Earlier today I blogged about the Dallas Cowboy Stadium Jerry Jones in cahoots with the City of Arlington outrageous example of eminent domain abuse. That prompted a very good comment about the situation on Carter Avenue in Fort Worth, where a private company, Chesapeake Energy, in cahoots with the corrupt government of the City of Fort Worth, is forcing people to allow a big pipeline filled with odor-free natural gas to be pumped through their property.I published the comment and then decided it needed it's own blog posting...
Eminent domain for private gain is the refrain that we keep hearing again and again (no rhyme intended; it could be a crime). Which is a worse (both are bad) form of eminent domain abuse: "buying" people's homes and then demolishing them OR, as seen in the Carter Ave. controversy, where a deep-pocketed, politically-connected, and profit-focused private corporation REFUSES TO EVEN CONSIDER "buying" people's homes. so that they can run their massive pipelines under people's front yards?
Chesapeake (CHK) claims that they only "need" the 20' deep (originally 30-40' deep, which would have pipelines running under and around the houses)easement/right of way, so they will only "pay" for that strip of easement right.
Note: it is NOT buying or leasing as most people presume; it's giving them "superior/dominant rights" to use the yard for their "necessity and convenience"? The first abuse at least gives people a chance to relocate and start over, but the second (and will be increasingly exercised) abuse essentially TRAPS people in their home so that CHK could make hundreds of million$$ off the pipelines while making "just compensation" (Fifth Amendment to U.S. Constitution and consistent with Texas laws/codes) ranging from $1,500 to almost $16,000 for about the same easement/lot size, with most 50' wide X 20'deep right of ways receiving around $4,000 (pre-tax and before increase/s in insurance/s).
Guess who got which: the new immigrant with little language and cultural skills with the 50' lot and the media-hungry retired white lady with the 100' lot. Just do the math and think of our currently used phrase "predatory practices".
The easement is "permanent" which means that it has to be disclosed to a potential buyer. Who in their right mind (or linguistic and cultural sophistication) would pay full market value for such a house with such a "burden" (real estate law term)?
Therefore if these people on Carter Ave. want to "make the choice" for their family's health and financial safety (they still pay the taxes, insurance, and upkeep, just like city sidewalk/street easements)they must decide to sell at a deep discount (losing their equity and likely selling for cash to landlords--FHA will not approve a loan that has an easement within 10' of the house)or even default on their mortgage in order to "move away and start over again" except they might return to being renters themselves.
CHK and their fancy lawyers claim that having these 16-24" pipelines (see the explosion last week in S.A. at www.woai.com--the homes and people on Carter Ave. would not make it if it were to happen here, and it will--just see recent explosions in nearby counties) "will have no effect on the rest of the property at all".
Shove something dangerous under their forehead/face and tell them "it will have no effect..."on the rest of their body and quality of life (like finding a mate or a job). In Texas and many other states, what Chesapeake Energy is doing would be considered "rustling"-not of livestock, but of the largest purchase and ownership of private property for most people.
Am I making a valid and fair comparison of abuses just now? If not, set me straight. If so, look out you might be next, especially if you happen to be the unfortunate people living on the other side of the street from "pipeline alley" (or nearby streets) who received nothing--not even a letter notifying them about the pipelines just a few yards away--but will likely suffer the same "damages" and loss as the people with easements.
Which raises a third (living nearby)and fourth(renters who tend to be poorer and immigrants in general--again in general) group of "victims" of abuse. So instead of asking who has it worse, it should be who has it the worst? There are other victims that I won't get into now.
No comments:
Post a Comment