20 million, or Two Tunnels

Viper1j

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2018
4,169
3,645
136
Pay me, or watch me dig tunnels through your magical wall. My land is my land. 20 million... In cash... Tax free.. PER ACRE.

Any truck or bulldozer left on my land will find a tankful of sugar in it. 1550754851569.png

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/21/politics/border-wall-land-seizure/index.html

What a wall means for landowners on the border

Customs and Border Protection has been preparing to acquire land in the Rio Grande Valley for new barriers since last fall, according to a lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump's national emergency declaration.

Last Friday, the advocacy group Public Citizen filed a lawsuit on behalf of three landowners and a nature preserve arguing that the President had exceeded his authority and the declaration violated the separation of powers. But some attempts to acquire land came well before the declaration was announced.

In September, Customs and Border Protection requested access to survey private property in the Rio Grande Valley region "for possible acquisition in support of US Customs and Border Protection's construction of border infrastructure authorized by Congress in the Fiscal Year 2019 appropriation and other funded tactical infrastructure projects," according to a letter reviewed by CNN.

A form is attached to grant permission to the government to conduct "assessment activities."
The documents reviewed by CNN were addressed to the late father and grandfather of Yvette Gaytan, one of the plaintiffs. Her home sits on an approximately half-acre lot near the Rio Grande River that she inherited from her father, according to the lawsuit. She is also one of the heirs of land owned by her grandfather.

Gaytan, a Starr County, Texas, resident, said she signed the form allowing Customs and Border Protection to survey her land, despite her reservations. Still, in January, she received another set of documents from the agency stating it expected to file a "Declaration of Taking and Complaint in Condemnation" in the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas in order to access the land. (HOW MANY KINDS OF STUPID WAS SHE?)

The back-and-forth has been frustrating for Gaytan, who says she'd be cut off from some of her property if a wall were mounted.
"This is very personal," she told CNN. "Everyone wants to make it political. This is personal; this is my home." Gaytan's story is emblematic of what landowners in the region can anticipate as plans move forward to build additional barriers in the Rio Grande Valley, where much of the land is privately owned.

Generally, the government is allowed to acquire privately owned land if it's for public use, otherwise known as eminent domain. Eminent domain cases can be lengthy, though they generally don't keep the agency from being able to proceed with construction. Landowners are often fighting for what is known as just compensation -- what they deem a fair price for their property.

According to the Justice Department, as of last month approximately 80 cases were still outstanding.
The Trump administration still hasn't acquired all the land it needs to build new barriers along the border, even as it embarks on new construction that was previously funded.

Customs and Border Protection plans to begin building about 14 new miles of wall in March, though that partly depends on real estate acquisitions, according to a senior agency official. Those miles were funded through the fiscal year 2018 budget.

Congress appropriated $1.375 billion for about 55 miles of new construction in its fiscal 2019 budget. Trump, seeing it as insufficient, is tapping into other federal funds through executive action and a national emergency declaration, though not all at the same time.
The White House does not plan to spend any of the funds that hinge on Trump's national emergency declaration while lawsuits challenging that authority work their way through the courts, a source close to the White House said.

Instead, the White House plans to focus on building new portions of the border wall using funds from the Defense Department's drug interdiction program and the Treasury Department's asset forfeiture fund, which do not rely on the national emergency declaration. Those two sources of funding alone amount to $3.1 billion.

That allows the White House to move forward with construction without risking an injunction tied to the national emergency declaration.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Pay me, or watch me dig tunnels through your magical wall. My land is my land. 20 million... In cash... Tax free.. PER ACRE.

Any truck or bulldozer left on my land will find a tankful of sugar in it.

<shrug> you can ask for what you want but what you'd get would be what the court (run by the same government taking your land) would agree to give you. And if you want to get arrested and convicted for damage to government property by "putting sugar in gas tanks" then have at it I suppose. It won't stop the land from being seized by ED or a wall from being built if it comes to it. We're past the point of argument about whether "a wall is a good idea" at that point.
 

