Texas Landowners First to Challenge Trump's National Emergency Plan

[Elderberry]

Justice Department needs lawyers to fight expected flood of border wall lawsuits

https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Justice-Department-needs-lawyers-to-fight-13082265.php

The Justice Department is seeking to fill more than 50 staff slots at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Southeast Texas, including seven lawyers to represent the United States, in an anticipated onslaught of civil challenges to President Donald Trump’s plan to build a “wall” along the country’s 1,989-mile southern border.

“SDTX is (in) the middle of the largest hiring program in our history,” U.S. Attorney Ryan K. Patrick announced July 12 on Twitter, using the acronym for the Southern District of Texas, which prosecutes the bulk of the nation’s immigration cases and handles one of the busiest criminal dockets in the country. Patrick encouraged new talent to put in applications for the 14-month positions, saying, “Less than 2 years of experience? Perfect!”

Eminent domain

Although the Trump cases have not begun, Reznik said, “The Bush-era border wall cases have resurged as the Trump administration has begun advocating for completing additional sections of the wall.”

Many of the civil matters involving the border barrier are eminent domain cases, in which the Justice Department tries to negotiate a fair price for land that is sometimes a mile or more north of the Rio Grande. If landowners do not want to sell the property to the federal government or if the parties can arrive at a reasonable settlement, the Justice Department can do what’s called a “quick take” and have the Army Corps condemn the property and take it over, Reznik said. In those cases, the landowners often sue the federal government to preserve their ownership or secure a better price. Most of those matters call for extensive input from experts who valuate the property.

[Elderberry]

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/new-mexico-border-land-sale-762452/

Then there’s something called the “quick take” option. Even if the Flores family turned down the government’s $2,900 offer, DHS can set loose bulldozers almost immediately. “They can take your property in a day or so, as long as they’ve calculated the fair market value,” says University of Pittsburgh constitutional law professor Gerald Dickinson. Quick take allows DHS to pay a court for the land instead of the property owner, making a person’s only recourse a long, expensive fight before a judge. The entire process allows the government to pay as little as possible for seized land, Dickinson says, because it’s “well aware some parties are not able to push for a better price.”

In the Rio Grande Valley, these cases come before U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen in Brownsville, who calls himself the “fence judge.” An NPR analysis of more than 300 of his border wall cases found they dragged on for an average of three-and-a-half years, with owners typically receiving $12,600 for their land. That’s not enough to cover legal fees, so most property owners settle. Ten years ago, Juan Cavazos, a 75-year-old retired teacher, did just that and took the government’s offer of $21,500 for his two acres. Last year he told ProPublica, bluntly, “We got screwed.”

In Texas, there is the added problem of the Rio Grande river. It enters the borderland near El Paso and does not flow in a straight line as it wends to the Gulf of Mexico. Building along the curving river would add hundreds of miles to the wall — and billions of dollars to its cost. More than that, it’s not feasible. The banks shift. The line is fluid. So the fence was not built on the actual international boundary — the river — but, in some places, several miles back, creating a kind of no-man’s-land. And that raises even more complications for landowners like Becky Jones.

Jones received her letter late last summer. Her 700-acre plot near McAllen, Texas, has been in her family since her father bought it with money from his service in World War II. The family raises cotton, vegetables and sugar cane on some of the country’s most fertile soil, thanks to the Rio Grande’s silt deposits. The new fence, part of the 33 miles Congress approved in the area, would cleave her family’s land in half, with the most productive fields and water access lying on what will be the Mexican side of the proposed border wall.

Jones is, ironically, for border protection. Not necessarily the wall. But her family has found migrants resting in their barn, and they’ve worried about the men crossing their property they believed were hauling bales of weed on their back. The Rio Grande Valley sees more illegal migration than any other sector in the country, and McAllen is where Trump kept scores of children locked in cages inside the Ursula processing center this past summer. Jones also thought it would be best to cooperate with the government, so the family signed its letter asking for access to her farm. When I spoke to her last month, Jones says that since then, she’s been told nothing about what will become of her land. No details about how her family will access water for their crops. No offer. At a local meeting, she says a Border Patrol agent said, simply, “Well, Mrs. Jones, there will be winners and losers.”

Looking for a better answer, Jones drove an hour southeast to visit the Loop family, another loser in the wall game. The Loops own 350 acres, four of which CBP needed to build its fence through the middle of their land. For this, the family was offered $10,100, a gate and an access code to reach their property now on the southern side of the wall. One night last year, their house and barn caught fire. D’Ann Loop and her husband, Ray, ran outside and listened as a fire engine drove up and down the fence, searching for a way through. The house and barn were destroyed. Six dogs, a cat, four dozen baby chicks and a miniature goat burned alive. (Their horses escaped.)

