All Walled Up

Texas Observer
January 22, 2010
by Melissa del Bosque

In the early spring of 2008, the uniformed Border Patrol officers delivering condemnation notices door-to-door seemed surprised by the defiance they met from Brownsville landowners. The first time the officers came, it was with clipboards and a few documents to sign—the feds like to call it a “friendly condemnation,” which means folks are expected to happily sign away portions of their land for meager compensation from the U.S. government.

Along the border, it’s not unusual for landowners to take a look at the legalese, stare at the olive drab uniforms and shiny gold badges, and sign on the spot. But in Brownsville and Cameron County, many glanced at the words “taking” and “U.S. government” and showed the agents the door.

The next time the Department of Homeland Security came calling, all pretense of “friendliness” was gone. With real estate specialists from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in tow, they now had pointed words. Congress had mandated the building of a 670-mile fence along the southern border in its 2006 Secure Border Fence Act. Sign the form or not, residents were told: The government will get its land.

The sterner message had little effect. Those who had the money, or the pro bono attorneys willing to help, filed lawsuits against DHS and dug in their heels. The battle of Brownsville—the most pitched and prolonged fight along the Texas border—was joined.

It wasn’t just landowning citizens who were up in arms. Brownsville Mayor Pat Ahumada, insisting the wall would split his already-troubled community and wreck its hopes for the future, became one of the nation’s most outspoken opponents of the “security fence.” Juliet Garcia, president of the University of Texas at Brownsville, declared that the government was not going to build its wall through the middle of her campus.

Garcia channeled popular sentiment in Brownsville with her statement on the federal agency’s move to seize property: “Of course, we believe in protecting our borders. Of course, we believe in strong immigration policy. But we also understand that a fence, no matter how high or how wide, is no substitute for either.”

Residents marched in protest. Ahumada joined other border mayors and lobbied Washington. University students picketed the federal courthouse. Brownsville caused such a commotion that Congressman Raul Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat, scheduled a public hearing at the university that April. Dozens of students and residents gathered outside, holding signs reading “Build Bridges Not Walls” and “No Wall Between Amigos.”

Inside, border-fence champion Tom Tancredo, then a Republican congressman from Colorado, was flummoxed by the fierce opposition. As one resident after another stood up to protest the plan, Tancredo huffed: “Why don’t we just build the fence north of Brownsville then?” Responding to a letter from Ahumada after the hearing, Tancredo shot back: “This is a matter of national importance, and the American public should not be asked to sit back and allow a handful of local governments and their friends in the ‘open borders’ lobby to exercise veto power over something that impacts not only our security, but our national sovereignty.”

Brownsville staged a lively rebellion. For a while, an unlikely victory seemed possible, thanks in large part to Andrew Hanen, the only federal judge in the nation who forced Homeland Security to acknowledge landowners’ constitutional protections. In case after case, Hanen refused to rubber-stamp the condemnations and ruled that the government would have to provide “fair compensation” for the land it was taking.

Residents pinned their hopes on dragging out their lawsuits long enough for President Barack Obama to take office. They expected him to send his Homeland Security team to take stock of the environmental and economic damage being done by the steel-and-cement monstrosity, and halt construction on a project whose $2.4 billion cost continues to rise. Those hopes were dashed when Obama announced the “secure fence” would be finished. In a final plea last May, Brownsville residents (along with others along the border) wrote a letter to the new president. “Absent your intercession, a great, lasting and damaging injustice will be dealt to the people of the Texas-Mexico border,” it read in part.

Obama never answered. More than 27 miles of border wall now snake raggedly through Cameron County. Only seven more miles remain to be built.

The rust-colored, steel-and-cement wall has become a surreal fixture on Brownsville’s skyline. It cleaves downtown Hope Park, built as a symbol of unity between the United States and Mexico. It stops and starts, without rhyme or reason, along the Rio Grande River’s levees, leaving miles of gaps. It highlights the city’s economic divide: It’s the first thing folks in the poorer barrios see when they look out their windows, while richer folks enjoy unaltered views of palm trees and manicured fairways when they tee off on private golf courses. It zigs and zags through residents’ backyards, through citrus orchards—an ugly red scar on a green, subtropical landscape.

“We don’t call it a fence,” says Ahumada. “It’s a wall. A fence is something you’d want to put up in your backyard.”

