Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ruling may impact the use of border sensors
The Sierra Vista Herald ^ | May 10, 2009 | Jonathan Shacat

Posted on 05/10/2009 11:59:50 AM PDT by HiJinx

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-31 next last
So, what's the real reason Otay Mesa LLP doesn't want the sensors on their property?
1 posted on 05/10/2009 11:59:50 AM PDT by HiJinx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 1_Inch_Group; 2sheep; 2Trievers; 3AngelaD; 3pools; 3rdcanyon; 4Freedom; 4ourprogeny; 7.62 x 51mm; ..

Border Sensor...Ping!


2 posted on 05/10/2009 12:00:17 PM PDT by HiJinx (~ Support Our Troops ~ www.AmericaSupportsYou.mil ~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiJinx
Mo' money, Mo' money, Mo' money....


3 posted on 05/10/2009 12:03:07 PM PDT by darkwing104 (Lets get dangerous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: darkwing104

Well, I suppose it could be a simple case of economics...

It’s interesting to note the comments from local ranchers here in Arizona who’ve been in the middle of this mess for a decade or more, now.


4 posted on 05/10/2009 12:05:00 PM PDT by HiJinx (~ Support Our Troops ~ www.AmericaSupportsYou.mil ~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: HiJinx
Well, I suppose it could be a simple case of economics...

Think greed...I've seen similar events happen whenever an Air Force base updates it;s facilities...The locals raise a stink and go away when they get a million or two to shut them up. I also wonder if they are taking money from the Coyotes? The Border Patrol will learn it's just cheaper to pay the Greedy SOBs off or threaten Eminent domain than to fight it in court


5 posted on 05/10/2009 12:13:34 PM PDT by darkwing104 (Lets get dangerous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: HiJinx
Otay Mesa Property LP, Rancho Vista Del Mar and Otay International LLC filed a lawsuit in March 2006 seeking compensation for the use of 750 acres of valuable development land in San Diego County.

Oh, yeah, I'm sure it's real valuable. Everybody wants to live in a subdivision right on the Mexican border. /s

The answer is to run the sensors around their property effectively putting it in Mexico. But then the greedy bastids would sue because the gummint wasn't protecting them.

6 posted on 05/10/2009 12:22:16 PM PDT by TigersEye (Cloward-Piven Strategy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

LOL!!


7 posted on 05/10/2009 12:25:39 PM PDT by HiJinx (~ Support Our Troops ~ www.AmericaSupportsYou.mil ~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: HiJinx

Just means their property is going to be condemned. Some people aren’t very smart.

There was a similar situation on the Canada Border with the US. The US Family Farm kept complaining and the US just condemned their property after they lost a court case bought by the family against the border patrol for damaged crops.

They were on the radio, nice people. They were having their rights violated no doubt, but the alternative was worse.


8 posted on 05/10/2009 12:27:18 PM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dila813

The sad part is; there is always some form of compromise. And the citizen will always lose if he doesn’t take part in negotiating the compromise.

I’m not sure, in the case of Otay Mesa LP, that the civilians had an opportunity to negotiate with the Border Patrol...


9 posted on 05/10/2009 12:32:43 PM PDT by HiJinx (~ Support Our Troops ~ www.AmericaSupportsYou.mil ~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: HiJinx

I actually talked to some agents there one day. They were quick to tell you how some landowners near the border obstruct them in any way they can. One example was that Agents can go without warrant onto property adjacent to the border, but they do not have a right to use roads.

Some Landowners paid off by the dopers build iron pipe gates and force the USBP to walk several miles down a dirt road to patrol.

It’s naive to think the cartels have corrupted an entire nation in mexico, but that magically, everyone just this side of the fence is pure as the driven snow. These are the people who fight the USBP, and of course, people who have a last name ending in “Z”.


10 posted on 05/10/2009 12:47:24 PM PDT by DesertRhino (Dogs earn the title of "man's best friend", Muslims hate dogs,,add that up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiJinx

The Constitution requires that owners of private property taken for public use be compensated.

Protection of the border is obviously a perfectly legitimate public use, but compensation is still required.


11 posted on 05/10/2009 12:54:51 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (Everyone has a right to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

The thing that truly bothers me is that there is apparently no easement already in effect along the entire length of the border.

In my mind this is clearly a case of eminent domain; inasmuch, as you mentioned, border security is the reason for the need for an easement.


12 posted on 05/10/2009 1:06:36 PM PDT by HiJinx (~ Support Our Troops ~ www.AmericaSupportsYou.mil ~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: HiJinx
I’m not sure, in the case of Otay Mesa LP, that the civilians had an opportunity to negotiate with the Border Patrol...

