Comments

18 responses to “Fanning the Flames of Rebellion”

1. 

   Anonymous

   October 29, 2007

   “The bad news is that cheap energy discourages innovation because the return-on-investment does not justify the expense in the design process or in construction. Raise the price of energy, and you’ll get far more energy conservation.”

   [Artificially] Raise the price of energy and you will get far more energy conservation.

   Quite a statement from one who claims to be a free market advocate.

   Why do you suppose that energy is “cheap” as EMR says? Because it is plentiful.

   If we (some of us anyway) conserve energy, there will be more available and the price will be even cheaper. And that will discourage innovation even more.

   If we raise the price of energy, we may get more investment in windows and insulation, in software to control ventilation, etc., but that does not necessarily translate into either lower energy usage, or cost savings for those that make the alternative investments.

   Assuming you do raise the price of energy, where does the money go? To the energy producers? Nope, to the government. What does the government do with, subsidize insulation contractors? Then the insulation contractors are no longer paying their full allocated costs.

   Free market anyone? Full allocated costs, anyone?

   ????

   RH

   Log in to Reply
2. 

   Anonymous

   October 29, 2007

   Memo:

   To whoever is hiring RH aka, Ray Hyde to obfuscate facts and opinions.

   You are wasting your money.

   Case in point:

   In his recent post he quotes Dr. Risse:

   “The bad news is that cheap energy discourages innovation because the return-on-investment does not justify the expense in the design process or in construction. Raise the price of energy, and you’ll get far more energy conservation.”

   “[Artificially] Raise the price of energy and you will get far more energy conservation.”

   Anyone who can read the English language well enough to make it into the fourth grade can understand that adding “artificially” to the start of the last sentence intentionally changes the meaning the Dr. Risse intended. It is an unethical action that is beyond belief.

   Anyone who can read the English Language well enough to get into the second grade and has read anything Dr. Risse has written knows when he talks of something being too “cheap” he is talking about failure to fairly allocate the costs, in this case of energy.

   “Quite a statement from one who claims to be a free market advocate.”

   It is hard to believe RH aka, Ray Hyde would be so silly as to make that statement in light of the facts.

   “Why do you suppose that energy is “cheap” as EMR says? Because it is plentiful.”

   No it is subsidized and underpriced.

   “If we (some of us anyway) conserve energy, there will be more available and the price will be even cheaper. And that will discourage innovation even more.”

   That is true and is why RH aka, Ray Hyde sometimes seems to make sense.

   Blogs are not a useful tool for discussing issues if someone is paid (or is so silly as to work as a unpaid shill) to promote Business As Usual. See Mr. Bacons column on the ruling “party.”

   Anon Zeus.

   Log in to Reply
3. 

   Anonymous

   October 29, 2007

   “Anyone who can read the English language well enough to make it into the fourth grade can understand that adding “artificially” to the start of the last sentence intentionally changes the meaning the Dr. Risse intended. It is an unethical action that is beyond belief.”

   It is the usual practice to use square brackest to show slight modifications, not intended to affect the argument. Most people understand that. Also note that I quoted him directly and exactly prior: it should have been clear I had no intention to put words in his mouth.

   Energy prices are what they are. How do you raise energy prices other than artificially?

   You could argue that energy prices are artificially low because of subsidies and they should be allowed to rise by removing the subsidies, but his statement just says “Raise the price of energy…”

   To be fair, he does say later that
   “Electricity, coal and other energy sources have been produced, priced and subsidized to maximize consumption, minimize conservation and scatter urban land uses across the Countryside.”

   I don’t know of anyone that produces energy in order to prevent conservation.

   The amount I can raise my prices is constrained by the prices for other sources. I’m still going to sell my fuel for the highest price I can get, regardless of my subsidy. The price I can get might be lower if THE OTHER guy is subsidized, but according to ED, they are all subsidized, so that kind of takes away his price argument.

   I don’t think it is shown that energy sources have been deliberately priced to reduce conservation, although that may be a related effect. But the opposite is also true: conservation makes the available energy cheaper and increases its use. And that is going to be true at any price point, whether energy prices are subsidized or not.