On an unseasonably frigid Friday morning in early January, the mayor sits in his downtown office sipping coffee and recounting the arguments he tried to make to Washington. “This wall has killed Brownsville,” he says. “We have a per-capita income of $14,000 per household, high unemployment, a high dropout rate. We don’t need a wall to compound the problems we’re already having. What we need is an investment from the federal government to help us fulfill our future.”

As he speaks, Kiewit Corp., one of the nation’s largest construction companies, is busy draining resacas (lakes created by the shifting tides of the Rio Grande) and bulldozing citrus orchards to build those last seven miles of wall through Cameron County. To date, 199 county residents have had land seized, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection figures. Every day, the Brownsville Herald publishes government notices of the properties to be condemned by the Department of Homeland Security.

The agency is already one year late and several million dollars over budget in fulfilling Congress’ 2006 mandate—and counting. The Secure Fence Act was cobbled together so poorly that legislators failed to take several important factors into consideration. For one, thousands of private landowners would have to forfeit their land—and not all would go willingly. For another, a 1944 treaty forbade construction of anything in the Rio Grande floodplain that would push floodwaters into either Mexico or the United States.

Because of the treaty, DHS was forced to build its wall north of the river’s levee—sometimes as far as two miles upland. In Brownsville, the 8-foot-tall earthen levee follows the twists and turns of the Rio Grande for several miles. The mayor had seen the river shared with Mexico not as a security threat, but as a selling point for his city. Before the wall, Brownsville had plans to build a river walk like San Antonio’s—an anchor for downtown revitalization and a transit loop that would spur more commerce.

“We had a private investor group from California looking to invest $150 million in the downtown revitalization with the river walk as the anchor,” Ahumada says, “but they backed out because of the wall.” Making matters worse, DHS ran the wall close to the planned transit loop. “To build the loop now, we would have to move the border wall and put it somewhere else to the DHS’s specifications,” he says. “We estimate it would cost the city $13 million a mile.”

In June 2009, Brownsville council members finally voted to surrender 15 acres of city land to the federal government despite many residents’ persistent opposition. Ahumada never resigned himself to it. The two-year-long debate over ceding land to the DHS bitterly divided the city government—especially after the council’s majority agreed to perhaps the worst deal struck by any border community. They forfeited the $123,100 DHS had offered to buy the land and allowed, without compensation, a “floating fence” with 15-foot steel posts stuck into a concrete base to be built downtown.

What does Brownsville get in return? According to its contract with DHS, the city agreed to eventually build a combination levee-border wall, a permanent structure to replace the floating fence. Brownsville taxpayers will foot the entire bill, last estimated at $12 million to $16 million per mile.

So the battle of Brownsville became a surrender. But a few folks still fight on.

Seventy-two-year-old Leonard Loop lives on the outskirts of Brownsville, where he flies the American flag outside his feedstore. He’s as patriotic as anybody: an Air Force veteran whose wife used to work for the State Department. Two years ago, when he got wind of the government’s plan to seize their land, he called a family meeting.

“We sat down and talked about it and decided we had to do what was right,” Loop says. “My sons own the 730 acres on the river side of the fence. It’s their livelihood, and they are in deep debt for it. I told my boys, ‘the federal government will ruin you if you don’t stick up for your rights.’”

The Loop family filed suit against DHS. Leonard Loop likes to call it his “disagreement.” It’s gone on for 18 months now.

Like most folks around Brownsville, Loop says he’s all for border security. But the wall hasn’t made anybody safer, he says. In fact, just the opposite, especially for those—like his sons—who will be locked out on the river side of the wall with access controlled by the Border Patrol. Besides, Loop says, a poorly constructed fence with miles of gaps doesn’t exactly spell security. “I heard they already figured out a way in Mexico to use old motorcycle tires to climb the fence. They jam them in the gaps and climb it like a ladder.”

Loop owns 160 acres dotted with citrus orchards. He and Debbie, his wife, sell sweet Rio Red grapefruits and oranges at their feedstore. Their sons, Frank and Ray, grow cabbage, corn, and other vegetables on their 730 fertile acres along the riverbank. The Loops have farmed here for almost four decades. Even now, their lives are mostly marked by tranquility and backbreaking work. Occasionally, their routines are punctuated by bizarre moments that remind them they live along an international border. “I once saw a truck being chased by the Border Patrol drive into a wheat field,” he recalls. “The driver fled on foot and left five women behind in their underwear who had just swum across the river.”

