Building the Border Fence - A Public/Private Partnership

Vanity Editorial ^ | 2 March 2015 | Self

[BeauBo]

To quickly secure our Southern Border, open the construction of the border fence to public and private sponsorship. Crowd source it.

If individuals, private organizations, and state or local governments with jurisdiction were allowed to finance construction of one mile segments, build out would occur quickly, leaving only a subset for the Federal Government to finance.

What do you think of this as a "power down" solution for a future Republican Administration?

[BeauBo]

DHS/ICE/Border Patrol would have to specify high construction standards and inspect for acceptance. Perhaps they could even provide a standing contract with mile by mile defined task orders, pre-priced for execution. The Border Patrol could accept maintenance of segments contiguous with theirs, while sponsors maintain (or not) their isolated segments.

Get it done quickly, and where it is most needed. Allow ranchers, groups of concerned citizens, States, and even Cities or Counties to finance their own needs, in their own timeframes, while ensuring high standards of interoperability and maintainability for DHS/ICE.

A $10 or $20 billion bill could be bitten off in $5 or $10 million dollar bites, from many sources. Organizations could freely arise to assist the effort.

[Don Corleone]

Close the border! Surely you jest. The only ones that want a secure border are the American citizens. The politicians from both sides want it open, one for political reasons, the other for economic.

[BeauBo]

I hear you. But if American citizens were free to vote with their own dollars, it could be a significant effect.

It would be a political decision to devolve any power whatsoever. Might be a good political issue, and an elegant solution.

[Ben Ficklin]

Chris Simcox was going to build a border fence back in 2006. He collected huge sums from the minutemen and freepers, but built only a 3 strand wire fence and put the rest of the money in his pocket.

Then, 3 or 4 years ago, the AZ lege authorized the building of a fence with private money, but they finally shut that down for lack of money.

[BeauBo]

Thanks for the info.

I didn’t know that, but it makes sense.

If the FedGov was serious about letting it happen, most people would not want to spend their own money, relying on the treasury instead. If the FedGov is not serious, most would not want to waste their money.

I still think that if the FedGov had the whole thing well specified and contracted, so that you could just add money, occasionally some requirement or desire would bubble up to get some done - especially if a significant event occurs, like 9-11. Billions might quickly flow.

[deport]

Chris Simcox was going to build a border fence back in 2006.

************

His trial is supposed to be starting sometime this month. He was granted the right
to represent himself. He’s been sitting in jail for the past year or so.

Some info here:
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2015/02/judge_allows_ex-minuteman_leader_chris_simcox_to_represent_self_trial_reset.php

[BeauBo]

Holy Crap! He is on trial for child molestation - including his own daughter when she was just 5 or 6!

Clearly, you can’t have just anyone doing anything they want with other people’s money. You can always have a bad apple - but you still want to have a good process for getting fence built.

I am proposing having the planning, design specification, and acceptance inspection done by the responsible federal agency (much should already be done) - just allowing others to fund selective execution.

The gist is to make it a simple (turnkey), modular process, which ensures that each module will fit into a comprehensive design. Then open execution to all comers. The goal is to make fence building faster and better, and to decentralize execution to anyone willing.

For example, if a State or City faces a surge of criminality from a gang-ridden Mexican border town, they might choose to get a ten mile stretch in place by the next year. It might be cheaper for a State to pay for additional fencing than to provide extensive social services for a wave of immigrants. 10,000 immigrants at $10,000/year equals $100 million, so they might make a business case, and start a bidding war among states to divert the flow elsewhere.

If a billionaire, corporation, or industry association had key property that they wanted bypassed/protected, they could get a couple of miles blocked off.

If a segment of the population were motivated to address the situation, they could raise funds (Simcox was a bad bet, but others could be good).

Congressmen would likely get earmarks for a few miles here or there. If a new threat developed, or a significant event occurred, response could be faster.

If a variety of projects were underway, businesses would be attracted to fence building, their processes would get better, and they would work to get more miles funded.

[Colorado Doug]

It sounds like a better idea than what we have going on right now- a big fat nothing! On the other hand, EPA will just step in a declare any area that is suitable for fence to be endangered species habitat.