   As for the idea that low energy costs scatter land uses across the countryside, it simply isn’t true. Even EMR notes the thick and thin problem. If we site ourselves to take advantage of thin resources, we are going to have to site ourselves in a lot more places, not a lot fewer.

   If you read “Optimal urban land use and zoning” by
   Esteban Rossi-Hansberg from the Department of Economics, Stanford University, you will see that he argues that lower commuting costs promote more efficient cites, and that higher commuting costs promote more dispersion of jobs.

   If you believe that we should have higher energy costs (we assume this will lead to higher commuting costs) then you should be prepared for more dispersion, not less.

   ——————————

   I don’t get paid by anyone to do this, and I’m not a shill for any point of view. I have a particular background and expertise that I freely share, and it sometimes produces conclusions different from EMR’s.

   I’m sorry if the fact that I sometimes make sense upsets your idea of the way things should be.

   Log in to Reply
4. 

   Larry Gross

   October 29, 2007

   I really did appreciate Thornton’s
   Harvesting Rainwater especially where he got into the stormwater aspect a bit.

   Recently Spotsylvania opened up a new park .. which not only has the required storm pond – but also pumps to recycle the water for irrigation.

   Here’s the part that hits one up side the head:

   “County project manager David Breedin said the county will save an estimated $25,000 a year by not watering the fields with treated drinking water.”

   Next time you go by one of these so-called “Green” or “Smart Growth” developments repleat with both a storm pond and landscape irrigation.. think about this.

   and I note that Jim.. alluded to his recent-vintage yard irrigation… that uses [choose one]:

   a. – treate drinking water
   b. – cistern and/or stored storm water runoff

   tweak. tweak. 🙂

   hey.. I have a gravel driveway..and mother nature waters my lawn.. which is mostly drought-resistant weeds… despite my best efforts to convince it that it ought to be a purebread bluegrass yard…

   Log in to Reply
5. 

   Larry Gross

   October 29, 2007

   re: cheap energy

   which energy is cheaper?

   * energy created by burning PCB oil

   * energy created by burning coal with no pollution equipment

   * energy created by used motor oil in your back yard

   There are LOTs of way to create energy.

   RH believes it’s a simple matter of ROI.

   The cheapest ROI would be for each of us to burn whatever waste products we could find in a backyard generator..

   … according to RH…

   because he refuses to admit that pollution is a subsidy.

   further Mr “Property Rights” has apparently no problem buying cheap power that was made cheap by taking land away on the cheap from other property owners for power lines
   – because that is exactly the justification – (keeping rates low for ratepayers – like RH) means not paying landowners a fair price for the land needed for power lines.

   If it is RH’s land.. then he says that he is subsidizing others expenses.. but if it is others land then it’s justified because the cost of him not having cheap power entitles him to subsidies.

   (I think)…

   I think his logic is much more understandable if you are a Philadelphia Lawyer on LSD… sometimes. 🙂

   Log in to Reply
6. 

   Anonymous

   October 29, 2007

   First, please read this:

   http://www.winchesterstar.com/article_details.php?ArticleID=2179

   I am not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing.

   It seems that our local 800lb gorilla, Valley Health, is (get this), “apologizing to local private practitioners for not giving them a better heads-up about the new Quick Care clinic in Stephens City.”

   I run a small business. I have NEVER received an apology from a competitor that opens or expands their operation.

   Why all the fuss when the product/service is health care?

   Log in to Reply
7. 

   Anonymous

   October 30, 2007

   My logic would be more understandable if you read what I say instead of telling me what I said when it isn’t what I said at all.

   I have said that, whether it turns out to be my land or someone else’s land that is taken, they deserve to be paid a full and fair compensation for it.

   The usual reason for a taking is some public benefit. If it is a real public benefit, then there ought to be enough value in it that the cost of full compenasation is minor in comparison.

   What is full and fari compensation? My standard is that it is compensation such that a reasonable person would be satisfied that he is no worse off, considering his share of the public benefit.

