Subscribe now Customer Service

Register Now

Flash player is required to view weather conditions. Download

DaytonDailyNews.com

Top Jobs

Photos More...

Glamour's Women of the Year

Glamour's Women of the Year

UD vs. Northern Kentucky

UD vs. Northern Kentucky

Magic visits with area students

Magic visits with area students

Blogs & Message Boards More...

Pipeline owners seek 77 properties through eminent domain

> Do you agree with eminent domain in this instance?

By Tom Beyerlein

Staff Writer

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

The owners of the Rockies Express natural gas pipeline have filed a federal lawsuit seeking to use eminent domain powers to acquire right-of-way on 77 Ohio properties to build the pipeline's Ohio leg. The properties, many of which have multiple owners, include 15 each in Butler and Warren counties and four in Clinton County.

Rockies Express Pipeline LLC said eminent domain is necessary because the company couldn't reach financial agreements with the land owners, which include Warren County Park District, the Wayne Twp. trustees and several area companies as well as dozens of families.

Extras

Photos

Click to enlarge

The company, called REX, wants a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way, an additional 75-foot-wide temporary work space and "all rights of ingress, egress and reasonable access" to maintain and repair the finished pipeline, which is scheduled for completion by mid 2009. REX filed the lawsuit Friday in U.S. District Court in Columbus.

REX got the right of eminent domain after the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved the 639-mile eastern portion of the $5 billion pipeline project on May 30. The pipeline is designed to bring Wyoming and Colorado natural gas to market in the Midwest and eastern U.S. Vectren Energy Delivery is among the distribution companies who have agreed to buy gas from REX.

REX spokesman Allen Fore said the company will continue to negotiate in hopes of avoiding eminent domain. "The action itself is not an indication that we're going to come to eminent domain with these people," he said. "Generally, neither Rockies Express nor the landowners want to end up in court."

He said REX has reached agreements with 85 percent of the property owners on the eastern portion. In Ohio, there are 1,100 tracts in the pipeline corridor. Some owners are still in negotiation with REX.

The company asked the court to appoint a commission to determine the compensation to the land owners named in the lawsuit, but they want court permission to start work before compensation is set. "Without immediate possession, possible delayed or prolonged construction would put REX at risk of irreparable harm, including construction penalties, increased construction costs, lost revenue and, most importantly, the lack of availability of this vital energy resource to the intended markets in the United States' energy infrastructure," according to the lawsuit.

One of the land owners on the pipeline corridor is John Rowe, a University of Dayton biology professor, and his wife, Robbie, who operate a racing horse farm on their property in Clinton County. They haven't reached agreement with REX, but weren't named in the lawsuit.

Rowe, who has been fighting the project for months, said REX offered him "about a third of what it's going to cost us" in terms of disruption to his pastures, which will take years to fully recover from the pipeline trenching.

But Rowe said he is more concerned that the politically well-connected owners of REX are being allowed to use eminent domain powers for a money-making venture.

"Our constitution is supposed to protect property owners. That is being eroded," Rowe said. "It's ridiculous that you can take someone's property for profit, not for the public good. It's just not right."

Contact this reporter at (937) 225-2264 or tbeyerlein@DaytonDailyNews.com.

Do you agree with eminent domain in this instance?

Comments

By Nervous Norwoodian

June 13, 2008 11:16 AM | Link to this

It’s a very simple question, really. Who will profit from this pipeline? And the answer is clear- the company building the pipeline (and their suppliers) and the companies selling the natural gas. The Norwood eminent domain case resulted in (only) slightly stronger State regulations regarding when land can be “taken” for private benefit, however vaguely defined that term remains. Bottom line, if you opposed its use in Norwood, you should oppose its use in this situation.

By Jim in Muskingum Co.

June 13, 2008 8:30 AM | Link to this

And you people wonder why your gas prices are going up? Gasoline, natural gas, electricity. How about doing something to increase the total volume of natural gas in the U.S. that will benefit ALL OF US. No, the gas in this pipeline might not heat YOUR home but it will heat other American homes: increased supply = decreased costs. Everyone is so damn selffish today. They are going to did a trench though your property and pay you well in the process. In two years you won’t even know it’s there.

June 12, 2008 2:37 PM | Link to this

I’m one of the 77…………….it’s very upsetting to think we have no control. I would rather PAY them not to come through our property.

June 12, 2008 1:31 PM | Link to this

How about variable compensation for the landowners. Say 1/8 of the revenue generated (before expenses etc.) by the delivery of gas. This would then be split among all landowners in proportion to the amount of land affected by the route.