Jones arrived as the Loops were rebuilding their home. She didn’t want to bother them, so she turned back. But because she’d followed some contractors in through the gate, she didn’t have the access code. As her car idled on the other side of the wall, she says she remembers thinking, “Here I am, an American citizen, on American soil, and I’m locked out of my own country… anyone who voted for the wall needs to sit on the other side waiting for the gate code. All the congressmen — especially the ones from Texas.”

In the end, the government will get its land. Jones and others in the Rio Grande Valley who’ve found letters in their mailboxes this year will be left to fight over the government’s miserly offer. The Loop family sued for damages and rights to the land and brought their $10,100 deal up to $1.39 million. But many property owners will not have the resources for that, so they will settle.

***

Like with the Loop family, people who take the feds to court usually end up with a lot more money. Terence Garrett, a professor of public affairs and security studies at the University of Texas, Rio Grande Valley, has studied eminent domain cases along the border and says when property owners sue they tend to make 1,200 percent more than what the government originally offered. “The federal government can condemn the land and take it,” he says, “but that doesn’t stop you from going back and suing. The worst thing to do is just hand it over.”

[Mesaclone]

@Emjay

It's emotional for them. They spent years worshiping whatever Party Person spat out by the RNC,and suddenly this rich,arrogant,NYC elitist who has been friends with and making under the table deals with Dims his entire life BECAUSE HE GREW UP IN NYC,swoops in and pulls the ground right out from under JEB,Ted,and all the other usual suspects. It's like expecting a monk to accept that suddenly there is no God.

It's just too much for them to handle,so they freak out and join with the Dims in the hope of destroying the enemy of both so things can go back to "normal" and none of that "independent thinking stuff" is required.

The instant that Trump is out of office they  will happily go back to supporting JEB,Mittens,or any other candidate that the RNC pushes in front of them. They will be back in a world they understand,and everything will be just peachy-keen again.

Dude. Not exaggerating here. That was awesome!!!

[Victoria33]

@Victoria33
You said, "She is either a liar or blind."
Or, she could be telling the truth.  Most people are not liars.

You said, "Do you SERIOUSLY think that cops don't lie?"
She said if she saw illegals, she would call her two family member who are law enforcement and she had never had to called them.  She didn't say anything about what they have said.

You said, "What this really means is she is getting paid to look the other way."
Who would be paying her? Plus, her life would be in danger if illegals were coming onto her property.  They could kill her and take all she has.  There is no woman who would put her life on the line so illegals could cross.
 
You said, "Yes,she is going to  have to move. That's what Imminent Domain means. The government is going to seize her property for government use,and PAY HER FAIR MARKET VALUE FOR IT."
She also said, ten years ago, some property owners lost their land to the government and they still have NO money from the government.

You said, "Granted,she is going to lose the money she gets paid each month to look the other way,and maybe sometimes make a phone call to warm couriers if were the feds are,but no scam lasts forever."
She said the wall will be 5 feet from her front door. This property has been in the family for many years and that is the truth for likely all of the property owners.  Back in the time people bought property here, there was no problem.  Now, no one would buy property there.

Some here have said the people who bought property there should have known not to buy it so it is their fault they have to give up the land.

I wonder if it was THEIR property where they actually live now, how would they feel if the government decided to take their property, house and all, to build a government building. Would they joyously be so happy to hand over what they had built for themselves and lose the community where they live? That is what has happened to these property owners.

sneaky, consider yourself where you live.  Would you be happy to give what you have to the government just because they can take it?

[edpc]

@Emjay

It's emotional for them. They spent years worshiping whatever Party Person spat out by the RNC,and suddenly this rich,arrogant,NYC elitist who has been friends with and making under the table deals with Dims his entire life BECAUSE HE GREW UP IN NYC,swoops in and pulls the ground right out from under JEB,Ted,and all the other usual suspects. It's like expecting a monk to accept that suddenly there is no God.

It's just too much for them to handle,so they freak out and join with the Dims in the hope of destroying the enemy of both so things can go back to "normal" and none of that "independent thinking stuff" is required.

The instant that Trump is out of office they  will happily go back to supporting JEB,Mittens,or any other candidate that the RNC pushes in front of them. They will be back in a world they understand,and everything will be just peachy-keen again.