   That does not mean that a holdout can demand infinite compensation.

   Even you agreed with me on this in saying that if a landowner felt that the price for a strip through the middle left him worse off, he should be able to demand that the power company take the entire property.

   The owner can then at least go buy a property of equal value, even if it isn’t quite the same. Some people will have prime golf club properies damaged by the power lines. They might not be able to get another golf club property for the same money, and in that case they might have a legitimate beef that they are, in fact, worse off.

   The law views property rights as a bundle of sticks. That isn’t my metaphor, but it is frequently used to describe land rights issues. Mineral and timber rights are bought and sold independent of the land.

   Dominion uses that concept when they buy an easement to a strip of land. “Hey, I only took one stick, and that’s all I’m paying for.”

   But, we also recognize that the whole is worth more than the sum of its parts. That is where profit comes from in the private sector, and it is where public benefit comes from in the government sector. It is why you and I agree that the owner should have the right to be compensated for the whole piece. Dominion can cut their slice and sell the rest of the loaf for whatever they can get.

   It’s not perfect, but it’s better.

   So now, we have the government agreeing that it is OK for Dominion to meet their constitutional obligation by paying for one stick. But when the government itself wants a stick, it can take it with impunity, because there is no taking unless substantially all the value is gone.

   This is a double standard I don;t support.

   How does Dominion negotiate the value of the strips? One at a time, with each owner. And what is the basis? Whatever the previous use was, even if that use was artificially restricted.

   But, we just agreed that the value of the whole was worth more than the sum of its parts, and Dominion is assembling an entire easement, not just the part belonging to one landowner. Granted, Dominion is doing the assembly work, so a good portion of the assembled value is rightfully theirs.

   OK, so what is it worth? The electricity consumer had electricity before, and he will still have elctricity for roughly the same price. Dominion sinks a bunch of money into hardware, and they get that back by selling more elctricity. Nothing is very different than before.

   What Dominion tells us is that we avoid the prospect of brownouts and blackouts, beginning in 2010. That is the value of the new right of way. The property owner affected by the right of way shares that benefit with everyone else.

   What is that benefit worth? Say blackouts occour on the worst peak days of the year, what’s that, 3 to 5 times a year? A blackout is a nuisance, unless you have a critical use need, and then you probably have your own insurance in the form of back up power. For most people, pick a number for a brief blackout – $10? $5? Would that be a fair price for temporary blackout insurance?

   Multiply that by millions of households, four times a year, and that’s what the right of way is worth. It ought to be plenty to buy out four or five hundren landowners satisfactorily and stll leave plenty of public benefit.

   Otherwise, electricity is artificially lower because it is subsidized.

   AHA! You got me, I’m making the same argument as EMR.

   Not exactly. Not even close, really. What is a subsidy? A grant paid by a government to an enterprise that benefits the public. In this case the subsidy comes from the private landowner, under orders from the government.

   A real subsidy comes from the pockets of all citizens, not just a few, and a real subsidy gets a benefit in return. And just as a subsidy should not be provided by just a few citizens, neither should it benefit just a few.

   I’m sure we would all like to think that the government isn’t paying more for the benefit than it is worth. A lot of times we disagree. We think, “Hey, I’m paying for this subsidy and I’m not getting anything back.” Well, tough tutus prima ballerinas. Sometimes majority rules, as Larry would point out.

   If you choose to think of it that way, pollution is a subsidy. It is a grant given by the government in exchange for a public benefit. We all hope the benefit is greater than the subsidy. But, there is zero benefit and zero economy without some subsidy, so it is a grant that MUST be given, and in fact, cannot be avoided.

   For a real enterprise, we know what the benefit is. It is the value given to stockholders, plus the taxes and fees paid to the government. The jobs and everything else more or less cancels out as a cost of doing business.

   There is a secondary benefit: the customers who buy the products (with their salaries from other polluting eneterprises) also get a small benefit because they figure their purchases are worth more than they paid for them, otherwise they wouldn’t buy. All this happens because the enterprise creates a value that is more than the sum of its parts.

