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 Zack Jameson on April 16, 2015 at 6:20am

I have no problem with a pipeline company having a FERC designation. The problem I have is when they use it to low ball the hell out of the landowner. If you ask for the "going rate" on the pipeline then they cry wolf and force eminent domain down your throat. It's like two kids playing a game and one is a spoiled brat who wants all the rules in their favor. FERC + eminemt domain = bully tactics.

Permalink Reply by Joe Bezel on April 16, 2015 at 5:37pm

Corvette, you are absolutely right about Sunoco.  They are trying to push their ethane line through with threats of eminent domain.  Even though their miserable pipeline doesn't qualify for ED for numerous reasons, if you don't have the means, you can't fight them in court.  I have recently met with a number of attorneys representing landowners in Sunoco's corridor, and they are preparing for a fight using solid legal arguments. After due consideration of their final offer of $4.76 per foot packaged with a threat of using ED to seize the ROW, I am looking forward to facing them off in court.  An argument can be made for using ED for natural gas, propane or crude oil pipelines, but ethane is an industrial chemical used to make plastics.  Sunoco's position is especially weak, as their line goes to an export terminal on the east coast for export overseas.  No "public good" there!

Permalink Reply by Corvette on April 17, 2015 at 4:54am

Joe, I have every intent to fight in court if need be, This is all about profit for Sunoco and does absolutely nothing for the public good.

Permalink Reply by Dexter Green on April 17, 2015 at 5:01am

They're attempting to designate the company as a public utility, which would give them the power of eminent domain.  I don't think they'll win that argument in court.  Hard to see how they'd be able to call ethane a utility fuel in a broad enough context to qualify as a PUC.

Permalink Reply by Michael Allen on April 17, 2015 at 5:44am

If Sunoco isn't declared a utility either by the PUC or by definition, then they will have no power of eminent domain and will have to buy their entire route across agreeable landowners. If they do get the utility designation, then they will still have to prove they negotiated in good faith. That usually means at least 3 attempts to come to an agreeable conclusion and that includes the easement document language and/or the price offered. If the landowner fails to negotiate, then the condemnation process will begin as I outlined below. Also be aware that if the company does take a landowner to court, the company document will be filed and no changes will be made in court. The only thing the judge will rule on is the value/price based upon the appraisal, he/she cannot rule on the location or the conditions of the pipeline or construction requirements.

Permalink Reply by RJMB on April 17, 2015 at 5:59am

It's people like MA that make our Founding Fathers turn in their graves. Private property is exactly that, and taking another person's anything is contrary to what America stands for. It is that simple...

Permalink Reply by Michael Allen on April 17, 2015 at 7:26am

No, according to you, if one person was against forming the perfect Union, then it wouldn't have happened. "For the public good" is exactly what it means. According to you, we would never have had a telephone service, if one person decided they didn't want a phone line or fiber optic cable to cross their land. Face it you are a NIMBY not in my backyard; as long as you are not affected, it's ok, but you sure like the fruits of the utility. 

Permalink Reply by RJMB on April 17, 2015 at 5:56am

What! You have been reading too much of the Communist Manifesto. Anyone that thinks he or she should have more to say about another person's possessions is simply wrong...

Permalink Reply by RJMB on April 20, 2015 at 9:51am

Your references to the Communist Manifesto are fine if you were in the former Soviet Union, but this is America, and in America you have what is yours and I have what is mine and NOBODY should have control over your things but you. Employing communist tactics in order to wrestle away another person's property is inherently wrong and corrupt, regardless of your euphemisms...

Permalink Reply by R on April 16, 2015 at 6:30am

From this article it looks as though the courts with the condemnation process are starting to compensate landowners for future loss of property use and value.  An open ended easement will limit property use for a very long long time, would it not? http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/texas-landowners-win-21-mil...

Permalink Reply by Michael Allen on April 16, 2015 at 7:19am

The Texas arguments of damages to the remainder will never stand the test. I have been involved in numerous eminent domain appraisals, and there is simply no evidence of the existence of a pipeline  causing a devaluation of property values. Even in the most expensive of subdivisions, there is no discount per acre or lot due to a pipeline being present. Power lines are a different story since you can see them every day. Once a pipeline is in the ground and the grass grows, the only restriction is no permanent structure can be allowed on the easement. Fences, roads, parking lots and temporary structures without a concrete slab, can all be approved for encroachment. All manor of landscaping with approved shrubs can also be approved. 

If you have ever been in SW Texas, you would certainly laugh at saying the presence of a pipeline is de-valuing the property values.

Permalink Reply by R on April 16, 2015 at 10:33am

Looks like the court decision will stand. "Earlier this month a Fort Worth appeals court denied reconsideration of its decision in favor of a landowner"

Here is another article about the court decision.  https://www.texastribune.org/2014/06/18/pipeline-companies-paying-m...

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service