If you’ve spent much time here at this blog, you know we’re pretty big fans of Brandon Township Supervisor Kathy Thurman. Soft-spoken, unassuming, very smart and very tough, Thurman has been a thoughtful, responsive, and brave leader when it comes to protecting her township, its citizens, and its natural resources from Enbridge’s attempts to steamroll through them.
If only we could say the same about all township supervisors in Michigan. The ET Rover situation has provided two good (by which we mean disturbing) examples in the past month, one from our very own Supervisor, Bob DePalma of Groveland Township, the other from Bruce Pearson in Addison Township. Both strike us as rather blustery fellows, self certain and pretty free with their opinions. At the same time, they seem strangely eager to capitulate when pipeline companies come knocking.
Two years ago, we tried to enlist DePalma in efforts to address citizen concerns about Line 6B. At that time, we thought his attitude was pretty dismissive of landowners’ concerns. He seemed to think he knew in advance what those concerns were and therefore didn’t really both listening to them very carefully. But he did listen to Enbridge’s p.r. man at the time, Joe Martucci– and appeared to swallow whole every thing Martucci told him.
It turns out, though, that DePalma isn’t just dismissive of reasonable landowner concerns– the concerns of his own neighbors and constituents. He also, evidently, thinks rather contemptuously of them. Here, for instance, is what he told Brandon Citizen reporter Susan Bromley in her article about ET Rover:
“This is still America,” said DePalma. “They can’t come through your property if there isn’t an easement. If they have an easement, the jurisdiction is probably identical to Enbridge. Half the people who had the Enbridge pipeline running through their yards didn’t even know they had it (prior to Enbridge returning and saying they were putting a new pipeline in).”
We’re not really sure what he’s talking about with the “this is America” or the “jurisdiction” stuff, which strikes us as oddly nonsensical–and a little uninformed. Sure, pipeline companies can’t come through your property without an easement. But the whole point is that in America, those same companies are routinely granted the power of eminent domain, which means they can acquire an easement on your property whether you want them to or not.
DePalma’s last sentence is even worse– because it is mean-spirited and insulting. We have no idea what makes him think that half of landowners didn’t know about their easements; nor do we believe that it’s even remotely true. What DePalma possibly has to gain by disparaging landowners– again, many of them his very own neighbors and constituents– by implying that they’re a bunch of ignoramuses is completely beyond us. Perhaps we’re misconstruing his point here or maybe we’ve got his tone wrong. However, as we said above, he never seems to have bothered to try and understand why some landowners might be unhappy about either pipeline project.
While DePalma appears to think landowners are ignorant, Bruce Pearson thinks they’re just greedy. Here’s what Pearson told CJ Carnacchio of the Clarkston News at the ET Rover open house in Richmond:
“When Enbridge came through here, not everybody was happy until the checkbooks opened up,” Pearson said. “Then all of a sudden about 80 percent of the people, you never heard from them again.”
Honestly, we don’t know what Pearson is talking about here either. What’s strange is that Pearson himself is a landowner along Line 6B and along the proposed ET Rover route. Yet he seems to lack the imagination to understand that money might not be the only consideration for landowners. He also seems, like DePalma was with Enbridge, eager to believe whatever pleasing story Energy Transfer tells him:
In the end, Pearson believes construction of the Rover Pipeline is inevitable.
“It’s going to come through no matter what, I know that,” he said. “I don’t think (residents are) going to stop it from coming through. I don’t think there’s going to be a point where you’re going to stop the whole project.
“I think they’re just going to have to move it around and accommodate people.”
In the meantime, Pearson advised property owners who are along the proposed pipeline route to be good negotiators with ET Rover/ETP when it comes time to talk compensation.
He said the amount a person receives depends on “how tough you are.”
“They’re inconveniencing you,” Pearson said. “You take what will make you happy. Don’t worry about them. They’re billionaires. You’re not hurting them one iota.”
Things like crop damage, tree damage and loss of hunting privileges can all be factored into the compensation, according to Pearson.