   Now suppose we adopt a strategy of incrementally reducing the pollution subsidy: we restrict the grant. This is reflected in higher abatement costs, and less profit to pay dividends and taxes.

   Each increment of reduction has exponentially higher costs (typically). Each increment of pollution reduction reduces dividends and taxes more than the last. Eventually the benefit that you got with the pollution tax is all gone: no profits left.

   You started off with a pollution subsidy that bought you a benefit that was worth having. Now you don’t have the cost of the pollution subsidy (the pollution), but you don’t have the benefit, and you are worse off, over all.

   And, you don’t have a job, so you can’t go buy some secondary benefit, either.

   All this assumes that the pollution subsidy was set right in the first place, and Larry points out, that historically it was probably too high: we were not getting enough benefit for the pollution.

   But, it doesn’t matter where you start on the curve or which direction you go, you can be wrong either way. Total costs = (Cost of Pollution – Benefits of Pollution) + (Costs of Pollution Abatement – Benefits of Pollution Abatement). Generally speaking, those curves are exponential in opposite directions. There is a pretty good range where you can’t be too far wrong, and then you are off the scale, and the excees costs can be high either way.

   If you go off the scale, you are essentially demanding an infinite price for your property, whichever side of the fence you are on, and we have already agreed that is impermissable and irrational.

   Which gets us around to EMR. Surely Ed isn’t simply arguing that we would be better off with higher energy prices.

   He is arguing that higher energy prices would prevent us from wasting energy on bad things, and preventing those bad things will save us more than the increase in energy costs in the long run.

   Ed’s argument depends on what the price is for those bad things we eliminate. If one of them is lousy eminent domain pricing, then I’m all for it, whether it involves my land or not.

   I wouldn’t argue that a dark sky with stars doesn’t have value. But that value is different for the guy that owns an all night gas station, or a woman who gets out of her car in the dark. Providing a dark sky means someone gives up other things that have value, whether we value those things or not.

   Ed’s argument also depends on when we get a payback. In the case of conservation easements, we offer a single payment now, and an infinite, perpetual stream of benefits forever. That would be an infinite ROI, and if that sounds too good to be true………

   If I can claim a big enough time frame, shucks, I can claim that my car is carbon neutral. That is an outrageuos claim, but it is just as outrageous in the other direction.

   Finally, if I’m going to make a big payout now and get a benefit later, how am I going to keep up the cash flow in the meantime?

   We can argue about real costs and intangible benefits, but most of those intangibles wind up on both sides of the equation. We can dim the lights on a bunch of gas stations and find out how much it affects profits. We can darken some streets and count the rapes.

   But, if you are just going to make a claim of saving us money by charging us more, you better have a good sales pitch, and a good credible history.

   RH

   Log in to Reply
8. 

   Anonymous

   October 30, 2007

   “As informed citizens, each knew that Virginia and its localities never will have enough money to make every transportation investment needed. So the question moved to how they might ensure that the investments we do make can meet a large percentage of our transportation needs.”

   Now there is a quote I can repeat without adding any comments, brackets, or ellipses. It is all that needs to be said about most of the topics on Bacon’s Rebellion.

   There are good, solid comments in Thorntons essay as well. I have two large cisterns on the farm that I intend to re-activate. All I need is enough capital and time.

   RH

   Log in to Reply
9. 

   Anonymous

   October 30, 2007

   “My logic would be more understandable if you read what I say instead of telling me what I said when it isn’t what I said at all.”

   Now there is advice from RH, aka Ray Hyde that we can all live with and all wish he would follow.

   So far we have seen over 150 “quotes” where he misstates or distorts the meaning of both the authors he cites or Dr. Risse who he pretents to know or understand.

   Do us all a favor and turn off your computer until you learn to read and stop distorting the dialogue by misstating what others say.

   Anon Zeus for Anon Zora and Anon Zora, Anon Zeno and Anon Zeno

   Log in to Reply
10. 

