With not having kids, I have to keep in mind what something like this will do to the future sale of the property. You seem to think I shouldn't care about the affect it will have on value, since it's inheritance.
Paragon Pipeline
11,725 Views |
114 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by O.G.
You are correct. The one that is active right now is the Kinder-Morgan pipeline. It will traverse many hill country counties including Kimble, Gillespie, Blanco etc.
About 6 months ago they started contacting landowners for rights to easements. At that time they stated they DID NOT have eminent domain as they were a privately entity and were making lots of profit selling the gas.
The majority of the landowners declined them and their project was falling apart so they used political strings and petitioned the RR Commission for eminent domain and was granted it.
As many landowners have stated this is a direct abuse of eminent domain as this is not for the greater good of the people of Texas.
The other issue is that three years ago the LCRA ran a large transmission line right through the hill country and was poorly managed and left a really bad taste in the mouth for most landowners.
The PUC had so much bad PR from that project that they are now trying to form "energy corridors " so they only fight one group of landowners.
Allowing a pipeline company to come through property is not the real issue. The issue is that easement will then be used as a corridor that will entail multiple pipelines, transmission lines, water lines etc etc, really scarring and ruining the scenic value of the land.
Most landowners are not aware of this.
You can not pick up a real estate magazine of hill country land for sale that does not use the words " Million Dollar Views". People don't pay for those million dollar views if they have an energy corridor running through them.
They say they give landowners fair market value for the land. But they make billions off the cubic feet of gas that passes through that landowners land every single day.
If it was a just and fair system the landowner should get a percentage of that profit for as long as the gas or electricity is crossing his land.
People in Texas just "think" they actually own their land. You may pay for it, pay taxes on it, improve it, have title to it ...,.. but in reality it can be taken from you in heartbeat.
Our forefathers would be turning over in their graves.
About 6 months ago they started contacting landowners for rights to easements. At that time they stated they DID NOT have eminent domain as they were a privately entity and were making lots of profit selling the gas.
The majority of the landowners declined them and their project was falling apart so they used political strings and petitioned the RR Commission for eminent domain and was granted it.
As many landowners have stated this is a direct abuse of eminent domain as this is not for the greater good of the people of Texas.
The other issue is that three years ago the LCRA ran a large transmission line right through the hill country and was poorly managed and left a really bad taste in the mouth for most landowners.
The PUC had so much bad PR from that project that they are now trying to form "energy corridors " so they only fight one group of landowners.
Allowing a pipeline company to come through property is not the real issue. The issue is that easement will then be used as a corridor that will entail multiple pipelines, transmission lines, water lines etc etc, really scarring and ruining the scenic value of the land.
Most landowners are not aware of this.
You can not pick up a real estate magazine of hill country land for sale that does not use the words " Million Dollar Views". People don't pay for those million dollar views if they have an energy corridor running through them.
They say they give landowners fair market value for the land. But they make billions off the cubic feet of gas that passes through that landowners land every single day.
If it was a just and fair system the landowner should get a percentage of that profit for as long as the gas or electricity is crossing his land.
People in Texas just "think" they actually own their land. You may pay for it, pay taxes on it, improve it, have title to it ...,.. but in reality it can be taken from you in heartbeat.
Our forefathers would be turning over in their graves.
This is nothing new. Pipelines are the country's best kept secret and safest mode of transportation. They already exist and operate relatively safely everywhere. The hill country Envinronment will be fine. Get a good lawyer and just be sure to protect your personal interest.
The pipeline company has sent a booklet out to landowners making them aware and procedures to follow if a leak should occurr.
In this booklet they say that a 48"
Gas pipeline could effect a radius of 3/4 mile should an explosion occur. If that happened during a typical windy dry day during the summer in the hill country it would be catastrophic and the environment would not be "just fine" imho.
In this booklet they say that a 48"
Gas pipeline could effect a radius of 3/4 mile should an explosion occur. If that happened during a typical windy dry day during the summer in the hill country it would be catastrophic and the environment would not be "just fine" imho.