By Victim of Eminent Domain

June 12, 2008 12:46 PM | Link to this

For those of you who find eminent domain acceptable in cases where it is used for private rather than demonstrable public benefit - just wait until it’s your property they want. Tell me then how throwing unrecoverable money at attorneys, with little expectation of a successful result to defend your property values and rights in the face of low-ball valuations is such a great experience. And those that think a casino is your economic salvation, just have a look at Atlantic City, NJ.

June 12, 2008 12:00 PM | Link to this

Obviously, “Boogie” doesn’t know the facts. The case in the U.S. Supreme Court that set this up was Susette Kelo, et al. v. City of London, Connecticut, et al. This was the case to which he must have been referring. The agreeing justices were Justices Kennedy, Steven, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Dissenting were justices O’Connor, Scalia, and Thomas, and chief Rehnquist. It was the “liberal” justices that passed this and the “conservative” ones who dissented. “Boogie” you are wrong.

June 12, 2008 11:56 AM | Link to this

Hey Veronica what part of this article says the right of way will be for gas distributed in this area???

June 12, 2008 11:56 AM | Link to this

Hey Veronica what part of this article says the right of way will be for gas distributed in this area???

June 12, 2008 11:56 AM | Link to this

Hey Veronica what part of this article says the right of way will be for gas distributed in this area???

June 12, 2008 11:56 AM | Link to this

Hey Veronica what part of this article says the right of way will be for gas distributed in this area???

June 12, 2008 11:56 AM | Link to this

Hey Veronica what part of this article says the right of way will be for gas distributed in this area???

June 12, 2008 11:56 AM | Link to this

Hey Veronica what part of this article says the right of way will be for gas distributed in this area???

June 12, 2008 11:56 AM | Link to this

Hey Veronica what part of this article says the right of way will be for gas distributed in this area???

June 12, 2008 11:56 AM | Link to this

Hey Veronica what part of this article says the right of way will be for gas distributed in this area???

June 12, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this

Hey Veronica what part of this article says the right of way will be for gas distributed in this area???

June 12, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this

Hey Veronica what part of this article says the right of way will be for gas distributed in this area???

June 12, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this

Hey Veronica what part of this article says the right of way will be for gas distributed in this area???

June 12, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this

Hey Veronica what part of this article says the right of way will be for gas distributed in this area???

June 12, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this

Hey Veronica what part of this article says the right of way will be for gas distributed in this area???

June 12, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this

Hey Veronica what part of this article says the right of way will be for gas distributed in this area???

June 12, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this

Hey Veronica what part of this article says the right of way will be for gas distributed in this area???

June 12, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this

Hey Veronica what part of this article says the right of way will be for gas distributed in this area???

June 12, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this

Hey Veronica what part of this article says the right of way will be for gas distributed in this area???

June 12, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this

Hey Veronica what part of this article says the right of way will be for gas distributed in this area???

June 12, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this

Hey Veronica what part of this article says the right of way will be for gas distributed in this area???

June 12, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this

Hey Veronica what part of this article says the right of way will be for gas distributed in this area???

June 12, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this

Hey Veronica what part of this article says the right of way will be for gas distributed in this area???

June 12, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this

Hey Veronica what part of this article says the right of way will be for gas distributed in this area???

June 12, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this

Hey Veronica what part of this article says the right of way will be for gas distributed in this area???

June 12, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this

Hey Veronica what part of this article says the right of way will be for gas distributed in this area???

June 12, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this

Hey Veronica what part of this article says the right of way will be for gas distributed in this area???

June 12, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this

Hey Veronica what part of this article says the right of way will be for gas distributed in this area???

June 12, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this

Hey Veronica what part of this article says the right of way will be for gas distributed in this area???

June 12, 2008 11:47 AM | Link to this

As long as we remain energy pigs, it is necessary. How many appliances do you run at one time?

June 12, 2008 10:35 AM | Link to this

A couple of Friday’s ago the REX people showed up at a neighbor’s horse stable and FIRST informed her that the pipeline was going thru her property. The REX representative made her an offer on the spot, which she declined as she wanted to talk to an attorney. The REX rep again showed up the following Monday and threatened to take her to court if she didn’t sign. They told her she was the only person in Ohio who hadn’t signed yet (what a crock). Obviously their rep’s can’t be trusted.

June 12, 2008 10:33 AM | Link to this

Of course not. You can blame our conservative US Supreme Court for opening the door for these kind of situations.

By Tom

June 12, 2008 9:48 AM | Link to this

NO, NO, NO.