    Anonymous

    October 30, 2007

    You still think I misquoted him, even though I included his entire sentence verbatim, and then deliberately showed the square brackets to highlight and draw attention to exactly the change that some people might object to.

    I think it is a lot different from Larry completely misrepresenting and reversing previous statements, without any reference.

    ———————————

    EMR is correct in saying that changing the costs in one area will alter how we spend our money: it will change some costs and some benefits. It doesn’t matter whether that is done by[Artificially] raising the costs or changing the baseline by removing subsidies.

    If he or anyone else wants to voice the opinion that such a change will produce a net social benefit, I won’t argue. He is entitled to his opinion.

    But if he wants to propose policy which will result in directives, then he needs to be able to show a true social benefit. If he wants to educate people to accept and desire such policy, then a good sales pitch would be to be able to show unequivocally that such policies are actually to their benefit. People are not stupid, and we should not expect to “educate” them with half truths.

    I’m not inclined to agree that paying more for something in a way that reduces profits and jobs in companies that share those profits with millions of shareholders is a real social benefit UNLESS YOU CAN SHOW THE OFFSETS IN A MEASURABLE WAY.

    If you can’t do that, are unwilling to do that, or think it can’t be done, then you are unprepared to negotiate a fair bargain. We should all want a fair bargain, because the alternate is a waste, on one side or the other.

    EMR thinks lighting the night sky is a waste, and he targets sports entertainment in particular. This isn’t the first time. He has previously suggested that we expropriate the profits of the entertainment and video game industry to fund education. OK, but without profit the video game industry collapses, and then how do you fund schools?

    He apparently hates waste and profits, and entertainment. I think that [at some level] they are inextricable. Without profits we can’t fund conservation, schools, roads or anything else. With profits we will have some inescapable pollution. What we need is the right mix, and as long as that is the argument, I’m on your side.

    If your argument is God forbid any good conservationist should earn money and then have fun with some of it; no pollution and no dancing allowed, never mind the Declaration of Independence, well, then don’t expect my support.

    I don’t like light pollution either, but I recognize that some of it is the unfortunate result of backscatter and reflection from lighting that used for legitimate and cost effective purposes. We can put all the sports games inside, and prevent light pollution. We’ll still use the same amount of lights, and now we have to build the enclosures and might have to air condition the arena.

    Sometimes, preventing waste just isn’t worth what it costs. If it costs more, there is a good bet that it wastes more. If you have a proposal, show me the offsets, otherwise I have to assume that you are a hand waving charlatan promising something for nothing, or worse, wanting something for nothing.

    Higher energy prices might mean less energy consumption, and that might mean we could afford to relax some of the current abatement costs put in place to prevent excess air pollution.

    A true conservationist, dyed in the dogma that says cleanliness is next to Godliness will hate that idea. But, the alternative is to admit that you prefer waste and assymetry, particularly if it is on the other side.

    It is going to be hard to sell social justice and social benefits that way. That is my opinion, and I put my name to it.

    RH

    Log in to Reply
11. 

    Larry Gross

    October 30, 2007

    re: bundle of sticks

    isn’t this in the eyes of the beholder when we often have folks who assert right – not agreed to by others.. including the law?

    re: “taking” property for public benefit

    yes.. you could collect a dime a year from each electricity user and use that money to pay gazillions of dollars for right-of-way but first you’d have to get the State to agree to let you do that and then you’d have to explain to your shareholders why you paid far more for land that what a dozen different certified appraisers said it was worth.

    You want land valued for it’s “potential”.

    Can you imagine calling in an appraiser to do this for any parcel of land?

    Is that the price you’d get for that land if you tried to sell it on the open market?

    Then why would you expect Dominion to pay that amount?

    I’m no apologist for Dominion nor the way that emmient Domain does {not} work fairly but what you’re asserting would turn the whole concept of land valuation on it’s head – and others.. not connected with the government nor Dominion would agree with you either I don’t think.

    Isn’t the potential of land value – a business itself that some folks call speculation?