You’re FOS and you know it. I’ve only been here since late 2016, but many of us here are TOS refugees and have been less than impressed with our nominees for quite some time. Dole was a throwaway choice. Bush 43 started his term strong, in the wake of 9/11, but faltered. Support for McCain and Romney were always tepid, at best. There’s been no shortage of criticism, here and other places, for those three, over the last decade. Point to anyone here saying we shoulda had Jeb! as president. In fact, Coulter, his most strident supporter from the beginning, maintains that Jeb! is exactly what we got. This declaration only got him further in her doghouse. So much for blaming everything on the NT crowd. She was member number one of the AT fan club. Recently, she’s figured out the guy isn’t what he’s claimed to be. Others will follow.


Ann Coulter
@AnnCoulter

Trump proposes amnesty.  We voted for Trump and got Jeb!

3:18 PM · Jan 19, 2019 · Twitter Web Client


Ann Coulter
@AnnCoulter

This is not Paul Ryan’s fault.  It’s not Mitch McConnell’s fault.  Trump ran AGAINST the GOP and won.  Responsibility is 100% his.

11:53 AM · Feb 15, 2019 · Twitter Web Client

[Chosen Daughter]

Let's make this argument simple.

If you are categorically opposed to eminent domain, you are opposed to building a border wall. That is your right, but rather than arguing the minutia of Eminent Domain rights, why not simply come out and say you are...with the Dems...against building the wall?

You can't have it both ways...your with the President and for the wall and thus MUCH better border security...or you are with the Dems (ostensibly out of a dislike for Eminent Domain usage) and are willing to accept weak border security.
 
And let's keep in mind, the idea was never to have a solid "Great Wall of China" structure, but wall/barrier where it is most needed to funnel/deflect immigration to areas the Border Patrol can more strictly regulate. Most of the land in Arizona is public...including the majority around the Yuma corridor which is going to get new wall structures. In Texas, if you want a wall, you have to favor Eminent Domain as it is the ONLY way the wall can be built effectively.

Eminent Domain takes place for parking lots or light rail.  A local mall............etc.  It happens in my state, and I am sure everyone's state.  If you buy a piece of property on the border I would think you would expect fence, barrier, Border Patrol access.  A Federal Border is a very necessary acquisition of land.  It is for the good of the whole country.  I guess they should feel fortunate that they aren't taking land for a new Walmart or parking garage/lot.  Expensive light rail that the liberal government want and only a small percentage of the population will use. 

Fact is as much as these few property owners on the border want to whine they knew their property was on a border that had to be secure.  It has to.  We are at invasion levels of illegal immigrants coming in caravans of 8,10,12,1,800 at a time.  If we think we can build portions of fencing to keep them out we are living fantasy.  They will know exactly where there isn't security.  And these land owners who don't want the wall better be ready for the invasion.  Putting their own families in the line of criminals coming in wherever they can get in.

[Emjay]

[quote author=Victoria33 link=topic=351777.msg these property owners.

sneaky, consider yourself where you live.  Would you be happy to give what you have to the government just because they can take it?
[/quote]

@Victoria33  I hesitate to post to you and I am not picking on you but that is ignorant.  Do you know how long the government has been able to lawfully take property from homeowners?  A dang long time and often for projects far less worthy than a wall on our southern border.

Since before the railroad moved west and since land was needed for highways, airports, a lot of infrastructure.

So people who went along with this needed power of the government for years without a peep, are suddenly outraged because it is something Trump is doing?

It makes no sense.

[Chosen Daughter]

You’re FOS and you know it. I’ve only been here since late 2016, but many of us here are TOS refugees and have been less than impressed with our nominees for quite some time. Dole was a throwaway choice. Bush 43 started his term strong, in the wake of 9/11, but faltered. Support for McCain and Romney were always tepid, at best. There’s been no shortage of criticism, here and other places, for those three, over the last decade. Point to anyone here saying we shoulda had Jeb! as president. In fact, Coulter, his most strident supporter from the beginning, maintains that Jeb! is exactly what we got. This declaration only got him further in her doghouse. So much for blaming everything on the NT crowd. She was member number one of the AT fan club. Recently, she’s figured out the guy isn’t what he’s claimed to be. Others will follow.


Ann Coulter
@AnnCoulter

Trump proposes amnesty.  We voted for Trump and got Jeb!

3:18 PM · Jan 19, 2019 · Twitter Web Client


Ann Coulter
@AnnCoulter

This is not Paul Ryan’s fault.  It’s not Mitch McConnell’s fault.  Trump ran AGAINST the GOP and won.  Responsibility is 100% his.

