Dems route to gun control/confiscation according to Pelosi

[Glocktogo]

If the United States doesn't have a reasonable easement (room for a barrier and a road) along every inch of our borders, it should. Where it doesn't, landowners should be paid local market rates for small parcels to obtain said easement. That includes our northern border as well.

 

[emapples]

Excuse for what? Land ownership is a real thing in the United States. There's nothing new about it Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Yes our ever helpful government can seize it for our own good, but there is a legal process for doing that. It takes time.

I fully understand that ........so let’s ask the land owners on the border who wants the wall built and who had a problem with donating or selling what little land may be required to place the wall and a road I would assume

 

[ignerntbend]

I fully understand that ........so let’s ask the land owners on the border who wants the wall built and who had a problem with donating or selling what little land may be required to place the wall and a road I would assume

I hope we don't have to get impolite.

 

[SlugSlinger]

I fully understand that ........so let’s ask the land owners on the border who wants the wall built and who had a problem with donating or selling what little land may be required to place the wall and a road I would assume

The primary reason I have seen dealing with land owners and easements are a few land owners act like they don’t want to give an easement. This is mostly due to wanting a bigger payment, so they fight it. Sometimes that doesn’t work out so well for the land owner when they go in fromt of a judge and argue their case.

 

[SoonerP226]

The primary reason I have seen dealing with land owners and easements are a few land owners act like they don’t want to give an easement. This is mostly due to wanting a bigger payment, so they fight it. Sometimes that doesn’t work out so well for the land owner when they go in fromt of a judge and argue their case.

Having been on the landowner's side of a proposed taking of private property, I can tell you that a lot of it depends on how you're approached. The proposed deal (it ended up falling through) with which I was involved involved many landowners and meetings at city hall, so I got to hear from a bunch of them. Many were approached in a reasonable manner by skilled negotiators, but more than a few of the landowners were approached with threats of condemnation. I can tell you that if you approached me saying "here's some money for your land, so either take it or we'll use eminent domain to steal it," I'd make it as painful and costly for you as I possibly could, money be damned, and I doubt that the landowners on the border are any different.

Now, all that said, I agree with Glocktogo: if there's not already an easement at the borders, there needs to be one. I detest there being an easement on my property line for access to the parcel behind mine, but I also recognize that the dude needs access to his property, and that there has to be an easement on the frontage for the road. There are just some things that you have to allow if you're going to live in a society.

 

[MacFromOK]

Excuse for what? Land ownership is a real thing in the United States. There's nothing new about it Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Yes our ever helpful government can seize it for our own good, but there is a legal process for doing that. It takes time.

It don't usually take long to seize it when they want to widen a highway, run a gas line, or whatever.

You can fight it and maybe get a better price, but if all else fails, they can condemn and seize it anyway "for the greater good" (or something similar).

Not a lawyer, but we dealt with a sewer line going through my Dad's land in Texas.

 

[Dale00]

Thinking outside the box, perhaps taking over Mexico would avoid this very serious border landowner rights issue.

 

[Cowcatcher]

Quite often it's not so bad that something is going to be put on your land like a gas line, waterline or fiber optic. The part that is worrisome is how your land is being treated during the install and during any maintenance or inspections in the future.
We've got two gas lines running across us and a waterline that goes from Spavinaw to Tulsa. Word is that the waterline is big enough a man road a motorcycle in it once upon a time. Anyhow, last year a fiber optic cable got run at the north end of the ranch quickly and quietly for about a mile in the ditch right against our fence. Turns out the county gave the cable laying folks permission to do it. When my boss figured that out shtf. Not sure how it's going because he turned it over to lawyers. I bet if the sneaky ass fiber optic company would've got permission from the landowner things would've gone better.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

The Constitution at Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, authorizes the US Government to purchase land, with the consent of a state wherein the land is, for the "erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings(I would call a wall a building, or part of a fort, and needful, etc.). The states can take the land by eminent domain from the land owners, and I agree there needs to be an easement all the way around this country, even if only 50 feet or 100 yards wide, for security. Giterdone!

Woody

 

[Glocktogo]

Thinking outside the box, perhaps taking over Mexico would avoid this very serious border landowner rights issue.

On the upside, the border between Guatemala and Mexico is much smaller, about a quarter of the length of the U.S. Mexico border.

On the downside, the corruption in Mexico would make a NYC politician blush.