    It’s true.. a residential parcel next to existing commercial may have tremendous “potential” but not so with a parcel 30 miles away down a narrow country road without water/sewer. 50 years hence – yes.

    but what is it worth right now?

    isn’t that all that anyone should honestly expect?

    At any rate – landowners can appeal appraisals that they don’t agree with. They can go out and find as many certified appraisers as they are willing to hire – to prove their point but no certified appraiser is going to value your property in a way that he/she cannot substantiate with standard industry practices…

    geeze.. what would conservation easements be worth if you could value them at what they’d be worth 50 years from now?

    The State could then afford one or two easements a year… because each one would be valued at a gazillion dollars… it would be cheaper to just make a deal with the landowner that the rest of his/her land would be taxfree as long as they lived..

    Log in to Reply
12. 

    Anonymous

    October 31, 2007

    “Bundle of sticks” is not my concept. It comes from case law on land use, and is generally accepted by legal scholars, as I understand it.

    I’m not suggesting that property be appraised at more than its value, however the current rules are heavily stacked in favor of the condemnor, and do not consider all of what are widely perceived as values. There may be valid reasons to reconsider in some cases.

    As it stands now, the property owner must absorb all legal and appraisal costs, even if he sues for more money and wins. Changing that rule might allow more landowners to bring additional value propositions to court.

    I also think there is a different situation involved if the governmet condemns for its own use and when the government condemns in favor of a profit making eneterprise.

    Dominion is taking over the land for its potential, and in so doing may ruin whatever potential the property may have had. It seems to me that potential should be some part of the equation.

    Consider the purchase of a business. It is common to value the business based on twenty years of future cash flow. I don’t think it is such a radical idea to extend this line of reasoning to the business of owning land. I agree fifty years is too much, but then, eternity for a conservation easement is too much also. (In some states this is the law.) The reason this is so is because those states recognize the potential value may change, and this gives the parties a chance to renegotiate. Maybe the easment should be a lease, not a pemanent easment, with the value renegotiated as potential develops. Particularly since the landowner is still paying taxes on the easement.

    I suggested that the landowners form a corporation and sell the right of way rights to the corporation, under the bundle of sticks doctrine. That way they would have assembled the right of way and they could claim the “sum is greater than the whole” value of assembling it. And Dominion would have to negotiate with a unified body instead of attacking each landowner individually. they wereen’t interested: they just want it to go away. If they succeed, they will have moved the problem to someone else’s back and not fixed it.

    And, Dominion is preferentially seeking out locations where development does not exist. Frequently this is because development was not allowed. Therefore, the local government in its bid to avoid costs and directc “good” development has made some landowners sitting ducks for “bad” development. I see no reason why they shouldn’t get some compensation for being hit with a double whammy which favors so many others.

    Consider the purchase of a business. It is common to value the business based on twenty years of future cash flow. I don’t think it is such a radical idea to extend this line of reasoning to the business of owning land. I agree fifty years is too much, but then, eternity for a conservation easement is too much also.

    For one of the routes in question, we are not talking about properties down a narrow country road: we are talking about properties right along route 66, which probably does have development potential. Many of the properties already lost land to the construction of 66. If it were not for strong local infuence, some would be zoned light industrial, as in many other locations around the state.

    I’m not looking for a way for landowners to make a killing, just a way to get to the point where reasonable people won’t think they’ve been totally raked over the coals, compared to the benefits gained by others.

    If, for example a landowner is cut in half by the easement in a way that is unacceptable to him, that has a value in addition to the value of the narrow easement: two fields are alot harder to work than one. He should be able to demand that dominion buy out the entire property (at current value) so he can move. Dominion should pay his moving costs as well, I think.

    That is another area where the law is outmoded. If Dominion moves a business, they have to pay moving costs, but the costs are arbitrarily capped at $20,000. Individuals get nothing.

    I think such things should be evaluated by a jury of peers. People who will have to pay the higher rates their decision cause. As it stands now, the few cases that get to court will be heard by administrative law judges from the same SCC that approves the easement. Right or wrong, this has the appearance of being a stacked deck situation.