These are right though Gillespie, Blanco and Hays?The Fall Guy said:
That is part of the one going right thru the damn Hill country. 1st 1 to do so. Right thru Gillespie, Blanco, and Hays.
The hill country will be permanately changed. This is just 1 of many.
https://goo.gl/maps/y7Mx6nPEjTq
when was the last time a pipeline exploded?Gunny456 said:
The pipeline company has sent a booklet out to landowners making them aware and procedures to follow if a leak should occurr.
In this booklet they say that a 48"
Gas pipeline could effect a radius of 3/4 mile should an explosion occur. If that happened during a typical windy dry day during the summer in the hill country it would be catastrophic and the environment would not be "just fine" imho.
Let's set a side the emotion okay?
Ragoo said:when was the last time a pipeline exploded?Gunny456 said:
The pipeline company has sent a booklet out to landowners making them aware and procedures to follow if a leak should occurr.
In this booklet they say that a 48"
Gas pipeline could effect a radius of 3/4 mile should an explosion occur. If that happened during a typical windy dry day during the summer in the hill country it would be catastrophic and the environment would not be "just fine" imho.
Let's set a side the emotion okay?
Would you build a house on top of a pipeline?
this is incorrect. it is a common carrier pipeline.Gunny456 said:
You are correct. The one that is active right now is the Kinder-Morgan pipeline. It will traverse many hill country counties including Kimble, Gillespie, Blanco etc.
About 6 months ago they started contacting landowners for rights to easements. At that time they stated they DID NOT have eminent domain as they were a privately entity and were making lots of profit selling the gas.
The majority of the landowners declined them and their project was falling apart so they used political strings and petitioned the RR Commission for eminent domain and was granted it.
As many landowners have stated this is a direct abuse of eminent domain as this is not for the greater good of the people of Texas.
The other issue is that three years ago the LCRA ran a large transmission line right through the hill country and was poorly managed and left a really bad taste in the mouth for most landowners.
The PUC had so much bad PR from that project that they are now trying to form "energy corridors " so they only fight one group of landowners.
Allowing a pipeline company to come through property is not the real issue. The issue is that easement will then be used as a corridor that will entail multiple pipelines, transmission lines, water lines etc etc, really scarring and ruining the scenic value of the land.
Most landowners are not aware of this.
You can not pick up a real estate magazine of hill country land for sale that does not use the words " Million Dollar Views". People don't pay for those million dollar views if they have an energy corridor running through them.
They say they give landowners fair market value for the land. But they make billions off the cubic feet of gas that passes through that landowners land every single day.
If it was a just and fair system the landowner should get a percentage of that profit for as long as the gas or electricity is crossing his land.
People in Texas just "think" they actually own their land. You may pay for it, pay taxes on it, improve it, have title to it ...,.. but in reality it can be taken from you in heartbeat.
Our forefathers would be turning over in their graves.
Quote:
Generally speaking, common carrier pipelines in Texas have a statutory right of eminent domain.
i wouldn't build a house on a interstate either. Or under transmission power lines.Burdizzo said:Ragoo said:when was the last time a pipeline exploded?Gunny456 said:
The pipeline company has sent a booklet out to landowners making them aware and procedures to follow if a leak should occurr.
In this booklet they say that a 48"
Gas pipeline could effect a radius of 3/4 mile should an explosion occur. If that happened during a typical windy dry day during the summer in the hill country it would be catastrophic and the environment would not be "just fine" imho.
Let's set a side the emotion okay?
Would you build a house on top of a pipeline?
But I would walk my dog or drive a gator, or other surface activity on a pipeline ROW versus the others.
Also, I would have no issue living near a pipeline ROW. In fact, most of us live closer to natural gas pipelines than we even know. Especially if you have natural gas as a fuel source at your house.
And how many explosions occur?Gunny456 said:
The pipeline company has sent a booklet out to landowners making them aware and procedures to follow if a leak should occurr.
