talking about here. .
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Condiv posted:disagreed. i agree "less oil pipelines" is a good thing to argue for, but environmental racism is something we have to combat specifically by making it harder to put potential pollutants near oppressed groups. in fact, doing so would probably help a lot making "less oil pipelines" a reality ehhh a nuclear waste dump isn't the best example to support your argument here. it's the #1 example of nimby bait that sounds scary but won't actually affect anyone negatively (unless your house got eminent domain'd for being within the actual facility's area) so choosing the path of least resistance and building it wherever is totally fine
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
blowfish posted:ehhh a nuclear waste dump isn't the best example to support your argument here. it's the #1 example of nimby bait that sounds scary but won't actually affect anyone negatively (unless your house got eminent domain'd for being within the actual facility's area) so choosing the path of least resistance and building it wherever is totally fine I remember the good old days where the #1 topic of discussion on this forum was whether or not Bernie was a racist for voting to put some safe nuclear waste near a small town in texas
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:I remember the good old days where the #1 topic of discussion on this forum was whether or not Bernie was a racist for voting to put some safe nuclear waste near a small town in texas I was born in a Native Hospital that the army corps of engineers dumped nuclear waste under. Sure feeels good. Abandoned gold mines are fair game esp when there are houses directly on top of it. Its and endless line of suffering
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
The Vinja Ninja posted:I was born in a Native Hospital that the army corps of engineers dumped nuclear waste under. I hope you didn't read my post as saying that environmental racism isn't real (it is, and it happened to you, and that's heinous and you deserve reparations)
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
Haha if instead of a oil pipeline, a nuclear power plant was built near the Indian reservation, there'd be so many conflicted internet science nerd D&D posters. The non-conflicted posters in D&D would write posts to the effect of: 'Nuclear energy is a racist technology. While the wealthy white man can afford to pay boutique prices for their electricity, poor non-white people cannot weather a price increase.' edit: Condiv posted:among the nearly six million Americans living within three miles of a coal plant, 39% are people of color – a figure that is higher than the 36% proportion of people of color in the total US population. lol they probably should have massaged the stat harder. I'm embarrassed for the article writer. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
blowfish posted:ehhh a nuclear waste dump isn't the best example to support your argument here. it's the #1 example of nimby bait that sounds scary but won't actually affect anyone negatively (unless your house got eminent domain'd for being within the actual facility's area) so choosing the path of least resistance and building it wherever is totally fine no, choosing the path of least resistance is not fine. it leads to poo poo this: quote:A recent report from the NAACP entitled “Coal Blooded: Putting Profits Before People,” found that among the nearly six million Americans living within three miles of a coal plant, 39% are people of color – a figure that is higher than the 36% proportion of people of color in the total US population. The report also found that 78% of all African Americans live within 30 miles of a coal fired power plant. http://www.goldmanprize.org/blog/en...ental-policies/ http://www.naacp.org/climate-justice-resources/coal-blooded/ Condiv fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Nov 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 13:08 |
|
|
I think any plan involving the extermination of every white American is inherently just
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 22:25
|
|