    One woman bought a property and moves to subdivide and sell off several lots, which she had rights to do, in order to reduce the mortgage to what she could actually afford. Shortly after she surveyed, recorded, cleared the lots and installed roads, the Dominion plan was announced. Now she is stuck with the lots, at least until some other route is chosen. For her, there is a real loss in potential, and a real current cost of carrying the mortgage that she might not have, absent the Dominion announcement. She is simply in limbo until this is resolved. I’m not suggeting that she should be indemnified from all risk, just that she should have a fair forum to argue her point.

    Thi isn’t standing land use on it’s head, it is merely implementing some changes that have been suggested, and already exist in some other locations.

    RH

    Log in to Reply
13. 

    Anonymous

    October 31, 2007

    no certified appraiser is going to value your property in a way that he/she cannot substantiate with standard industry practices…

    Standard industry practices are designed for a willing buyer and seller situation. Building codes mostly codify standard industry practices, but they can and are waived under special situations, and with the concurrence of experts.

    I think we need new standard industry practices which consider the fact of coercion in the case of eminent domain for profit.

    RH

    Log in to Reply
14. 

    Larry Gross

    October 31, 2007

    “I suggested that the landowners form a corporation and sell the right of way rights to the corporation”

    if that would work.. landowners could band together and stop VDOT in it’s tracks…..

    In fact…they could band together to build a Conservation Barrier Easement strategically placed to stop a VDOT road or a Dominion Power Line and there is disagreement right now about whether Dominion and VDOT can “take” land under certain kinds of conservation easements.

    Call me a skeptic.. but I don’t think that strategy will work because if it did… VDOT would build no more roads and Dominion would string no more wire.

    Log in to Reply
15. 

    Anonymous

    October 31, 2007

    “there is disagreement right now about whether Dominion and VDOT can “take” land under certain kinds of conservation easements.”

    This is probably a moot point, disagreement aside. There have already been cases in which conservation easements and even parks have been over ridden.

    The situation in Northern Fauquier and parts of Loudoun was pretty much designed as a protective barrier, and so far it has worked.

    The origianal route was through heavy easement territory, but such a stink was raised (with so much money behind it) that the first preferred route was moved. The second preferred route along 66 was met with a flurry of new easements, but they might not carry as much weight as the established ones. The second route also met with some heavyweight lawsuits, including Til Hazel, among others. The third preferred route is longer, follows existing right of way, and goes through an economically poorer section. None of this helps the people near the ends of the line because they are not going to move, and that includes my friend with the golf course home.

    It is a brilliant strategy, because Dominion not only will attack the landowners individually, but by postulating three routes they divide and conquer possible groups of landowners.

    The course through Easment Territory is the shortest one, and EMR points out that there is waste in longer transmssion lines. I don’t think that conservation argument will sell in Easement Territory. But, now that the Federal law for a “National Security Power Corridor” (Sounds like Journey Through Hallowed Ground, don’t you think?) has been passed, Dominion may well do exactly as it pleases.

    Anyway, one reason the ad-hoc easement barrier has worked (so far) is that in order to prevail Dominion will have to settle with two owners: the land owner and the easement owner. It might have worked even better if it was a unified set of easements in which case it would be a better barrier, maybe.

    But the screw up was that they considered only conservation easements. They could just have just as well written the power line easemnts in there too. At the very least Dominion would then have to sue VOF or someone other than Joe Cabernet.

    They could just as well sell the rights for utility easements to a third entity, and then Dominion would have three lawsuits to deal with. Planning departments have learned very well the value of raising the price through delay and complication. Conservationists know the value too, but they have only used it offensively, up to now.

    The fact that Dominion can take the easements rights by eminent domain, separate from the property itself, proves that the concept is sound. Good for the goose, good for the gander, unless you don’t think we are a nation of ethical and even-handed laws.

    It is no different from selling water rights under the farm to the county water works, mineral rights, or any other separable stick in the bundle. No different from insuring a singers voice, or a dncers legs, separate from her life.

    If the land owners sell the utility rights to a corporation they own, then they get to establish the value. They would hold that value as shares in the corporation, just as VOF or Nature Conservancy is a corporation.