11:53 AM · Feb 15, 2019 · Twitter Web Client

What about Laura Ingraham?  She has always been a Trump supporter, but she also said he could not sign this bill.  Ben Shapiro too.  Several Republican Senators knew how very wrong this bill was for America. 

[sneakypete]

@Victoria33

You said, "She is either a liar or blind."[/b]
Or, she could be telling the truth.  Most people are not liars.

@Victoria33

You can't possibly believe that.

You said, "What this really means is she is getting paid to look the other way."
Who would be paying her?

Any smuggler. Especially a drug cartel. In return she gets cash,plus their protection from other invaders. No one else in the "crossing the border business" wants anything to do with the drug cartels. They will kill your whole damn family.

Plus, her life would be in danger if illegals were coming onto her property.  They could kill her and take all she has. 

I wonder if it was THEIR property where they actually live now, how would they feel if the government decided to take their property, house and all, to build a government building. Would they joyously be so happy to hand over what they had built for themselves and lose the community where they live? That is what has happened to these property owners.

Do you think the world is Disneyland,and the world will always treat you fairly? This sort of thing happens all the time. There is not a single road,highway,or train track in this country or any other country where the land wasn't seized in one respect or another from the owners.

sneaky, consider yourself where you live.  Would you be happy to give what you have to the government just because they can take it?

No,I wouldn't be happy about it,but I am not one of those people that thinks I own land,anyhow. I am just allowed to be in possession of it as long as I continue to pay the taxes.

You own NOTHING that you can't pick up and take with you. NOTHING.

[edpc]

What about Laura Ingraham?  She has always been a Trump supporter, but she also said he could not sign this bill.  Ben Shapiro too.  Several Republican Senators knew how very wrong this bill was for America.

I don’t think Shapiro was ever in his camp, though. I didn’t vote in 2016, mostly because I was transitioning between OH and KS. Trump won those states easily. He didn’t need my help. Guys like Weld won’t get much support and I don’t support Trump being primaried in 2020. Since 1940, KS has gone blue once, in 1964. If he lost it, after winning by 20 points in the last election, it’ll be due to things much bigger than how the NT crowd here feels about him.

[Hoodat]

@Once-Ler
I would think she is going to have to move, give up all her land as no one would want that property now, 5 feet from the wall.  Another Trump "win".

In Georgia, a house that close to a property line would be condemned.

[Chosen Daughter]

I don’t think Shapiro was ever in his camp, though. I didn’t vote in 2016, mostly because I was transitioning between OH and KS. Trump won those states easily. He didn’t need my help. Guys like Weld won’t get much support and I don’t support Trump being primaried in 2020. Since 1940, KS has gone blue once, in 1964. If he lost it, after winning by 20 points in the last election, it’ll be due to things much bigger than how the NT crowd here feels about him.

Shapiro wasn't but Ingraham was/is.  I think if Border Security doesn't happen Trump is a gonner.  So if he doesn't get control of this border situation someone else is going to have to step in.  Either that or we lose the Presidency to the Democrats also.  I think we could be at the place that a third party may have a chance.  Republicans have lost many of their supporters.  They are lame, self serving corrupt politicians.

[Chosen Daughter]

In Georgia, a house that close to a property line would be condemned.

I think so.

[edpc]

I think we could be at the place that a third party may have a chance.  Republicans have lost many of their supporters.  They are lame, self serving corrupt politicians.

It’s probably coming in an election cycle or two. Right now, you’d need to have someone draw 18-20% from both sides and in the right states. It’s a possibility, but I don’t see anyone on the horizon that could pull that off - certainly not the Starbucks guy.

[Hoodat]

Always nice to have the Souter perspective.

That wasn't the Souter perspective.  It's what the Bill of Rights actually says.

[Chosen Daughter]

It’s probably coming in an election cycle or two. Right now, you’d need to have someone draw 18-20% from both sides and in the right states. It’s a possibility, but I don’t see anyone on the horizon that could pull that off - certainly not the Starbucks guy.

I don't know of any either.  Not that have stated any interest.  But I think we are close.  California certainly is liberal but they have been pushing the limits of liberal extremism for quite some time.  We'll see.  Trump has little time left to turn things around for himself.  Most people if they are honest will admit that the Republican party is lame and doesn't work for the American people.  If it had it would have done the will of the people that voted overwhelmingly to secure the border.  Trump failed, but more importantly the entire Republican party failed the people.

[Bill Cipher]

Suffice it to say that Trump’s “emergency” will be so bogged down in litigation that very little will actually get done by the time the next president revokes the “emergency” declaration and releases any funds that were reallocated. 

Don’t count on there being much of a Trump Wall by Jan. 20, 2021. 

