Trump Border Wall: Texans vow to fight eminent domain, historic chapel threatened


#1

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2019/01/09/trumps-border-wall-texas-la.html

Donald Trump’s border wall vs. the historic La Lomita church in Texas, which dates back to 1852.


#2

I personally know a rancher who owns a ton of acrage on the border, and one of the last “fenceless” ranchers in Texas. His livestock wander freely back and forth across the Rio Grande. I bet he’s agin it, too.


#3

algebraic


#4

Guy’s gonna’ fall.
Every supporter touched by him personally isn’t anymore.
He touches more and more every day.


#5

The idea of preserving a historic church isn’t going to sway this guy.

Tell him that his wall will threaten the historic site of The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas and you might get somewhere.


#6

Apparently they’re still involved in legal fights over the attempt to take land for the border fence expansion plan advanced by George W’s administration… There’s no way Trump will get anything built even if he managed to stay in office for another term. I’m pretty sure he doesn’t understand that, but his approach to simply claim it’s already being built is the correct one, as far as appealing to his base is concerned. The alternative is to fight everyone to get the funding, only to then have to admit that it might be built, someday, years in the future. I don’t think his base would be satisfied by that.


#7

Have I told you lately that I hate you?


#8

So, quite modern then?


#9

Montana Senator Jon Tester:
“The problem is that the President has $1.3 billion from last year for border security, actually $21 billion for border security, and $1.3 for the wall that he has spent very little of. He says he needs more, yet there’s no plan for how the money is going to be spent, or any analysis on what’s most effective to secure the border.”


#10

The Google maps image of the chapel park is kind of interesting, the first shot shows a Border Patrol vehicle in shot and then move towards the vehicle and its nowhere to be seen: https://www.google.com/maps/@26.1584226,-98.3301509,3a,75y,327.84h,78.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZX_o9rm_jftBOf27cOeOkA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I wonder how that conversation went.


#11

I assume that the plan is to funnel a few billion in to front companies, and then drop the project and blame the Democrats.


#12

What? You think there is a plan? You are mad, mad I say!


#13

Ah, the patriotic Trump voters of the lone star state, standing up and giving full-throat to that most American of sentiments:

NOT :clap: IN :clap: MY :clap: BACKYARD :clap:


#14

This just in:


#15

Don’t mess with Texas.


#16

Well…considering that the eminent domain doctrine was–absurdly and outrageously–expanded to include seizing private property and giving it to private owners, I’m sure those nice Texans will have lots of luck stopping the federal government from taking their land in an “emergency”


#17

I suspect that someone with a real estate background is quite comfortable with the useful applications of eminent domain, along with any other mechanisms for sharp dealings with the existing occupants the jurisdiction offers; but I have to wonder if this sort of thing will cause him any ratings problems with supporters.

My impression is that pro-wall sentiment is sometimes more about the symbol than a specific construction goal(which has its sensible aspect in that even a quite extravagant fortification can be traversed pretty quickly and easily unless there are guards to stop your ladder use/tunneling/etc; but also includes all the fine people who basically just want a very long statue celebrating the ethnic purity of the Fatherland, um, I meant Homeland…); and even in the more literal cases tends not to have detailed plans drawn up, just a vague idea that the only obstacle is liberals, and that there must just be some wall-shaped hole ready for use.

Since that’s not the case; any actual wall building is going to involve rather a lot of jackbooted gummint thugs expropriating private property. Given that BLM land ownership in the west is already controversial enough that we had a standoff with Y’all-Qaeda militants about it; selling “let’s have the feds annex a nontrivial slice of one edge of Texas” seems like it might not play well.


#18

Not for Texas. Most things over 50 years get knocked down and what people don’t tear down the weather will unless some one works to keep it there.


#19

I think “historic” is a null word to him. He called the White House a real dump. “They should knock it down and build a much better one, with lots of concrete. Or steel, it doesn’t matter.”


#20

You’re right. But the important part is that the catholic church has a lot of money and a long history of martyrdom, this is a historic site, and a lot of parishioners in the area for support. They have the money and the motivation to fight the eminent domain taking in court for decades.
It isn’t so much that the presence of the church will deter the orange atrocity from trying, but that it will take way longer than he could be in office, or even live, if the federal government even wins.