In this booklet they say that a 48"
Gas pipeline could effect a radius of 3/4 mile should an explosion occur. If that happened during a typical windy dry day during the summer in the hill country it would be catastrophic and the environment would not be "just fine" imho.
Sure, things could happen. Hell, a meteor could impact the land and cause all life on earth to go extinct as easily as well.
I'd argue that non-native species of plants and animals, cigarette butts and the overuse of the natural water capabilities of the area has had a significantly greater and longer lasting impact than what might happen in the highly unlikely event a pipeline leak and subsequent explosion occurs.
1. Seems to me, and I know nothing so this is 100% pure speculation - that Kinder Morgan did things the correct way - they tried to not use ED and wanted to negotiate with landowners first. At least that is one way of looking at how you described it above. And arguing that pipelines aren't for the greater good of Texas is, frankly, laughable. Houston is the energy capital of the world. Those pipelines provide feedstocks to the literally billions of dollars of infrastructure in the petrochem industry along the Texas coast, of which that industry produces litterally billions of dollars of refined gasoline and petroleum by-products (both raw stock and finished product) that is then sold across the entire world. The petrochem industry is one of the single biggest GDP producers in Texas and pumps billions of dollars into the economy of Texas from start to finish.Gunny456 said:
You are correct. The one that is active right now is the Kinder-Morgan pipeline. It will traverse many hill country counties including Kimble, Gillespie, Blanco etc.
About 6 months ago they started contacting landowners for rights to easements. At that time they stated they DID NOT have eminent domain as they were a privately entity and were making lots of profit selling the gas.
1. The majority of the landowners declined them and their project was falling apart so they used political strings and petitioned the RR Commission for eminent domain and was granted it.
As many landowners have stated this is a direct abuse of eminent domain as this is not for the greater good of the people of Texas.
The other issue is that three years ago the LCRA ran a large transmission line right through the hill country and was poorly managed and left a really bad taste in the mouth for most landowners.
The PUC had so much bad PR from that project that they are now trying to form "energy corridors " so they only fight one group of landowners.
2. Allowing a pipeline company to come through property is not the real issue. The issue is that easement will then be used as a corridor that will entail multiple pipelines, transmission lines, water lines etc etc, really scarring and ruining the scenic value of the land.
Most landowners are not aware of this.
3. You can not pick up a real estate magazine of hill country land for sale that does not use the words " Million Dollar Views". People don't pay for those million dollar views if they have an energy corridor running through them.
4. They say they give landowners fair market value for the land. But they make billions off the cubic feet of gas that passes through that landowners land every single day.
If it was a just and fair system the landowner should get a percentage of that profit for as long as the gas or electricity is crossing his land.
5. People in Texas just "think" they actually own their land. You may pay for it, pay taxes on it, improve it, have title to it ...,.. but in reality it can be taken from you in heartbeat.
6. Our forefathers would be turning over in their graves.
2. Hopefully somebody else can comment, but my understanding is that an easement or ROW is not an open highway for all comers, which is why individual pipelines have to go through the process time and again.
3. Now you are getting into sheer marketing and the feels with the "million dollar views" mantra. And as stated in another post here, most people don't have a clue how close they are to pipelines, million dollar views or thousand dollar views.
4. If you can negotiate that, have at it. But that is a really solid progressive/millenial/socialst type of statement you made there - old evil rich person is making big money, i deserve some of it too!!!! Sorry, but that is simply a garbage statement IMO that reeks of entitlement mentality and that it is somehow "not fair!". And, honestly, if that "just and fair" system you described existed, you'd be complaining about the fact that gas costs $10 a gallon and that your smart phone was 10x in price - because the costs of that "just and fair" system would be passed to the consumers.
5. You are correct on this one - we really only rent the land from the state, nobody actually owns land in Texas. Even if you have paid the mortgage off free and clear, try not paying your taxes and see what happens.