Perhaps not but don't you find it odd that the AZ ranchers say the BP came to them first? I think OM LP is being stupid by not cooperating with them. The FedGov, through the BP, is bearing the cost of a security system for their property. The courts might possibly rule in OM LPs favor and then stipulate that they insure the security of their property boundary with Mexico. If they fail to secure it then they lose the property. How about that for an answer? lol

13 posted on 05/10/2009 1:19:44 PM PDT by TigersEye (Cloward-Piven Strategy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: HiJinx
There are interesting tidbits about these three entities (Otay Mesa Property, L.P., Rancho Vista Del Mar, and Otay International, LLC)
in a prior court case (PDF). Apparently more than one-half of their 293 acres were designated by the FWS as "critical habitat" for the
"fairy shrimp" so they sued the DOI. The land is described as follows:
Plaintiffs’ property is located along the United States-Mexican border in San Diego
County, east of the city of San Diego, in a rugged and hilly coastal-mesa area, lying west of the
foothills of the San Ysidro Mountains. Pls.’ Opp’n at 4. Most of the area is accessible only in
heavy-duty utility vehicles or on horseback, and is not accessible by public roads. Id., Ex. 2 (Wick
Decl. (“Wick Decl.”)) ¶ 5. The portion of Plaintiffs’ property that is designated as part of the critical
habitat is privately owned, unimproved land, but is zoned for light industrial use. Pls.’ Opp’n at 4.
The Plaintiffs together own approximately 274.55 acres, about 143 acres of which have been
designated by the FWS as critical habitat for the San Diego fairy shrimp. Id. These 143 acres are
included in a 391-acre area that the FWS refers to as Subunit 5D, a parcel designated by the FWS
as fairy shrimp habitat. Id. at 4-5.
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2008cv0383-22
14 posted on 05/10/2009 1:39:52 PM PDT by calcowgirl (RECALL Abel Maldonado! - NO on Props 1A 1B 1C 1D 1E 1F)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiJinx

So, what’s the real reason Otay Mesa LLP doesn’t want the sensors on their property? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

They are greedy sacks o shiite and want monetary compensation for a “taking” of part of their land


15 posted on 05/10/2009 1:42:00 PM PDT by dennisw (Your action becomes your habit. Your habit becomes your character, that becomes your destiny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

http://www.marzulla.com/news.php?action=view&id=7

San Diego Land Owners File Takings Lawsuit Over Border Wall Placement

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nancie G. Marzulla
(202) 822-6760
Roger J. Marzulla
(202) 822-6760

March 6, 2006

SAN DIEGO LAND OWNERS FILE TAKINGS LAWSUIT OVER BORDER WALL PLACEMENT

Washington (DC)— Three landowners, Otay Mesa Property L.P., Rancho Vista Del Mar, and Otay International LLC, have filed a takings lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C. seeking compensation for the physical taking of approximately 750 acres of valuable development land in San Diego County, California. The property is located in the Otay Mesa area, at the end of the 14-mile border fence erected by the federal government. Because the fence is only partially complete and terminates on the privately owned land, federal Border Patrol agents nightly round up dozens of illegal immigrants on the private property, making it unusable for commercial development. The federal government has also erected various structures on Plaintiffs’ property without their permission.

“There is no question that securing American borders is an important national objective which the landowners support,” said Nancie G. Marzulla, an attorney representing the property owners. “But,” she added, “the Constitution requires that the government carry out its important objectives by obeying the Constitution, and paying for the property it takes.”

The plaintiffs are represented by Marzulla & Marzulla, a Washington, D.C.-based law firm with decades of experience in property rights litigation in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. For further information about the case, call 202-822-6760 or visit www.marzullalaw.com.


16 posted on 05/10/2009 1:42:44 PM PDT by calcowgirl (RECALL Abel Maldonado! - NO on Props 1A 1B 1C 1D 1E 1F)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

Good info there. Traitors to America


17 posted on 05/10/2009 1:43:53 PM PDT by dennisw (Your action becomes your habit. Your habit becomes your character, that becomes your destiny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

See my post 15
They want M O N E Y!
That’s all this is about
Their land is probably useless and worthless but they’ll see if they can wring some $$$$$ out of Uncle Sam


18 posted on 05/10/2009 1:46:04 PM PDT by dennisw (Your action becomes your habit. Your habit becomes your character, that becomes your destiny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

That is interesting. I didn’t know fairy shrimp could live in dust.


19 posted on 05/10/2009 2:01:23 PM PDT by TigersEye (Cloward-Piven Strategy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye; calcowgirl

“That is interesting. I didn’t know fairy shrimp could live in dust.”

This is how insane this enviro ‘save the fairy shrimp’ crappola is. Several years ago, on Discovery Channel IIRC, they had a show on the top 10 survival ‘critters’.

The Fairy shrimp was one. They live everywhere. This show featured some from Africa, IIRC. They BOILED the things and they didn’t die!


20 posted on 05/10/2009 2:05:10 PM PDT by AuntB (The right to vote in America: Blacks 1870; Women 1920; Native Americans 1925; Foreigners 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-31 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson