Posted on 01/26/2008 6:45:46 AM PST by mdittmar
Brownsville's vocal critics have denied surveyors access to their land and were threatened with lawsuits by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff
A federal judge urged the government Friday to use common sense and "good neighborness" in working out access to 12 pieces of private property in Cameron County that it says it needs to study land for the border fence.
U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen did not rule Friday, but an order was expected early next week granting the government access but with some guidelines.
Hanen's handling was markedly different from the way U.S. District Judge Alia Moses Ludlum handled an almost identical case in Eagle Pass. In that case, the government filed its lawsuit and Ludlum ordered the city to surrender 233 acres before it could muster a response.
Brownsville residents, including Mayor Pat Ahumada, have been among the most vocal critics of the border fence. Ahumada denied surveyors access to city-owned land, noting that early plans showed the fence cutting through downtown Brownsville.
Last fall, the Department of Homeland Security offered some property owners $3,000 for access to their land for surveys. Many refused on principle, with Ahumada calling it "blood money."
By year's end, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff sent letters to residents threatening to take them to court if access was not granted. So far, Eagle Pass and the Cameron County case have reached courtrooms.
The Justice Department sued 12 Cameron County landowners last week to get access to their property for 180 days for survey and other investigatory work. Hundreds of other property owners have already agreed to grant the access, said Andy Goldfrank from the Justice Department's land acquisition division.
"We need to understand what is on the ground there," Goldfrank said.
An attorney for two property owners in Brownsville said that with eminent domain laws, the government already has essentially taken his clients' land.
"The government has won from the beginning," attorney Albert Villegas said. "The question is only when (they will have access) and what they can do." Villegas requested $100,000 over the $100 the law requires to be paid because the easement will tie up his clients' downtown commercial property.
Hanen suggested the government's approach has been just short of friendly.
"What I'm trying to do is engender into this process for lack of a better word, a little common sense or good neighborness," Hanen said. "That's the thing I'm asking, and maybe ultimately ordering is, use some common sense."
Hanen asked many questions of the government and established some ground rules.
"We're not here to debate the merits of the fence," Hanen said. But "I don't want anyone questioning the patriotism of the people who own this land. Some of it has been in their possession for generations."
Alberto Mendoza, whose mother owns property in Cameron County, said his mother is willing to give temporary access to fence surveyors, but worries about receiving just compensation if the fence is built through it.
"With that wall they cut my mom's property in two pieces," Mendoza said, with more than half of it, down to the Rio Grande, possibly ending up in a no-man's land between the fence and the Mexican border.
Hanen also asked the government when it would be able to tell property owners exactly where the fence was going.
Goldfrank gave no specific answer, but said that they hoped to end the surveys in eight weeks and then begin discussions for a final layout.
Attorney David Garza said that until last Friday his client thought the government wanted access to all 1,400 of their acres. With the complaint filed last week, the government made clear it would only need access to about seven acres.
Since the land is leased to a farmer who planted winter wheat, Garza said his client wanted some indemnification in case the crop is damaged.
Hanen's order is expected to include guidelines for how the government's contractors may access the property so as to cause the least damage, but ultimately grant the temporary access they request. Villegas said he expects Hanen's order next week.
President Bush has signed a law requiring 700 miles of fence be built along the Mexican border to help combat illegal immigration.
The Department of Homeland Security is trying to build 370 miles of fence by the end of the year. The lower Rio Grande Valley between Brownsville and McAllen is densely populated and closely linked with sister cities on the Mexican side. Property owners in the valley worry that the fence will cut them off from large swaths of their property.
I would argue that since they allow illegal aliens to cross their property without taking any action to stop them, they have effectively allowed a public right of access by prescription, and thus the government has as much right to access the property as they do.
Common sense has long posited that “good fences make good neighbors”.
Sounds like this second judge is being judicious in an effective kind of way... too bad there are so many who are not.
Common sense, is not so common these days....
Common sense: Since they do not want a fence on their property, build it up to their property lines and leave a gap. They will be BEGGING for a fence in no time; then you can charge them top dollar, for court costs and overtime for the fence guys to come back and build their portion.
No need to make them have a fence.
Perhaps the federal government should use its granted power of eminent domain to buy out the property in question. Then there would be no problems with them building the wall or otherwise accessing the property.
Oh? You have proof that each of these landowners has done that?
I think there are legitimate concerns here. The fence is not being built on the border.
Alberto Mendoza, whose mother owns property in Cameron County, said his mother is willing to give temporary access to fence surveyors, but worries about receiving just compensation if the fence is built through it.I think that even the most pro-fence, anti-illegal-invasion FReeper would be concerned with this situation on his own property.
"With that wall they cut my mom's property in two pieces," Mendoza said, with more than half of it, down to the Rio Grande, possibly ending up in a no-man's land between the fence and the Mexican border.
I don’t care how many fences they put up...It won’t stop them. It’ll simply change their route.
Sure, she’s entitled to compensation, but the impression one gets is that most of these landowners are objecting because they don’t want the fence for political reasons.
Yes, I think that's the main reason, too. That and bilking the government for all they can. I say 1) build the fence on their north property line and leave them in no man's land, or 2) leave a gap at their property and let illegals stream through 24/7 and see how fast the owners cry Uncle.
Well, maybe not the government, since governments do not, in general, have the right of “adverse possession” ~ it’s pretty much the case the government has to resort to eminent domain.
My defense, and that of my neighbors, is, frankly, much more important to me than the water rights of some cows in Texas.
Duh judge, eminent domain must be an entirely new concept, where did he get his law degree out of cracker jack box?
Nothing a few fixed bayonets or land mines can't fix.
Protracted law suits won’t accomplish anything. If Brownsville or any other property owners have a problem with the fence; Build the fence around them and they will have all the Rio Grande water and comradery with Mexico they can handle.
Quite the opposite, in fact, as the US Gov't allowed the invasion to continue over the protestations of it's citizens, including, supposedly, the property owners themselves.
Security fences, by definition, need to be as straight as possible for sight lines etc. River banks wander around, so a lot of land will become no-man's-land. Land that has been in same families for generations in some cases.
They are protesting access now, but in reality it is the location of the fence that pisses 'em off.
It seems as though you like the Gov't position on this.
If I'm the judge, I order Gov't to do everything possible to insure that any fence built would preserve as much of the owner's lands as possible.
Ping!
If you want on, or off this S. Texas/Mexico ping list, please FReepMail me.
Therein lies the difficulty. FedGov is trying to maximize protests and opposition by building the fence as far away from the actual border as they think they can get away with. That the article doesn't mention anything shows how useless the press is in America today.
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.