6. I suppose it depends on what forefathers you are referring to. My guess is some of them would be turning over, others would be in awe of the progress we have made as a civilization. Not every single forefather was a 100% "ma rights!" person. And they left contingencies in place for the need for public use of land for a reason too. I don't want them abused, don't get me wrong, and unfortunately sometimes it does happen for sure.
Would you build your house on top of a drainage ditch? What about a sewer manhole? Would you build your house on top of one of those? What about in the middle of a field that floods all the time because it's swampy and low, would you build your house there? What about on a dry creek bed, would you build your house there?Burdizzo said:Ragoo said:when was the last time a pipeline exploded?Gunny456 said:
The pipeline company has sent a booklet out to landowners making them aware and procedures to follow if a leak should occurr.
In this booklet they say that a 48"
Gas pipeline could effect a radius of 3/4 mile should an explosion occur. If that happened during a typical windy dry day during the summer in the hill country it would be catastrophic and the environment would not be "just fine" imho.
Let's set a side the emotion okay?
Would you build a house on top of a pipeline?
Seriously, what kind of question is this?
schmellba99 said:Would you build your house on top of a drainage ditch? What about a sewer manhole? Would you build your house on top of one of those? What about in the middle of a field that floods all the time because it's swampy and low, would you build your house there? What about on a dry creek bed, would you build your house there?Burdizzo said:Ragoo said:when was the last time a pipeline exploded?Gunny456 said:
The pipeline company has sent a booklet out to landowners making them aware and procedures to follow if a leak should occurr.
In this booklet they say that a 48"
Gas pipeline could effect a radius of 3/4 mile should an explosion occur. If that happened during a typical windy dry day during the summer in the hill country it would be catastrophic and the environment would not be "just fine" imho.
Let's set a side the emotion okay?
Would you build a house on top of a pipeline?
Seriously, what kind of question is this?
It is a question pertaining to why it is such a good thing to have a pipeline easement crossing your property that may or not add value to it.
Typically speaking, it's cheaper to run infrastructure adjacent to existing infrastructure because it doesn't "re-damage" property that was already damaged.Quote:
2. Hopefully somebody else can comment, but my understanding is that an easement or ROW is not an open highway for all comers, which is why individual pipelines have to go through the process time and again.
However, you still get paid for the easement.
I'm not opposed to property with a "corridor". Future income is likely.
it won't add value, it isn't an improvement. But the boogie man that it will drastically decrease value is way over stated. Especially on property that is generational. Value is just a number at that point.Burdizzo said:schmellba99 said:Would you build your house on top of a drainage ditch? What about a sewer manhole? Would you build your house on top of one of those? What about in the middle of a field that floods all the time because it's swampy and low, would you build your house there? What about on a dry creek bed, would you build your house there?Burdizzo said:Ragoo said:when was the last time a pipeline exploded?Gunny456 said:
The pipeline company has sent a booklet out to landowners making them aware and procedures to follow if a leak should occurr.
In this booklet they say that a 48"
Gas pipeline could effect a radius of 3/4 mile should an explosion occur. If that happened during a typical windy dry day during the summer in the hill country it would be catastrophic and the environment would not be "just fine" imho.
Let's set a side the emotion okay?
Would you build a house on top of a pipeline?
Seriously, what kind of question is this?
It is a question pertaining to why it is such a good thing to have a pipeline easement crossing your property that may or not add value to it.
I build major pipelines...every line you've heard of...my company has been a part of.
I am a huge tree lover and pipelines hurt my feelings b/c trees are cut. The "scars" you speak of are not really noticeable west of I35. Right of Way is also a great place to hunt ... i know b/c my crews get aimed at all the time!
I sympathize with you, but the infrastructure being built through Central Texas in the next 2-4 years is going to be vast so hope a corridor comes through your place and you get paid. Otherwise you are going to be very upset b/c a bunch of newer operators think pipelining through Central Texas is more intelligent than previous routing. This is what happens when you allow energy traders to build stuff. Great for dynamite companies...and that is it.
My hope for the industry is that someday new pipe isnt allowed unless you take out existing pipe. Very rarely do I see a re-lay of pipe outside of the upper midwest. Abandoning a pipe after useful life is over should not be allowed.
I am a huge tree lover and pipelines hurt my feelings b/c trees are cut. The "scars" you speak of are not really noticeable west of I35. Right of Way is also a great place to hunt ... i know b/c my crews get aimed at all the time!
I sympathize with you, but the infrastructure being built through Central Texas in the next 2-4 years is going to be vast so hope a corridor comes through your place and you get paid. Otherwise you are going to be very upset b/c a bunch of newer operators think pipelining through Central Texas is more intelligent than previous routing. This is what happens when you allow energy traders to build stuff. Great for dynamite companies...and that is it.
My hope for the industry is that someday new pipe isnt allowed unless you take out existing pipe. Very rarely do I see a re-lay of pipe outside of the upper midwest. Abandoning a pipe after useful life is over should not be allowed.
Here's one from just a tad over two years ago:Ragoo said:when was the last time a pipeline exploded?Gunny456 said:
The pipeline company has sent a booklet out to landowners making them aware and procedures to follow if a leak should occurr.
In this booklet they say that a 48"
Gas pipeline could effect a radius of 3/4 mile should an explosion occur. If that happened during a typical windy dry day during the summer in the hill country it would be catastrophic and the environment would not be "just fine" imho.
Let's set a side the emotion okay?
I'm aware of one that exploded much more recently.eric76 said:Here's one from just a tad over two years ago:Ragoo said:when was the last time a pipeline exploded?Gunny456 said:
The pipeline company has sent a booklet out to landowners making them aware and procedures to follow if a leak should occurr.
In this booklet they say that a 48"
Gas pipeline could effect a radius of 3/4 mile should an explosion occur. If that happened during a typical windy dry day during the summer in the hill country it would be catastrophic and the environment would not be "just fine" imho.
Let's set a side the emotion okay?
Having said that, it's still the best way to move product from A to B.
I should have been more specific to transmission pipelines. That is the nature of the thread. Gathering systems are a completely different animal altogether.
Yeah. Explosions along pipeline routes aren't real common, but they do happen.Sooper Jeenyus said:I'm aware of one that exploded much more recently.eric76 said:Here's one from just a tad over two years ago:Ragoo said:when was the last time a pipeline exploded?Gunny456 said:
The pipeline company has sent a booklet out to landowners making them aware and procedures to follow if a leak should occurr.
In this booklet they say that a 48"
Gas pipeline could effect a radius of 3/4 mile should an explosion occur. If that happened during a typical windy dry day during the summer in the hill country it would be catastrophic and the environment would not be "just fine" imho.
Let's set a side the emotion okay?
Having said that, it's still the best way to move product from A to B.
I was inside a building about 15 miles away from the one in the video at the time it happened. I heard a noise but didn't realize it was an explosion.
TETCO 30in line blew up 2 days ago. That said, it is still incredibly uncommon.
Yeah. That one was a gathering system. I don't remember the cause of that explosion. It did scare the people in the nearest house.Ragoo said:
I should have been more specific to transmission pipelines. That is the nature of the thread. Gathering systems are a completely different animal altogether.
We have problems around here with pipelines floating to the surface over time. I don't know if that is limited to gathering system lines, but I don't think that it is.
Sooper Jeenyus said:I'm aware of one that exploded much more recently.eric76 said:Here's one from just a tad over two years ago:Ragoo said:when was the last time a pipeline exploded?Gunny456 said:
The pipeline company has sent a booklet out to landowners making them aware and procedures to follow if a leak should occurr.
In this booklet they say that a 48"
Gas pipeline could effect a radius of 3/4 mile should an explosion occur. If that happened during a typical windy dry day during the summer in the hill country it would be catastrophic and the environment would not be "just fine" imho.
Let's set a side the emotion okay?
Having said that, it's still the best way to move product from A to B.
I agree it is safer than rail or highway.
My problem is the abuse of ED and the unavoidable kick in the groin to property rights.
