Posted on 05/21/2006 4:58:16 AM PDT by ovrtaxt
The federal government will have to reach deep into taxpayers' pockets if it goes ahead with plans to build a security wall along the U.S.-Mexican border – it could cost at least $3 million per mile.
That's $568.18 per foot.
President Bush this week sent Congress a $1.9 billion request to increase border security. But that money would go not only for new fencing, but also for 1,000 new Border Patrol agents, the temporary deployment of up to 6,000 National Guard troops, two new surveillance aircraft and five helicopters.
In December the House voted to build a security barrier – with a double set of steel walls, floodlights, surveillance cameras and motion detectors – along 700 miles of the 1,952-mile border.
The Senate this week voted to build 370 miles of barrier.
After the House vote, Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., estimated that the 700-mile barrier would cost $2.2 billion, or about $3 million mile.
But that estimate could be way off the mark.
NewsMax looked toward Israel as an example and found that the 425-mile complex of fences, concrete walls, trenches and razor wire it is building along its border with the West Bank will cost $1.56 billion, or $3.67 million per mile – in an area where labor costs are far lower than in the United States.
The San Diego experience points to even higher costs.
A 14-mile, 15-foot-high double fence is now under construction near San Diego. Roughly $39 million has been spent on the project so far, and Homeland Security plans to spend $35 million more.
"If that $74 million is enough to finish the job [Border Patrol says the cost could keep rising] and the price is multiplied over the proposed 700 miles, the new fence could run $3.7 billion," the San Francisco Chronicle reports.
"Even that estimate doesn't take into account the expense of purchasing or condemning many miles of privately owned land abutting the border or of potential legal challenges."
At $3.7 billion, the 700-mile fence would cost $5.28 million per mile – or an astounding $1,000 per foot.
The fence near San Diego has slowed the flood of illegal aliens traveling through the border city of Imperial Beach, Calif., from about 2,000 a day to just a few a day on average.
That has driven aliens and drug smugglers to more remote and treacherous migration routes, and migrants increasingly hire smugglers to help them make the three-day hike through parched terrain – a tactic they could use to circumvent the new 700-mile fence.
So building the fence could turn out to be an expensive boondoggle, according to Mike Allen, director of the McAllen, Texas, Economic Development Corp.
"We want people to support our immigration laws because we live here," said Allen, whose home is half a mile from the border.
"But this will be a tremendous waste of money, and it will not stop immigration. People will just go around it."
The only solution that will work, according to a number of anti-immigration activist groups, is to build the fence along the entire 1,952-mile border.
It's costing $75 million per mile. Traffic might get a little better, too, when it's done, but it's not stopping any illegal immigration.
Just build the fence. Print more money if you have to.
Did we worry about costs when we fought WWII? Our national sovereignty is at stake. We are being invaded by up to 160,000 people a month (with 120,000 being caught and returned). We spent $11 to $18 billion annually enforcing the no-fly zones against Iraq for almost a decade. The cost issue is a red herring tossed out by the opponents of the House bill. Their biggest concern is really not about the costs, but the fact that the fences might work.
What price do we place on preservation of culture and our childrens future?
I'd say its worth every penny.
If cost is really the problem, set up an account to accept donations.
I'll buy my foot of wall.
I bet the funds would come pouring in.
I know!! But when the US Government is doing it...
Now, these figures are high, because they are lifted from the costs of the Israeli wall. Here, we wouldn't have landmines and all the bells & whistles.
But that's okay- let em take the high estimate and compare it to the social costs. It just makes the economic point more powerfully, because it pales in comparison regardless.
SUMMARY
Forty-four States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico have constructed highway traffic noise barriers; six States and the District of Columbia have not. The most notable trend in highway traffic noise barrier construction is that SDOTs spend more than $100 million of highway program funds annually for this form of noise abatement. Starting in 1992, SDOTs have averaged spending more than $139 million per year. Since the first highway traffic noise barrier was constructed, sixty-five percent (65%) of all spending has been for Type I projects, and twenty-nine percent (29%) for Type II projects.
Most barriers have been made from concrete or masonry block, range from 9-17 feet in height, and average $16-21 per square foot in cost.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/barrier/tintro.htm
Note: Keep in mind the cost per foot above is not linear cost, while the cost per foot quoted above is linear cost.
Cheap at half the price.
Compared to what's at risk, it's a bargain.
Bingo.
Using Mexican labor.
Just further evidence that the wall should be built privately - because the government can't build squat without overspending by at least 10X. For $3 Million per mile, they should be able to build it, and keep armed guards for at least a few years...and build a highway that runs parallel...
What is this - an effort by GW to backpedal away from a wall? IT's too costly???
If the fence can't be built for significantly less, then someone is padding their bank account...
To put this in other terms, each state is spending the equivalent of 33 miles of wall cost each year. If the states stopped for one year and contributed their noise budget for this wall, we could have the funds to do over 1,500 miles.
But my point here is that the cost of building a 1951 mile wall is about 3% of the cost of doing nothing. The burden on services and the growth of government is WAY MORE EXPENSIVE.
Illegal immigration makes ZERO economic sense.
Given the demographic and economic pressures from Mexico and Latin America, it is not a matter of if physical barriers will be built, but when.
Sheesh. We've spent more than that in a week in a corrupt cesspool named New Orleans.
Agreed, although I'd rephrase that last sentence from 'great' progress to 'some' progress.
And, we're going to continue to see 'hit' pieces on the border security issue, especially the wall topic. This is not over by a long shot.
My ideal scenario would be where Congress comes to grips with the security issue first. Once a reasonable plan is agreed upon for security, then we can take up the immigration issue. THEN I'd be somewhat more amenable to compromise. Congress is bringing much of this problem on themselves by insisting on tying the two issues together.
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.