The Loops occupy a particularly breathtaking patch of the Rio Grande. There’s a horseshoe-shaped resaca full of bass and catfish, lined with palm trees. There’s a pavilion on the river’s edge they use for family reunions and church picnics. They don’t make a mint off this land by a long shot. But it’s easy to see why they won’t give it up without a struggle.

On a bitter-cold January afternoon, Loop tells me he’s been up since 2:30 a.m. trying to save his citrus orchards from Brownsville’s first hard freeze in 20 years. No matter how exhausted he is, the notion of what the government’s done still raises his blood pressure. “This has been a learning experience,” he says. “I never thought this country would treat you that way.”

Last November, DHS sent bulldozers to mow down Loop’s grapefruit orchard. Then they drained a resaca and condemned his nephew’s driveway to start building the wall through the family land.

When it’s finished, Loop’s nephew and his son Ray’s family will live on the Rio Grande side of the wall—part of more than 50,000 acres of U.S. land along the river that will be walled off by the fence from the start of the levee in Hidalgo County through Cameron County. Leonard, Debbie and their other son will live on the other side. Homeland Security is building a 50-foot gate. The agency, Loop says, refuses to tell him whether his family members and their employees will be able to use it without a Border Patrol escort.

Loop says a federal official told his son Ray that if there were an orange alert—meaning a high threat level—his family would have to evacuate their home and the gates would be locked behind them. That strikes Leonard as especially ludicrous, since the segment of wall that cuts through the land will end a half-mile away from his property—commencing a 14-mile stretch of levee, largely federal land, that won’t have any fence at all. “You can just walk around it and do anything,” he says.

Claude Knighten, a public information officer for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, tells the Observer he’s not aware of the orange-alert policy. His e-mailed response was that the agency “has no knowledge of this statement and therefore cannot respond.”

That’s the kind of thing that galls Loop the most. He can’t get reliable information from the government, he says, so his family can plan for the future. “Initially, when we got into this 18 months ago, I thought the government would work with us, and we would sit down and discuss things like access,” he says. “But they just do whatever they please whether it’s right or not.”

At first, the government seized a 60-foot-wide strip of Loop land starting at the base of the levee. Then they took a 120-foot-wide strip. “First they told us we could drive on the levee. Then they told us we couldn’t,” Loop says. “How can a landowner feel safe when the government keeps changing its mind all the time?”

Loop falls quiet for a moment as we roll up on the levee in his silver pickup truck to where the Kiewit Corp. workers are building the fence that cuts through his orchard. Majestic pink spoonbills and white egrets forage for food in a half-drained resaca. A worker on an earthmover is filling the lake with mud.

“They can do that,” Loop finally says. “Homeland Security waived all the environmental laws. It’s unbelievable the power they’ve got.”

Two Border Patrol SUVs are parked side-by-side, blocking the levee up ahead. As we’ve circled his land, we’ve been under constant observation by the Border Patrol. Recently, Loop was told he could no longer drive the levee, which he must cross to access his son’s property and reach a portion of his own. “They haven’t paid me yet for the second condemnation,” he says. “As far as I am concerned I can still drive the levee till they pay me.”

Loop contemplates the situation, then turns back onto the highway. “There are so many things that don’t make sense,” he says. “I’m no expert, but I was born and raised down here, and I know what things are like on the border. The guys who are calling the shots—they’ve never lived here, and they have no idea what it’s like.”

Loop is slated to receive $24,900 for the three acres the government has taken. His property valuation has plummeted. The only thing he can hope to achieve now with his lawsuit is better compensation for his land. Nobody would buy it now, he says, with an 18-foot wall running through the middle of it. “The only buyers I could see interested in riverfront property now are the drug cartels or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.”

I feel like we live in an occupied zone now,” says 74-year-old Eloisa Tamez. Early on the coldest Saturday morning in memory, Tamez, a nursing professor at UT-Brownsville who looks 20 years younger than her age, sits in her modest home on her family property. An heir to a 12,600-acre Spanish land grant deeded by the king of Spain to her family in the 18th century, Tamez is struggling to hold on to the last three acres. Like Leonard Loop, she feels like she’s going to be the last holdout in Brownsville—battling the government not only for her family, but for all the border landowners intimidated into signing away their rights or giving up because they couldn’t afford court battles.

