I believe it is customary to pay for what you get, and to pay for what you break through your own carelessness or inattention.

In this case Dominion will pay for what they take, only.

There is a huge difference.

Dominion has allocated only $300 million for this project, but it will cause far more than that in property damage. There are dozens of farms around me, including mine, that will suffer millions dollars in lost value as a result of this project. And that is just in my local area. Multiplied by forty miles,$300 million would not even cover the loss in property values.

If Dominion had to pay for what they are going to break, this project would cost far more and be far less profitable. They are taking scenic farmland, for which they will pay a pittance once, but they are getting the oportunity to earn millions for decades.

Those electric customers in New Jersey and North will get cheap and relaible power, while we will get a cheap and reliable view of the destruction Dominion has caused. Dominion will make billions over the years by breaking the backs and the hearts of hundreds of landowners.

Nearby landowners will lose value without even the small benefit money received for crossing their land. The route chosen was specifically picked in order to avoid houses and land in conservation easement. The result is, as in many other cases, that those who have worked to maintain their land the longest without development or phony tax write-offs will be the ones hurt the most.

This is theft, just as surely as if they raided our bank account to build their power line. However, if they took our money to support this project, we would be considered investors, and we would get a share in the enterprise, not just a slap in the face. They are using our property to enrich their investors and their customers by providing below cost power.

If Dominion had to pay the full price for their actions, and share fairly in the results, it might well turn out that this power line would be uneconomical, and the company would resort to more distributed and local power generation.

Sandra Day O’connor predicted this result precisely in her dissent statement in Kelo v New London:

“Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result.”

I urge each and everyone of you to write to every government official you can think of and urge them to act to stop this kind of behavior. Your home may very well be next. If you think I am kidding, consider this: this is the fourth time my wife’s family has had property taken from them by government action. Her farm is a Virginia Century Farm, having been in continuous operation in one family since 1836, but soon to be cut in half by this power line.

Please be sure to include the Security and Exchange Commission, which is charged with preventing corporate fraud and theft.