The legislative battle over eminent domain for private purpose projects continues to rage in Missouri. There are several months left in the legislative session, and the battle is already half over, with the House overwhelmingly supporting new legislation to prohibit the use of eminent domain for merchant transmission projects. Now all eyes are on the Senate, and the people of Missouri will support this legislation wholeheartedly.
Fantastically well-written op eds are appearing in Missouri news outlets from Missouri Farm Bureau. I particularly love Eric Bohl's comparison of GBE to a private purpose toll road. It is a must read!
Fantastically well-written op eds are appearing in Missouri news outlets from Missouri Farm Bureau. I particularly love Eric Bohl's comparison of GBE to a private purpose toll road. It is a must read!
Imagine if Warren Buffett wanted to build a private toll road across northern Missouri. The billionaire would charge cars $100 apiece to race from his home city of Omaha, Nebraska, to Nashville, Tennessee, pocketing a huge chunk of profit on each trip. He might call it the “Music City Express.” Unfortunately, the toll road would have no exits in Missouri. Cars could only get on in Nebraska and exit in Tennessee. No local residents could use it at all.
Even though the Music City Express would make a fortune for Buffett, he would probably have trouble convincing every single landowner in his path to sell. The road would do them no good — it would just be a nuisance and take away their land. Surely a few holdouts would foil his plans. If only his project qualified as a “public use,” he could invoke the governmental power of eminent domain to force unwilling landowners to sell. But the project isn’t designed to benefit the public — it’s meant to enrich its owner.
And there's lots more, particularly about GBE (or Buffett) tossing money at cities in another part of the state in order to create a false "need" to toss the northern part of the state under the bus in order to benefit cities in the southern part. You've got to read it!
Another fabulous op ed written by Blake Hurst is appearing in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. You can read that one here. Hurst makes a very important point:
Another fabulous op ed written by Blake Hurst is appearing in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. You can read that one here. Hurst makes a very important point:
The promotional literature for the company touts the project as a “free market solution to meet the growing demand for sustainable energy.” Well, there is nothing in a “free market” that gives entities the right to condemn property owned by the residents of Missouri and taking it for a private business.
When normal utilities are granted the ability to use eminent domain, their electricity rates are regulated by the state of Missouri. In exchange for the convenience of siting their facilities and the money saved because sellers have no bargaining power, the PSC protects consumers and makes sure that the benefits of eminent domain are passed along to electricity consumers.
The benefits of using eminent domain for GBE go into the Chicago-based pockets of Invenergy CEO Michael Polsky. They don't go to electric customers in Missouri. Even the pie-in-the-sky savings of $12M in electric costs each year aren't drawn from eminent domain savings. The Cities will save money either way because their contract price will not change if eminent domain is used. They would still get the "benefit" if eminent domain for GBE is prohibited by law.
And then Hurst absolutely nails exactly what I was thinking after reading American Wind Energy Association's breathy, disconnected push for GBE that absolutely fails to resonate with Missourians.
And then Hurst absolutely nails exactly what I was thinking after reading American Wind Energy Association's breathy, disconnected push for GBE that absolutely fails to resonate with Missourians.
Tom Kiernan, writing in favor of the project in the Feb. 12 Post-Dispatch, has made it clear that the project, part of a multi-state effort known as the Grain Belt Express, would be “difficult” to complete without eminent domain. But his op-ed piece seemed designed to avoid actually mentioning the words “eminent domain.” Why did he fail to mention the central issue driving this controversy?
I dunno. Maybe he thinks the people of Missouri lack the gray matter necessary to make their own decisions about their own property? How does anyone discuss GBE and completely avoid the words "eminent domain?"
It seems that Invenergy is fighting a losing battle. Limiting the use of eminent domain is something every voter can support. The only ones who seem to like it are the ones who think they can profit from its use.
And, hey, there's that broadband thing. Just a couple more cheap trinkets for the natives.
It seems that Invenergy is fighting a losing battle. Limiting the use of eminent domain is something every voter can support. The only ones who seem to like it are the ones who think they can profit from its use.
And, hey, there's that broadband thing. Just a couple more cheap trinkets for the natives.
Hurst says:
As the Missouri Legislature enters its third year of debate over the project, Clean Line’s backers have started talking about fiber optics as well. Not only will electricity consumers receive a bonanza, but everybody in north Missouri will be able to watch Netflix.
Perhaps not as good as a toaster for opening a new account, but haven’t we all been asking for better rural broadband? Well, yes we have, but extending the fiber to homes, which is the most expensive part of providing rural broadband, is a much more difficult and expensive proposition than what Clean Line is offering.
And be sure to tune into This Week in Missouri Politics on Sunday, where you can hear more from Farm Bureau and the legislators involved in this important issue.
Maybe you'll even be inspired to write your own op ed?
Maybe you'll even be inspired to write your own op ed?
RSS Feed