[edpc]

That wasn't the Souter perspective.  It's what the Bill of Rights actually says.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment


It also says ‘public use.’ That, along with the just compensation, were the dual requirements. In the day when that was written, it was understood private land may be required in areas for the purpose of governing, such as transportation, building courthouses or city halls, municipal buildings, etc. It did not mean we can pay you, then do whatever we feel like with it. There had to be a public use, not public interest.

The Kelo decision completely turned that on its ear, by saying the land development and potential tax revenue gained from it served the public interest. This was allowed, despite the fact land was being seized for something other than public use. In fact, they were taking private land and handing it to other private owners. So, yes, it’s a bastardization of the original intent and very much the Souter perspective.

[Victoria33]

@sneakypete

No,I wouldn't be happy about it,but I am not one of those people that thinks I own land,anyhow. I am just allowed to be in possession of it as long as I continue to pay the taxes.

sneaky, you are correct if you don't pay your taxes, the govn. can take your land/house from you, but we are not talking about unpaid land taxes in this thread.
But, I know a case of that:

Many years ago, in the mid-70s, my mother died (father had already died), and my brother and I sold the small house to a young couple who grew up not far down the road from that house.

Maybe it was two years or so later, the IRS took that house/land away from them for unpaid taxes. I was astounded about that.  It was a very minimal wood house and neither one of them were educated except for high school, didn't make enough money to owe much tax, yet the IRS took it.

You own NOTHING that you can't pick up and take with you. NOTHING.
I don't agree with that as you could own more than I would just because you can carry more weight than I can.  And if you have a pick-up truck, which you do, you would own more than I would since I have a smaller type car.

I would change your words, to, you only own things you can defend.  Now, you and I are likely equal and I may be more equal than you in this regard because I likely have more defensive weapons than you do.  Let's compare weapons in a PM. 

[Victoria33]

@sneakypete
@mystery-ak
@roamer_1

Sneaky, others, This Texas imminent domain attorney is fully aware about how declaring a national emergency may kill Trump's wall. All here should read this:

"Charles McFarland  Declaring a national emergency to fund Trump's border wall may be what finally kills the project."

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/declaring-national-emergency-fund-trump-s-border-wall-may-be-ncna966586

[sneakypete]

@sneakypete

I would change your words, to, you only own things you can defend.

 

@Victoria33

If you don't have it with you,you can't defend it.

I had a senior NCO explain this to me when I was a young man in the army,whining about having a new car out in the parking lot I never got to drive because I was always off on some field training exercise somewhere.

"If you can't eat it,ride it,wear it,or bleep it,it ain't yours."

Yeah,I own a house with several acres of land,but I only own it in a limited respect. The most I can do with it is sell it. I can't take it with me and I can't take care of it if I am not home. What I DO own is the right to sell or rent it. That's it.

[Bill Cipher]

@sneakypete
@mystery-ak
@roamer_1

Sneaky, others, This Texas imminent domain attorney is fully aware about how declaring a national emergency may kill Trump's wall. All here should read this:

"Charles McFarland  Declaring a national emergency to fund Trump's border wall may be what finally kills the project."

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/declaring-national-emergency-fund-trump-s-border-wall-may-be-ncna966586

The article makes some good points, including that the “quick take” rules won’t be a available to Trump under his “emergency” declaration.

[Hoodat]

@edpc

I am painfully aware of the difference between Amendment V and Kelo.  I am also thoroughly disappointed in Trumps position on Kelp.  However, a wall would easily qualify as public use.  This isn't at all like Kelp where land was taken from one private owner and handed to another.

[edpc]

@edpc

I am painfully aware of the difference between Amendment V and Kelo.  I am also thoroughly disappointed in Trumps position on Kelp.  However, a wall would easily qualify as public use.  This isn't at all like Kelo where land was taken from one private owner and handed to another.

It's the same in where it only fulfills one portion of the takings clause. There's a public interest in the wall, but no public use. You are not going there, to file a lawsuit, petition your grievances, vote, or speak with your representatives. Perhaps, if an interstate was built parallel with it, you could make that argument,. You could also put a wall next to it, for the purpose of safety. That's going to cost a fortune, however.

[Bigun]

It's the same in where it only fulfills one portion of the takings clause. There's a public interest in the wall, but no public use. You are not going there, to file a lawsuit, petition your grievances, vote, or speak with your representatives. Perhaps, if an interstate was built parallel with it, you could make that argument,. You could also put a wall next to it, for the purpose of safety. That's going to cost a fortune, however.

No public use my azz!  Defending the borders is about as public a use as I can imagine.