Posted on 01/28/2008 10:41:10 AM PST by mdittmar
BROWNSVILLE — A dozen Cameron County property owners have lost their battle to keep federal officials from surveying their land for the Department of Homeland Security's border fence.
Following a hearing Friday, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen issued an order granting the government six-month easements to "survey, make borings, and conduct other related investigations" to "plan the proposed construction of roads, fencing, vehicle barriers, security lighting, and related structures designed to help secure the United States/Mexico border within the State of Texas."
Hanen denied access to neighboring lands not previously specified by the government. As part of the order, the government must consult with landowners to ensure minimal property damage.
"This court will make itself available if needed for resolution of any disputes, but it expects all parties to act cooperatively," Hanen wrote.
The government sued the landowners for six months' access to their land and filed court papers to condemn the needed land. The government is compensating each landowner $100 for surveying.
Once the fence's placement is finalized, which could take two to eight weeks, the next phase will be to negotiate with landowners to buy the land or seize it through eminent domain.
President Bush announced plans for a southern border fence in May 2006 and signed a law authorizing it in October.
A Border Patrol map showing a draft fence route surfaced last spring, prompting an outcry among Texas border residents and politicians who said they weren't consulted. Many fear the fence would cut farmers and wildlife off from the Rio Grande and damage relations with Mexico.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff pledged to be more open, and in November released a phone book-size Environmental Impact Statement with detailed satellite maps of the plan, which he said could change after the final surveying and assessing.
Some landowners have denied access to land parcels that in some cases date to Spanish land grants of the 1700s.
In December, Chertoff said there would be warning letters followed by lawsuits to gain access.
ping
Thank god!!!
If a landowner doesn't want the fence on their southern property line ask his neighbor to his North if it can be built on his southern property line instead.
I'd not want to be one of those finding themselves on the wrong side of he finished fence.
One D-9 should solve the problem.
when you buy land on an INTERNATIONAL BORDER, you should expect a border fence.
I wonder how many of these property owners have a financial interest in a free flowing border...
Every State within the Union of States (with the exception of the Republic of Texas) granted their unappropriated lands to the United States as a condition of statehood.
U. S. of A. land patents have no authority in the Republic of Texas because Texas never ceded its lands to the United States.
If the Feds think they have easement rights, then
this matter should be covered under the supremacy clause of the Constitution.( treaties )
Summa Corp. v California, 466 US 198,
the feds seem to want it all ways.
Concern #1: Losing access to the Rio Grande - well, gosh, here's one of those little cases where illegal immigration harms someone. There you go, illegal activists, someone who is harmed by illegal immigration. Thanks for playing.
Concern #2: Damage relations with Mexico. Get elected to the office of the president, get majority in congress, make your own policy. Of course, the strongest people against open borders have already been knocked out of the race, so I guess concern #2 will be addressed momentarily.
An earlier article about this indicated that the “landowners” in this suit had only small lots, not big acreages. Some were city lots in border towns. Sounds as if these “landowners” are more interested in obstruction than in helping with border protection.
I do see the plain reading of the Constitution regarding the word “treaties”, but darned if i see any mention of the word "border"
It could very well be covered under US Code.
quite a pickle, isn’t it ?
the judge granted a temporary easement...once they start boring holes etc...it’s all over but the shouting.
I'm with you on that one.
That would be a pretty good idea.
Regarding Spanish land grants, Lincoln himself perfected those items for California ~ and I'd imagine, for property owners in Texas as well.
I'd say those would be the clearest indications that the conceptual idea of the framers of the constitution would be that the federal government would be responsible for maintaining the borders.
But, you're right, there's no plain text saying 'the Federal government shall have the common right to seize property along the US border for erection of a fence to repel an invasion of economic and criminal elements supported by military forces of a foreign power.'
Lincoln was cold and in the ground when Texas was readmitted.
Amendment V: nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. A reasonable corollary is that property can be taken with just compensation; Otherwise, we couldn't build highways, aqueducts, or -- ask our current president about this -- stadia.
Ding, ding. We have a winner. It's not about the land, it's about the money. One does wonder if they are currently being paid in pesos but thought they'd get more US dollars by hassling the government.
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.