The Fall Guy said:
That is part of the one going right thru the damn Hill country. 1st 1 to do so. Right thru Gillespie, Blanco, and Hays.
The hill country will be permanately changed. This is just 1 of many.
No it wont. There are pipelines all over the US, I guarantee that you drive by pipelines all the time and have no idea that they are there.
Pipelines are in a lot more "pristine" and environmentally sensitive areas that the Texas Hill Country, none of which are "changed forever".
Know what changes the Hill Country forever? Hippies. Austin's ever expanding sub-divisions, perceived land values as opposed to real ones, and the staggering traffic.
Ragoo said:it won't add value, it isn't an improvement. But the boogie man that it will drastically decrease value is way over stated. Especially on property that is generational. Value is just a number at that point.Burdizzo said:schmellba99 said:Would you build your house on top of a drainage ditch? What about a sewer manhole? Would you build your house on top of one of those? What about in the middle of a field that floods all the time because it's swampy and low, would you build your house there? What about on a dry creek bed, would you build your house there?Burdizzo said:Ragoo said:when was the last time a pipeline exploded?Gunny456 said:
The pipeline company has sent a booklet out to landowners making them aware and procedures to follow if a leak should occurr.
In this booklet they say that a 48"
Gas pipeline could effect a radius of 3/4 mile should an explosion occur. If that happened during a typical windy dry day during the summer in the hill country it would be catastrophic and the environment would not be "just fine" imho.
Let's set a side the emotion okay?
Would you build a house on top of a pipeline?
Seriously, what kind of question is this?
It is a question pertaining to why it is such a good thing to have a pipeline easement crossing your property that may or not add value to it.
Most land that is generational didn't get that way by the owners letting people run roughshod over them.
Separate issue.Burdizzo said:Sooper Jeenyus said:I'm aware of one that exploded much more recently.eric76 said:Here's one from just a tad over two years ago:Ragoo said:when was the last time a pipeline exploded?Gunny456 said:
The pipeline company has sent a booklet out to landowners making them aware and procedures to follow if a leak should occurr.
In this booklet they say that a 48"
Gas pipeline could effect a radius of 3/4 mile should an explosion occur. If that happened during a typical windy dry day during the summer in the hill country it would be catastrophic and the environment would not be "just fine" imho.
Let's set a side the emotion okay?
Having said that, it's still the best way to move product from A to B.
I agree it is safer than rail or highway.
My problem is the abuse of ED and the unavoidable kick in the groin to property rights.
Eminent Domain (assuming that was your reference
) is a double-edged sword. We all want the things those rights-of-way provide but no one wants their individual property rights infringed upon. Sooper Jeenyus said:Separate issue.Burdizzo said:Sooper Jeenyus said:I'm aware of one that exploded much more recently.eric76 said:Here's one from just a tad over two years ago:Ragoo said:when was the last time a pipeline exploded?Gunny456 said:
The pipeline company has sent a booklet out to landowners making them aware and procedures to follow if a leak should occurr.
In this booklet they say that a 48"
Gas pipeline could effect a radius of 3/4 mile should an explosion occur. If that happened during a typical windy dry day during the summer in the hill country it would be catastrophic and the environment would not be "just fine" imho.
Let's set a side the emotion okay?
Having said that, it's still the best way to move product from A to B.
I agree it is safer than rail or highway.
My problem is the abuse of ED and the unavoidable kick in the groin to property rights.
Eminent Domain (assuming that was your reference
Separate but not unrelated. The issues are intertwined. Property owner is forced to encur a devaluation of his property and be compensated in today's dollars for an encumbrance that can last in perpetuity. No one has a crystal ball to know what the property will be worth in several generations (assuming it does not leave the family), but if future generations continue to own familial land there is no way they can get compensated for lost property value appreciation.
I have always felt like easements for things like energy utility ought to have additional conditions:
1. An expiration date that forces the user and fee owner to renegotiate periodically like a lease.
2. A value placed on the commodity that travels through the easement (ie. $/MCF, $/bbl, $/acre-ft, $/KW-h). That way the property owner gets a beneficial compensation for the long term over the forced encumbrance. This too should be required to be renegotiated periodically.
