Trumps wall will require large seizures of private land and the cost is unknown

[turbinetree]

Source: Think Progress

Of all candidate Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign promises, none generated more excitement from his supporters than his vow that he would build a massive wall at the nation’s southern border and that he would miraculously get Mexico to pay the entire cost. When it became obvious that President Trump had no way to keep that promise, his administration proposed spending tens of billions in taxpayer funds on the proposed wall.

But a draft Department of Homeland Security document obtained by ThinkProgress acknowledges that, since the government does not own all of the land along the U.S.-Mexico border, it has no way to predict how much the wall would actually cost to make a reality.

Under the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment, the federal government has the power to take privately owned property for public purposes (a process known as “eminent domain”) as long as it provides “just compensation” to the owners. This likely means that the government could take whatever land is necessary to build Trump’s wall—but that the cost of “just compensation” could be considerable.

Read more: https://thinkprogress.org/exclusive-internal-document-shows-dhs-has-no-idea-how-much-trumps-border-wall-would-cost/

---

Here lets bring back an oldie but goodie

[Igel]

1. Yup. It's the same for any public infrastructure.

Want that new high-speed train? If it doesn't already fit in the easement that the state has, a lot of people have to give up land to make it so. If it does, then the old track will have to go and with it goods transportation.

Either more money or some way will have to be found to ship the goods that use the tracks now (and since rail is reasonably low carbon ...).

Imminent domain is one reason not to be stressed out over the wall. The court battles will take years.

[Honeycombe8]

2. Yep. I saw something about this a while back. Trumpers stand to lose land.

Trump LOVES eminent domain. He even tried to use that law personally to take an old woman's home and land; he wanted it for a parking lot. He lost.

[underpants]

4. Vera Coking

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_Coking

[Dawson Leery]

3. Trumpbots won't like this.

[Doreen]

5. I guess I am a mean person because if anyone of those losing

their homes were trump supporters they are getting what they deserve and I do not feel bad in the least. I do however feel bad for those who are getting the same thing done to them but did not vote for trump.

[Bengus81]

6. I like the parts where some home owners live BEHIND the wall.....

They feel like they've been pushed over to the Mexican side but hey..if they vote for Republicans it usually comes back and BITES you in the ass.

[Thor_MN]

7. In Texas. Elsewhere, the government has the 60 feet next to the border.

In Texas, private landowners can own the land right up to the border.

If they voted for Dipshit Donny, I have zero sympathy for them.

[yardwork]

8. But the wall might have to be more than 60 feet from the border in places.

[Thor_MN]

9. True. But the purchases would mostly have to be in Texas.

There's areas where a wall would be ridiculously expensive and worthless.

[yardwork]

10. The entire concept is ridiculously expensive and worthless.

We could spend that money on opioid addiction treatment, effective pain therapies, mental health care....

[Thor_MN]

11. That's a given. Stupid waste of money, for no reason other than his racist base like the idea.

[Oneironaut]

12. It's already a massive disaster. People are losing land, getting stuck on the other side, etc.

Plus, the walls we already have don't work. They just tunnel under them. Why would this one be any better?

The truth is, they know it's bull crap. The concept of a giant wall is politically "sexy" to the far right, so common sense be damned.

[QED]

13. John Oliver explained the absurdity of it all

&t=4s