6 ms·
> The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, which regulates pipelines, decided rural police should not have to pay for increased strain from Line 3 protests. A
by lowkey_ 5y ago
> The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, which regulates pipelines, decided rural police should not have to pay for increased strain from Line 3 protests. As a condition of granting Line 3 permits, the commission required Enbridge to set up an escrow account to reimburse police for responding to demonstrations.
The crux of the issue here is whether the police are being incentivized and are biased by this arrangement.
It's possible they feel that they are being paid by Enbridge and thus behave differently, but I think it's much more likely that this arrangement is above their heads — they're doing their job as police, and the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission is ensuring that local townspeople don't pay for an increase in police budget caused by a large company's behavior. I could only really imagine they're being biased if they're being weaponized as a personal security force, and could, for instance, be removed from assignment if they don't follow Enbridge's orders on who to arrest. I highly, highly doubt that to be the case.
> Enbridge told the Guardian an independent account manager allocates the funds, and police decide when protesters are breaking the law. But records obtained by the Guardian show the company meets daily with police to discuss intelligence gathering and patrols. And when Enbridge wants protesters removed, it calls police or sends letters.
This reminds me of a local police presence at a rally or controversial talk speaking to the organizers of the event about their concerns. This is rather ordinary, really.
Without evidence of what their letters or calls contain, I imagine it's like "hey, this person broke the law and here's the evidence," which frankly is fine reason to arrest someone. The ability to call the police and tell them that you want someone arrested for an illegal action is one of their main purposes!
Altogether, this article has a huge bite as clickbait, as the idea of our police being weaponized like a private security force by a foreign national company, but I think the reality is much more dull.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> this article has a huge bite as clickbait...the reality is much more dull Agreed. I imagine future deals will be structured as a special tax. Same situation, fundamentally. But less potential to be spun by the Guardian.
- tclancy 5y agoWould you rather these things be reported on or not? The US doesn't exactly have a great history with company towns and these deals smell a lot like that.
- wavefunction 5y agoMight as well make the payments from master to servant explicit, I agree.
- Loughla 5y agoI think the issue is that without a) all documents being public from day 1, and b) all processes controlled, audited, and strictly overseen by an independent third part who is just as open and public from day 1, this process is ripe for corruption. Even having the conversation, click bait or no, tells me that there wasn't enough information about this from the get-go.
- clarkevans 5y agoSo, I'm curious -- why are there protests here to begin with? What is the proper bar for adding a pipeline across the landscape? When your land is traversed against your will, what exact rights to you have to protect it?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- whatshisface 5y agoPipelines leak after being in place for a while and what they leak is usually toxic to the ground near where they are built. Hypothetically leaks can be kept to low levels by proactive maintenance, but in practice managers want to cut costs to a minimum, and have no incentives to spend their company's money to keep up the value of someone else's land.
- dekken_ 5y agodepends https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/eminent_domain https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/eminent_domain
- glasss 5y agoI was curious whose land it is based on your comment, found this document that helped me understand the circumstances: https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/sce/north-star-chapter/pdf/TreatRightsFactSheet.pdf https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/sc... The Anishinaabe people did cede all of this land the pipeline is on to the US Government in the 1800's. However it came with the requirement that they retain the rights to hunt, fish, and gather wild rice there. So while it is technically the government's land to do whatever they want with, I can understand the argument that building a pipeline across the land and rivers could impact their ability to hunt, fish, or gather on the lands.
- loeg 5y agoAlso keep in mind that the land was ceded to the USG under significant coercion.
- alistairSH 5y agoEven if the patrol officers had no idea they were being paid by the pipeline company, the chief of police surely would know. And the chief would be able to direct patrols in certain locations or drive investigations into individuals of interest.
- lowkey_ 5y ago> paid by the pipeline company, the chief of police surely would know Awareness of who is paying is step one of the potential for corruption here, but it's far from conclusive. The chief of police is getting paid regardless, whether it's by the municipality or the company isn't particularly relevant to him I imagine. > the chief would be able to direct patrols in certain locations or drive investigations into individuals of interest. This is exactly what a police chief should do all the time! When you hear of crime, you send officers to investigate it. Anyone can direct patrols to a certain location by calling 911 and reporting a crime.