Abstract
Excerpt: THIS PAPER ARGUES THAT THE KEYSTONE PROPOSED PIPELINE EXPANSION 1 can be permanently derailed or unearthed by asking "Where's the public purpose?" In this paper, Keystone is examined in the context of Kelo v. City of New London,2 which holds that economic development is a sufficient public purpose to justify condemnation. The Keystone Pipeline Project, like the Pfizer project in Kelo, concerns conflict between individual autonomy and commercial development. Despite setbacks due to criticism with respect to environmental risks, the Keystone project continues to make steady progress forward.' Landowners may agree to have a pipeline laid across or buried under their property, or have pieces of their property taken from them, but following Kelo, landowner assent is not necessary. Kelo authorizes the taking of land (with just compensation) for the purpose of economic development, but it also observes that pretext invalidates the legitimacy of a claim to satisfy the public use requirement.