“Make yourself happy because when they’re gone, they’re gone,” he said.
Pearson may or may not be right that ET Rover is inevitable; the deck is certainly stacked in favor of the pipeline company. But it’s far from a certainty. The truth is that Pearson’s position is the easy one, the complacent and compliant one, even the cynical one: just shrug your shoulders and try to get paid. Whether it’s the position of a thoughtful public steward and a courageous leader, one who cares about things other than money– things like the public interest, private property rights, and the environment– is another question altogether.
Jeff, I generally agree 100% with you on just about everything wrt these pipelines. But, I have to disagree when you say that landowners/homeowners would have to know about easements. Where we live in southwest Michigan, many large farms have been subdivided into 20-200 acre segments, or in some cases even subdivisions. Although the easements cover all of the land in the original parcel, the people who buy the subdivided sections often are not informed of the easements, especially if no pipeline currently crosses their land. So, for example, we were not informed of a tiny sliver of ROW easement in one corner of our property associated with a pipeline on our neighbor’s property (it’s not in our original tittle or land description). Most of that sliver of easement is actually under the road and it’s not legally clear whether we technically own the property under the road or not. That said, in addition to the ROW easement, there is an easement that allows use of land on either side of the ROW (with no stipulation of how far away) for access. So, for example, Enbridge could use any of our land or that of our neighbors on the other side of the pipeline, very far from the pipeline, for access. This means cutting down trees, tearing down barns, whatever is needed for access to the pipeline zone including access for construction of a new pipeline. The tiny sliver of our land has been sold through Enbridge to our neighbor and all remaining easements removed from our property. This means they no longer have the right to use our property for construction activities of any sort, not even access. But, Enbridge could still technically use land belonging to our neighbors down the road, 1/4 to 1/2 mile from the current ROW, if they needed it for future construction. Some of our more distant neighbors were caught unawares. They were well away from line 6B and had no idea that Enbridge had an access easement. Enbridge determined that it was cheaper and easier to cut through their property to access the pipeline construction zone on woods and wetland areas running behind their property. So, suddenly they had a service road cut through their front yard, making a total mess as well as non-stop commotion. It was easier for heavy vehicles to cut through their property than to drive alongside the pipeline in areas with wetlands and thick woods.
The way the law reads, even if you’re not informed of an easement, that easement still stands. So, yes, there are homeowners who don’t’ know there is an easement on their property, especially if it is just for access and not as an actual ROW where a new pipeline can be placed.
We have no disagreement, Patricia. I did not say landowners have to know about these easements. I am aware that it’s possible that some landowners don’t or didn’t know about their easements. But that’s not the point here. Situations like yours are not at all what DePalma is talking about. He is saying “half” of landowners (which is surely an exaggeration) didn’t know about them as a way of making them look stupid and dismissing their reasonable concerns– not, as you are pointing out, as a way of describing how messed up and legally complicated (and unfair to landowners) these easement matters sometimes can be. He’s just taking a cheap shot, not adding anything productive to the conversation.
Gotcha. Yes, it’s amazing how many rural big-wigs think they know it all and the people they serve don’t know anything. On the other hand, I think it’s worth pointing out that many people are caught in this mess and it’s not that they’re stupid; it’s the laws that are ‘stupid.’
Btw, here’s a recent letter from Michigan government to Enbridge in case you haven’t seen it:
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/ag/07.24.14_State_of_Michigan_Notice_-_Enbridge_463840_7.pdf
I wish they had just told Enbridge to turn off flow but perhaps this letter is better than nothing…?
Right. Like I said, we have no agreement.
As for the letter, yes, it’s better than nothing and I’m glad they’re taking this action. But they are SO late to the party and I’m dubious about their motivations. Here’s what Beth wrote about it this week: http://surfgreatlakes.org/2014/07/25/enbridges-pipelines-in-the-great-lakes-violate-safety-requirements-for-the-past-61-years/ She is right on the money, I think.