RSS FEEDS
Recent Research
JUNE 27, 2007 | Commentary by GRANT GULIBON
Property Seizures Threaten PA Small Business
Being a small business owner in Pennsylvania is not easy. There’s the punishing tax burden levied by state and local governments that see small firms not so much as vital cogs in the commonwealth’s economic engine as cash cows to be milked to pay for more government spending.
NOVEMBER 22, 2005 | Commentary by MATTHEW BROUILLETTE
Private Property & Liberty
Good afternoon. My name is Matt Brouillette, and I am president & CEO of the Commonwealth Foundation, a public policy research and educational institute based in Harrisburg. We develop and advance public policy grounded in the founding principles of limited constitutional government, political and economic freedom, and personal responsibilit
OCTOBER 26, 2005 | Commentary by MATTHEW BROUILLETTE
Protect Private Property from Eminent Domain Abuse
Thank you for the opportunity to address the issue of Eminent Domain. My name is Matt Brouillette, and I am president & CEO of the Commonwealth Foundation, a research and educational institute based here in Harrisburg. As you have learned from this morning’s testifiers, the stunning U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo vs. N
Recent Blog Posts
NOVEMBER 16, 2010
Gas Pipelines and Eminent Domain
There is another battle brewing over the development of the Marcellus Shale—pipeline construction and eminent domain. With little infrastructure in place, pipeline companies are contributing to the Marcellus economic boom, but the emergence of this new industry also presents a threat to property rights.
Eminent domain laws were originally created for things like power lines, highways, and pipelines, as these structures are considered to have a primarily public benefit. But in recent years eminent domain laws have been abused by local governments, who have sought to take private property and give it to another private entity in the name of "economic development".
In Pennsylvania, eminent domain can only be used for large interstate pipelines (pipelines crossing at least two states), while the smaller gathering lines connecting each well must be negotiated with landowners. This important limitation shrinks the number of property owners vulnerable to eminent domain, but the possibility for a court showdown still exists.
Meanwhile, some pipeline companies are applying for utility status in Pennsylvania in order to acquire more expansive eminent domain powers. Other pipeline companies worry this will open a floodgate of regulations from the PUC.
In the end, most pipeline companies are very vocal about their preference to negotiate fair compensation, and restrictions to avoid the expensive and time consuming process of eminent domain. The Penn State Marcellus Center shares some additional tips for landowners negotiating the construction of a pipeline on their land.
posted by ELIZABETH STELLE | 10:40 AM | 0 comment
AUGUST 18, 2010
Pittsburgh's Proposed Petroleum Prohibition
The Post-Gazette features an article on a proposed ban on natural gas drilling in the city of Pittsburgh:
Ben Price, who helped draft the bill as projects director for the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund in Franklin County, said the city's right to protect residents from the hazards of drilling should trump any state claim of authority over drilling matters.
"Rights precede the state," he said. "Rights precede government. Rights precede state statues [sic] and are superior to them."
Apparently, while the rights of the city government precede the state, the right for private landowners to lease their own land doesn't precede the right of city government to prohibit leasing.
posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 10:26 AM | 0 comment
JULY 21, 2010
Natural Gas & Forced Pooling
The soon-to-be unbalanced FY 2010-11 state budget, included language that a severance tax on natural gas would be passed in Pennsylvania by October 1.
Many drillers would support a fair severance tax, as long as its among other changes to modernize regulatory obstacles in the state. Drilling here is already more expensive than comparable states due to the topography and regulations.
However, a proposed forced (or "fair") pooling law is not a regulatory change Pennsylvania should adapt.
A pooling law would require landowners to allow a drilling company to capture the natural gas under their property (and receive payment), if a majority of homeowners in that area ("pool") - a current proposal requires a 75% majority before forced pooling occurs - have agreed to lease their land. The law wouldn't force homeowners to allow wells on their property, and it would ensures they receive royalty payments for the gas recovered. And while the gas industry is correct - pooling laws reduces drilling costs and the environment impact by increasing efficiency - it also forces individuals to give up their property rights.
Property rights should not be infringed upon simply for the sake of convenience or to save costs. Indeed, that is little different than abusing eminent domain to take homes to give to Pfizer.
Yet the regulatory framework for the drilling industry does need revamping to address the growing operation costs. Lawmakers should consider the higher costs of drilling in Pennsylvania - due to a lack of forced pooling, along with other barriers - when considering a severance tax.
posted by KATRINA CURRIE | 01:01 PM | 0 comment