Viper1j

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2018
4,169
3,645
136
I don't give a fart in a hurricane about the wall. My land is my land. The women in the story had that land in her family for 3 generations. She should have NEVER signed anything permitting them to do a survey. That so stupid on her part.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
I don't give a fart in a hurricane about the wall. My land is my land. The women in the story had that land in her family for 3 generations. She should have NEVER signed anything permitting them to do a survey. That so stupid on her part.

I'm with you about the wall although if the government is determined to build it then whether she allowed or refused a survey would have been a small speed bump on the way towards ED her land. Since the survey is discoverable in court, allowing it might eventually help get her a higher payout from the court deciding what the "proper" ED payment is. The bigger problem is that a wall shouldn't be in scope for ED land seizure but after Kelo v. New London that seems like a moot point, pretty much if the government wants your land for basically any reason then SCOTUS is OK with them taking it via ED.
 

Viper1j

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2018
4,169
3,645
136
I'm with you about the wall although if the government is determined to build it then whether she allowed or refused a survey would have been a small speed bump on the way towards ED her land. Since the survey is discoverable in court, allowing it might eventually help get her a higher payout from the court deciding what the "proper" ED payment is. The bigger problem is that a wall shouldn't be in scope for ED land seizure but after Kelo v. New London that seems like a moot point, pretty much if the government wants your land for basically any reason then SCOTUS is OK with them taking it via ED.

Would you do a survey on land that had a couple of pit bulls with bad attitudes on it?

As for me, I might have said something along the lines of :" Sure, knock yourselves out.. Oh by the way, watch out for the land mines. I lost the map of where I put them about a year ago.." I dare them to walk on my land.

If you're not willing to fight for your shit, then you don't deserve to have it.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,355
5,110
136
I don't give a fart in a hurricane about the wall. My land is my land. The women in the story had that land in her family for 3 generations. She should have NEVER signed anything permitting them to do a survey. That so stupid on her part.
You're allowed to keep your land as long as you pay the government for the privilege. Stop paying the government for it and they will take it from you.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
27,201
36,140
136
You're allowed to keep your land as long as you pay the government for the privilege. Stop paying the government for it and they will take it from you.

Strange how this concept become so hard to comprehend for the right when the Bundies fought grazing fees by taking over a Federal building with guns.

Maybe that lady should get on a horse, parade around with an American flag a little.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,355
5,110
136
Strange how this concept become so hard to comprehend for the right when the Bundies fought grazing fees by taking over a Federal building with guns.

Maybe that lady should get on a horse, parade around with an American flag a little.
OK?
I'm not sure what you're looking for here. I'm not the right wing spokesmen, nor do I really care what crimes the Bundies committed. My point is that "ownership" of land is granted to us by the government and that grant can be revoked.
Most folks seem to think this is a good idea as it's a huge revenue stream for state government. Most people also think that eminent domain is a reasonable idea as well. That almost universally changes when it's their land that's taken.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
OK?
I'm not sure what you're looking for here. I'm not the right wing spokesmen, nor do I really care what crimes the Bundies committed. My point is that "ownership" of land is granted to us by the government and that grant can be revoked.
Most folks seem to think this is a good idea as it's a huge revenue stream for state government. Most people also think that eminent domain is a reasonable idea as well. That almost universally changes when it's their land that's taken.

I think ED is a completely reasonable idea when used correctly. Infrastructure like roads, railways, airports, harbors, etc. that benefit everyone would be basically impossible without it. Now a situation like Kelo v. New London when it's being used for "economic development" is another story. I'm also well aware that previous generations were quite cavalier about effectively weaponizing ED to clear out minorities and other "undesirables" from their neighborhoods to place highways and such. And yeah ED sucks for those whose land is being taken, but the alternative where building roads is impossible because someone demands $1B per acre once they find out I-95 is going to run through their backyard some day is even worse. The 2,000 mile border wall is just one of those occasions where the realized benefit from building is, shall we say extremely difficult to calculate. I won't say it has zero value as spot walls are certainly useful, but "entire border wall" certainly calls into question whether ED is justified.