Rover Pipeline files against Landowner in Monroe Co. Ohio

According to Monroe County Beacon, April 16 and available today April 14:

Rover Pipeline LLC vs. Raymond Snell.

from Monroe County Clerk of Courts site:

Complaint is for Temporary restraining order; preliminary and permanent  injunction.

Snell owns property in Lee TWP  Section 2    right in path of Rover Pipeline

Views: 6032

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by R on April 21, 2015 at 8:44am

Michael Allen please note the following link  http://efile.mpsc.state.mi.us/efile/docs/17020/0042.pdf  referencing  an actual sales study of properties with a pipeline easements. For a prospective informed buyer fully aware of the presents of a pipeline easement.  Has also researched the many limitations in terms of property use as well mortgage and insurance issues, in most  cases, rather than offering a lower purchase price will simply move on to other available properties on the market without a pipeline easement.  The conclusion being in order to develop or sell a property with a pipeline easement the seller must seek out an uninformed buyer in order to sell at near full market value without the pipeline easement.  Uniformed buyers that do not need a mortgage do not come along all that often, therefore I suspect many of the properties with pipeline easements are simply pulled from the market and therefore the likely reason pipeline companies can report no loss in property values with a pipeline easement.

Permalink Reply by Dexter Green on April 21, 2015 at 7:57am

I suppose if you ignore zoning laws, building codes, environmental laws, and common sense then your position makes perfect sense.

Permalink Reply by Joe Bezel on April 21, 2015 at 3:36pm

Some posters on this thread have stated that if we want energy independence and cheap gasoline, we must construct new pipelines and landowners need to cede right-of-ways to pipeline companies, even if they don't feel adequately compensated, and the use of eminent domain is proper against recalcitrant landowners.  I disagree with this for several reasons.

 

Consider the case of MarkWest.  They have probably built more large-diameter pipelines in eastern Ohio than anyone.  They aren't using eminent domain at all to my knowledge.  They negotiate with landowners and reach a deal, or they reroute the line.  Nobody has a gun to their head.  Pipeline companies can operate this way too, if they want to.  It is harder and more expensive, but doable.

 

Sure, energy independence is desirable, but it does not depend on whether or not I choose to allow a certain pipeline company to construct a ROW across my property.  The line can be rerouted, or if the product is NGLs, it can be shipped by rail or truck, as is happening in Harrison County.  Nobody is going to freeze next winter if I say no to an ethane pipeline.  In addition, manufacturing jobs are desirable for our country.  If Acme Plastics wants to build a plant in one of my fields, they are free to make me an offer for my land.  I am free to accept, counteroffer or just say "no thanks".  If I say "no", it doesn't mean they can't build their plant, it just means they can take their good idea and build it down the road.  Pipelines should be no different.

 

This idea that eminent domain is proper because the project is a "public good" is also questionable.  If a line transports natural gas from Ohio to Canada, what public good is served?  I'm sure the Canadians appreciate it, but the "public" that should benefit are Americans, and it is difficult to see how the public at large benefits in that case.  Even harder to justify are eminent domain takings for ethane lines.  Nobody heats their home with ethane.  It is an industrial chemical used to make plastics.  Commercial transactions are beneficial, but do not justify an eminent domain taking.

 

Landowners saying "no" to a pipeline aren't against energy independence or progress, they are saying "not on my land".  Our property rights are far more important than a pipeline project in the scheme of things.  Michael Allen, you mentioned that you have gotten more pushback in Ohio than in other states.  Maybe we feel more strongly about our property rights in Ohio than people do in other states.  That makes me feel good about my fellow Ohioans.

Permalink Reply by RJMB on April 22, 2015 at 2:46am

Freedom to do whatever we so choose with our "stuff" trumps the made up notion of "public good" whereby the definition of public good is being defined behind closed doors between parties having a financial interest in stealing my stuff. By the same token, merely calling these pipeline entities a utility simply doesn't make it so. You can call a pig a duck as much as you wish, but it will always be a pig...