Market data says pipelines don't decrease property values.
Kurt Gowdy said:
Market data says pipelines don't decrease property values.
Then why are pipeline operators paying for easements?
Because that's the cost of acquiring the piece of property. The landowner is selling to the pipeline company a portion of their "bundle of rights".
Property owner now has diminished use of his property. If that isn't decrease in value, then we have nothing further to debate.
This is not accurate.Gunny456 said:
You are correct. The one that is active right now is the Kinder-Morgan pipeline. It will traverse many hill country counties including Kimble, Gillespie, Blanco etc.
About 6 months ago they started contacting landowners for rights to easements. At that time they stated they DID NOT have eminent domain as they were a privately entity and were making lots of profit selling the gas.
The majority of the landowners declined them and their project was falling apart so they used political strings and petitioned the RR Commission for eminent domain and was granted it.
As many landowners have stated this is a direct abuse of eminent domain as this is not for the greater good of the people of Texas.
Gas pipelines, any gas pipeline CAN get eminent domain in TX. That has been law for a very long time
However, most companies, including Kinder Morgan, would rather make a deal with the landowners than go through all the issues with the legal process. So, when the project starts and the question is asked, "do you have eminent domain?", the answer is always technically "no", but its not because they dont "have" eminent domain, its because they don't want to use it unless its absolutely necessary. Did they really have the ability to get eminent domain? Yes, and it has nothing to do with "political strings".
Also, the project was never "falling apart" and it is funded. There is another project in the state that may or may not be funded, but the one you are describing is.
Because the current administration has gotten the Europeans and Chinese to buy more gas from us, and less from Russia, there has to be a way to get the product(Natural Gas) in the Permian, to the market. That means more pipelines.
The statement that this is not for the "greater good of Texas" is also inaccurate. A lot of people are waiting on these pipelines to start and eventually be finished so they can get to work.
Further, the land is not being "taken" the landowner still owns it. This is an easement that is being paid for. The land can still be used for Agricultural purposes etc., it just can't be built on directly. But that is true for streets, powerlines etc.
Those "million dollar views" are hurt vastly more so by McMansions on 5 acre "ranches" than they ever are by a pipeline easement. I also love the "move it somewhere else" attitude that some people have, becuase as we all know, as long as its not in "my backyard" its ok....right? Put it in South Texas with "those people".....
Also, I read on one of the posts above someone stated that they should wait until the company makes an offer to consult with an attorney. I do not recommend that you wait this long. This needs to be done early enough in the process so that survey restrictions can be agreed upon, notifications for access can be given etc etc. Waiting until the last minute or hoping that it will go away is a bad policy.
I'm discussing market value - what the market determines a property is worth.
If you insist on using emotion rather than logic, then you are right - we have nothing to discuss.
If you insist on using emotion rather than logic, then you are right - we have nothing to discuss.
Easements are not free. There is a transfer of value/worth. There is nothing emotional about that business transaction.
The emotion comes from the fact that one party is an unwilling participant who doesn't have the option to walk away from the negotiating table.
How many easements would you be willing to allow for free?
The emotion comes from the fact that one party is an unwilling participant who doesn't have the option to walk away from the negotiating table.
How many easements would you be willing to allow for free?
Featured Stories
See All
33:10
31m ago
6.6k
59:34
1h ago
3.9k
Earley's introduction marks a new chapter for Texas A&M baseball
by Olin Buchanan
2025 Danville (CA) linebacker Marco Jones commits to Texas A&M
by Ryan Brauninger
59:34
3h ago
16k
2025 Richmond Randle DT Chace Sims commits to Texas A&M
by Ryan Brauninger
ReturnOfTheAg
Alberts Offers Reply to Schloss via Houston Chronicle
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
555
EastTX_Ag21
Alberts Offers Reply to Schloss via Houston Chronicle
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
325