While I tend to agree with you about the pipeline, I think a case could be made that the existence of the infrastructure to Move oil could be considered a national security interest like the electrical grid, and as such, ED might be an appropriate tool. I have my doubts, but I would at least be wiling to listen to the argument.
Good argument, but the electrical grid (and natural gas grid) delivers electricity to Joe Q. Public consumers. The pipeline delivers oil to refineries on the gulf coast so that they can ship refined oil to the highest bidder anyplace in the world.
We agree. The case of a large project like that is, in priciple, no different than a strip mall in a small town. That was scotus dilemma. They couldn’t find a way to distinguish between the two with integrity, so they just approved all economic impact eminent domain. Security distinctions could be a legitimate consideration.
One thing, however. A town should be able to zone in an economic initiative. If an individual refuses to sell, then they should have to pay the new tax rates and upgrade requirements. Trump’s house lady should have had to pay the new requirements, but she also should have been able to put in a restaurant or shop or whatever in the midst of that development to enable payment of the new rates.
Not unlike eminent domain being used to create electric, water, sewer and gas rights of way and for railroad tracks. The public benefits of these kinds of infrastructure have been ruled to be sufficient for the exercise of eminent domain. An oil pipeline, delivering a critical energy resource falls into this category as well.