Permalink Reply by Corvette on April 22, 2015 at 3:38am

Well written Joe. You are correct, I had dealings with Mark West 2 years ago. After several meetings I told them to go around me. They did and there were no problems. Very professional to deal with.

 I offered Sunoco an alternate route 15 months ago. Their response was  " we don't care if you like the route, we'll take you to court and take it off of you". I have 50 acres and they want to run the pipeline in my yard near my house. My attorney told me one pipeline now and one later. It will be continuous construction and our quality of home life will be ruined. I have attorneys and waiting to go to court.

Permalink Reply by Michael Allen on April 22, 2015 at 5:19am

The judge will not and can not alter the route. The only thing the judge can rule on is the money. It's all about how you try and negotiate. If you are nasty and argumentative then you probably won't get any where, but if you are just firm but remain professional, you will get alot more in the way of easement language changes and maybe some route adjustment. MOst companies will send you their easement document in a WORD format and you or your attorney can "red line" changes to send back to the company for review. Sometimes the company already has a "special clause" referencing your subject that is pre-approved for a change. Again, it's all about how you negotiate.

Permalink Reply by Corvette on April 22, 2015 at 5:41am

Well Mike, I have been professional and so has my attorneys. You can't negotiate with thugs. We'll go to court to prove they do not have eminent domain. A trial by jury, landowner may get a fair shake that way.

Permalink Reply by RJMB on April 22, 2015 at 5:47am

Get the press involved such as 60 Minutes or the NYT to shed light on your situation if you can get their attention. These guys despise an open forum with respect to how they conduct business.

Permalink Reply by Michael Allen on April 22, 2015 at 4:51am

Here are 2 reports to assist you all; one is an appraisal report showing the false notions associated with "random" questioning of non, real buyers. I have another study done by an Oregon natural gas company that shows even more dramatic conclusions where less than 1% of the potential buyers didn't buy a property due to the existence of a high pressure gas pipeline. The other study is about pipeline safety. The reality is that most pipeline accidents occur with small distribution lines to houses where the landowner or some contractor didn't "call before you dig" and broke a pipeline. 

Attachments:
Permalink Reply by RJMB on April 22, 2015 at 5:05am

Any fool can write copy. I can find "reports" showing that lobotomies are "sound medical procedures" when we now know otherwise...

Permalink Reply by Dexter Green on April 22, 2015 at 11:07am

Proof of extreme NIMBY mentality.  

Permalink Reply by R on April 22, 2015 at 11:57am

Thank you Michael Allen for the links. Please do not consider my comments as confrontational as I am simply attempting to gain as much information as quickly as possible. However it would seem the 1994 study may be a little to old to considered in a condemnation proceeding. The pipeline safety material is readily available on the web, but does not really address the issue of property values. The Oregon natural gas company study you mention might be good, but would likely be considered bias in a condemnation proceeding.

Please let me direct you to a current third party source of estimated property value reduction from a pipeline easement. The following link is in reference to statements by the Medina County, Ohio Auditor. He has also offered in other public statements that any effected property owner need only to stop by the Auditor's office and they will be informed of how much their property assessments will be lowered because of the pipeline easement.

Pipeline right-of-ways have negative impacts to land values and real estate tax receipts in our communities. Decades of ill defined deregulated future pipeline projects with no reasonable safety setbacks create unknowns to real estate markets, depressing land prices and future development. Ohio Medina County Auditor Michael Kovach estimates the devaluation ranged from 10-15% of the least effected parcels (furthest from the pipeline) to 20% or more for the potentially developable parcels.

http://www.sent-trib.com/opinion/letters/pipelines-bad-for-economy/...

http://www.ieca-us.com/wp-content/uploads/02.13.15_Franken-Letter-to-Moniz-LNG-Exports.pdf

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service