June 12, 2008 8:51 AM | Link to this

Unfortunately I have to agree with this one. We are faced with an energy shortage whether we admit it or not, bringing more natural gas into our area should lower our costs, it is supply vs. demand. I don’t like the idea of anyone taking someone’s land through eminent domain but it may be warranted. This is not a shopping complex, casino or other retail establishment that in 10 years will have closed up shop leaving empty buildings. This is a piece of infrastructure for our energy supply.

June 12, 2008 7:07 AM | Link to this

YES! especially in East Dayton. Knock down the trash and bring on Krogers and all the good it will do for the area.

June 12, 2008 12:09 AM | Link to this

According to the article, the company is unable to reach financial agreements with a variety of landowners including “Warren County Park District, the Wayne Twp. trustees and several area companies as well as dozens of families”. The diversity of entities unable to reach an agreement with this company tells me the company is trying to get the right-of-way for an unreasonably low amount. Their appeal for “eminent domain” rights strikes me as an abusive way to force their way in.

June 11, 2008 11:38 PM | Link to this

This is in regards to Joaniesgaden. Right on!!!! Funny how casinos wind up near power plants or something related to them. It takes money to gamble and the workers that build them and operate them make $30.00+ per hour.

By Riverdale Ghost

June 11, 2008 10:14 PM | Link to this

Hmmm….

Well, I, too, thought the matter was settled by some people in Norwood.

If one is going to claim utilities are essential to life, so are grocery stores and clothing stores.

By Bob

June 11, 2008 9:40 PM | Link to this

You are entitled to a jury decision on the value of your property taken by the government. It doesn’t get any fairer than that. Plus, when a governmental entity in Ohio takes your property, they can be punished severely for making “lowball” offers. The rules are different when the feds take your land though.

By Joaniesgarden

June 11, 2008 9:18 PM | Link to this

Dear Victim of Eminent Domain. The bypass will now be the ‘golden road’ leading straight to the proposed Casino where economy torn peoples will wager what little they have for the promise of a better life. This country is becoming so Orwellian.

By Bob

June 11, 2008 9:02 PM | Link to this

Most of the people who fight the government taking their land are not doing so because they believe the government has no right to take their land. Instead, they’re trying to screw the rest of us out of every dime they can. Somehow, the moment the government becomes interested in taking someone’s property, the value quadruples, and blueprints for a 50,000 square foot office park appear out of nowhere.

June 11, 2008 7:53 PM | Link to this

No! Enough is enough already!!! This country needs to stop stealing from us for the ever-cheapening dollar. And believe me, if they were running that pipe through your yard, you’d be po’d as well.

June 11, 2008 7:41 PM | Link to this

There is nothing that says an emminent domain seizure cannot be by a for-profit company. I would wager all of them are. Construction companies do not work for free. They are obviously for profit.

As long as the need being served is a legitimate government interest - into which utilities clearly fit - then I see no problem with this: assuming they offer fair market value.

By FreedomLover

June 11, 2008 7:03 PM | Link to this

Eminent Domain is widely used and abused in our country. Whether it be developers, politicians, corporations or the government. Heavy handed, draconian tactics, are used against those who do not wish to “participate” in their land grab. My advice to those who do not wish to “participate” and allowing a gas pipline run through their property; fight them tooth and nail.

America’s freedoms are eroding before our eyes. If we don’t stand up to this nonsense, we will all be serfs.

June 11, 2008 6:55 PM | Link to this

Judging by the epic pipe yard they have set up on US 68 south of 71 near Wilmington, they were planning on rolling through without any resistance. One would assume they would have obtained the properties needed before they set up shop. Oops.

June 11, 2008 6:43 PM | Link to this

if they do come through and rip up your yard make sure you have plenty of photos showing how things are beforehand so you can take them to court when they try to get away with spreading the cheapest grass they can on the ripped up construction area and trying to claim that it is “restored”. you should see some of the botched murdered yards they try to leave behind

June 11, 2008 6:37 PM | Link to this

“eminent domain”=someone wants to steal your land, give you a fraction of what it is worth, and claim it is for the public good in most cases. the government should only use this power rarely (if at all) and if they do they should compensate fully the land owner, not some fraction of the land value. if a road needs to be expanded, I might see the need. but to say we are taking your stuff and giving it to this other bloke is just wrong most of the time.