    They (the corporation) might still lose the easement rights under eminent domain, but Dominion would have a unified adversary to face in arguing for a fair price. The landowners could arrange the location in a way more useful/less disruptive/more profitable to themselves. In addition, the landowners and not Dominion would get credit for the “sum is greater than the whole” profit. The fact that the landowners didn’t see the benefit is a tragedy of the commons.

    Dominion might even decide it was worth more just because the landowners and not themselves had to sort through all the local issues, even if some bad choices increased their engineering problems somewhat. If the owners were smart, they would get expert input.

    Conceptually and legally there is nothing wrong with the idea. The reason it won’t work is because the desired answer is not rational. The rational answer says that there must be some price at which you become indifferent to the power line, and the landowners can decide what that is without coercion.

    The irrational answer is to say No, No, and No, no matter what the cost to anybody and everybody, no matter what the price: I consider the value of my property, as is, to be infinite. You have no rights, I got here first, go away. It is an absolutist answer that requires an absolutist premise that is absolutely unsustainable.

    And you think I’m “Mr. Property Rights”? Go talk to the conservationists (but only if THEIR property is involved).

    (The rational answer also says their must be some price at which Dominion becomes indifferent to this plan and a plan that has more distributed sources, too. But with the power of eminent domain at their disposal, they don’t have to pay that price.)

    Log in to Reply
16. 

    Larry Gross

    October 31, 2007

    “The rational answer also says their must be some price at which Dominion becomes indifferent to this plan and a plan that has more distributed sources, too. But with the power of eminent domain at their disposal, they don’t have to pay that price.”

    I think you make an excellent point. (shocked?)

    If both Dominion and VDOT were forced to use a fair process and pay a fair price for land – both of them might start thinking more seriously about other, possibly more cost-efficient alternatives.

    Basically, it could be claimed that Dominion is allowed to use ED.. in pursuit of expanding their business and their profits as much or more than providing a public benefit. In their mind a “public benefit” is providing enough electricity to meet “demand” with the implicit assumption that the only way to deal with demand is to expand and provide more.

    It’s a debateable point – true – but the point is.. that it appears that Dominion has been given a pass on the debate part.

    I’m betting that if the folks who are opposing the power lines are smart that they’ll try hard to require Dominion to justify demand.

    Log in to Reply
17. 

    Anonymous

    October 31, 2007

    On second thought the comment “(only if their property is involved)” is partially unfair in this context. To their credit, PEC has continued the fight, even to protect those in the southern route.

    However, the way they are going about it is weak and insufficient, in my opinion. They argue that with sufficient conservation this power line is not needed.

    For now. In this place. But eventually the whole problem will resurface for some other landowners, and we go through the whole drill all over again.

    I think it is pretty well recognized that there are problems with the eminent domain laws that have developed since using eminent domain in favor of profit making enterprises became the route du jour. In additon, the increased value and development of property, and the increased restraints on the use of property have added new wrinks to the problem, not previously thought of. And both of those conditions add to the frequency of use.

    It is well recognized because the state had a blue ribbon commission on this, and some recommendations of the commision were broght to the legislature. Nothing happened, and you can guess why. It is also well recognized because other legislatures have taken action, and most of the recommendations of the panel have been enacted somewhere.

    My recommendations might go a little farther, but they are not completely out of the box nor totally disconnected with proposals arlready made or enacted.

    RH

    Log in to Reply
18. 

    Anonymous

    October 31, 2007

    “If both Dominion and VDOT were forced to use a fair process and pay a fair price for land – both of them might start thinking more seriously about other, possibly more cost-efficient alternatives.”

    That was precisely the point I tried to make to the landowners and a PEC representative.

    I think PEC had already decided to embark on their usual, canned, knee-jerk strategy, and nothing I said was going to make any difference.

    Nothing wrong with their strategy, necessarily, and certainly they have had enough practice to do it well, but sometimes you need a new play in the playbook, and a new soundbite on the scrimmage line.

    Log in to Reply