By Victim of Eminent Domain

June 11, 2008 6:16 PM | Link to this

Many of us are dealing with the eminent domain issue in Clinton County for another project - the Wilmington Bypass. The bypass is yet another instance of eminent domain being implemented for the benefit of private industry under the guise of the public good, in this case DHL which is now leaving the area (search for bypass on this site, there was an article 6/8/08 entitled $70M bypass to serve DHL hub may be for naught). This practice must be stopped. Where are our legislators on this?

June 11, 2008 6:07 PM | Link to this

The pipeline isn’t “taking” anyone’s land. The line will use eminent domain to gain access to the ground. They compensate the landowner, lay the pipe in about 3 months, restore your ground and leave. The only visual evidence you’ll see for months/years to come is an orange-capped marker identifying the line’s route. I went through this whole process 3 years ago. Please relax and calm down.

June 11, 2008 6:05 PM | Link to this

We have Colonial Pieline and Atlanta Gas passing through our land here in Hampton, Ga. We’re on one acre. Our “compensation” is being taxed for one half acre, as the above entities have high pressure natural gas in one line, and fluids (avgas, gasoline, kerosene, diesel, JP4 ect.) flowing through the other line on 1/2 acre of our land. FIGHT THEM!!! The lines pass within 75 feet of our home. I suppose if they blow you’ll hear me utter the famous last words of a redneck: Hey Y’all…watch this!!!

By Jim

June 11, 2008 5:36 PM | Link to this

I don’t think we have enough information here to say yes or no. Certainly, the use is fair for eminent domain; energy distribution is not only a money-making venture, it’s also a public utility, similar to power transmission lines. If REX isn’t offering fair market value, then that’s another issue to be discussed. If the Rowe’s can show that the fair market value is what they are asking, then REX needs to pony up. If the Rowe’s are overplaying their hand, then they need to come down.

By Joaniesgarden

June 11, 2008 5:30 PM | Link to this

What I don’t understand is why they didn’t work things out before they started the pipeline? Foresight was nonexistent and the presumption of running roughshod through people’s properties should have been a contributing factor in it’s initial plan. If they are only offering a penance to the owner’s property’s worth then possibly give compensation in free utilities in some form of contract since this is a money making venture? It does lessen a prop. value since the R.O.W. needs access.

June 11, 2008 5:24 PM | Link to this

No! You struggle and work all your life to buy something to call yours and a gas line company wants to give you a third of the worth of your land so that they can make a lot more money. How would they feel if they were offered a third of there pay check? Its not fair. If it was something that a town or city needed to help keep the flow going to keep jobs and buisnesses going that would be different.

June 11, 2008 5:09 PM | Link to this

We’re not talking about a library, hospital, road, or other public service. This is a money making venture. If the property owners and the company fail to come to a financial agreement, then the company should look elsewhere until they find a place where property owners are satisfied with the deal. If the government imparts eminent domain here, they are doing so in hopes of increased tax revenue from the company. Money talks.

By Concerned Taxpayer

June 11, 2008 4:58 PM | Link to this

Heck No! As a property owner I have final say what I will or won’t allow on my property, unless it is taken via eminent domain for public use. However - this isn’t taking property for public use! This is taking property for use in a private for profit business and should not be allowed. The company needs to either sweeten the pot to get an agreement with property owners or reroute the pipeline to cross properties with agreements. This could set a sad precedent…

June 11, 2008 4:54 PM | Link to this

If used as intended, yes.

June 11, 2008 4:51 PM | Link to this

No, I don’t agree with taking someone land, someone home away. It’s not right, and not fair! The government taking your home away for the “greater good” of the country is stupid. Of coarse, they have been doing it for years (Look what they did to the Native Americans). Those people better start packing, because when it comes to your home and someone making money, money trumps everything!

June 11, 2008 4:46 PM | Link to this

no, and thankfully it was decided after the ‘Norwood’ incident that this type of thing should be prevented. (eminent domain for private companies benefit)

We are not talking new roads, we are talking about a gas pipeline that a company wants to use to make it easier for them to sell in a new market.

Commenting is open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. M-F

Post a comment

*HTML not allowed in comments. Your e-mail address is required.

Vote for this story!

Home | News | Sports | Business | Entertainment | Opinion | Life | Recreation | Photos & Video | Cars | Jobs | Homes
Advertising Media Kit | Online Ad Studio | Advertiser Tools | Customer Service | Contact Us | Our Partners | RSS | Site Map

Copyright © 2009 Cox Ohio Publishing, Dayton, Ohio, USA. All rights reserved.

By using this site, you accept the terms of our Visitors Agreement and Privacy Policy. You may wish to note our other business policies.

This website is ACAP-enabled