“People stop me all the time in the store or recognize me at the bank, and they say, ‘Good for you. Keep on fighting the government,’” Tamez says.

She’s been able to carry on thanks to lawyer Peter Schey at the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law in Los Angeles. He has handled her two-year-old case against DHS pro bono. “I will not give up my land,” Tamez says. She intends to leave it to her grandchildren.

The government has other ideas. Last summer, it seized one of Tamez’s three acres. While she was at a conference in Colorado, contractors erected the 18-foot wall outside her house almost overnight. They didn’t give her a gate, and now they want to bar her access to the levee—as they are doing with the Loop Family. That would cut Tamez off from her riverfront property.

Tamez believes it is punishment for having been one of Brownsville’s most vocal critics of the wall. “Homeland Security has been very aggressive,” she says. “Border Patrol agents rush over to my car and start questioning me whenever I drive on the levee. I haven’t been to my property on the south side of the fence since July.”

In December, Tamez rented out her deceased aunt’s home, which sits right next door to her own. Her tenant, a security guard who works at night, complains that the Border Patrol had stopped him to check his citizenship status on his way to work. He reports that Border Patrol agents often park outside the house. His family feels like they are being watched.

“They are intimidating people and stopping cars all the time to check citizenship,” says Tamez. “Border Patrol agents should recognize our cars and know that we live here by now.”

Traffic stops by Border Patrol to check citizenship status are routine in Brownsville these days. The green-and-white SUVs constantly race up and down the levees, leaving plumes of white dust in their wake. Steel towers with video cameras dot the South Texas skyline, and, now, the 18-foot wall.

“Where are our rights?” asks Tamez. “We are U.S. citizens, too.”

Mayor Ahumada wonders the same thing. When will Washington start listening to the people who live along the border?

“In terms of providing the security we need against illegal drugs and deterring illegal immigration, this wall has not helped us. In fact, it’s hurt us,” he says. “The congressional leaders like Tancredo who wanted to build a wall here—they did it to get votes from the interior of America so they could appear to be doing something to protect our country. We’re just a pawn in the political chess game.”

Increasingly, racism is cloaked in border security, he says. “Interior America is clamoring for anti-Mexican rhetoric. They disguise it under border security, but it’s racism in my opinion. We have an immigration problem, but what are they so afraid of?”

Clearly, they were not afraid of the citizens of Brownsville.

http://www.texasobserver.org/features/all-walled-up

City Commission OKs border fence accord

Brownsville Herald
June 2, 2009
by Emma Perez-Trevino

Between a rock and a hard place - that's how the City Commission found itself Tuesday regarding the border fence between Brownsville and Matamoros that will be constructed.

There were two immediate options: either approve an agreement with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security as majority members on the commission advanced or fight to the end as the mayor urged.

Majority commissioners Leo Garza, Ricardo Longoria, Edward C. Camarillo and Anthony P. Troiani prevailed, approving the agreement.

Mayor Pat M. Ahumada Jr. and Commissioner Carlos A. Cisneros voted against the agreement. Commissioner Charlie Atkinson abstained.

The majority argued that the agreement allowing DHS the right of possession to 15.919 acres of city land, which DHS already has title to, provides the city with the ability to one day develop downtown and to complete the project called the East Loop, which would tie south Brownsville to the Port of Brownsville.

The agreement provides that DHS will build what the parties call "temporary" fence segments on the East Loop levee and between the Gateway International Bridge and the B&M International Bridge.

The temporary fence segments would be removed when the city constructs in their place a replacement barrier and relocates the East Loop levee. The relocation of the levee already is a component of the East Loop project.

Ahumada contended that the cost of the replacement levee and barrier is not even known, but predicted that the cost would be prohibitive. "I think the temporary wall is going to be a permanent wall," the mayor said.

"I believe we should fight DHS on the right of possession and hopefully come out with something better than what is being proposed," Ahumada said.

Troiani, through questions posed to counsel Charlie Willette, contended that DHS already has title to the property and that not entering into an agreement placed the city in the position that it could never recoup any of the land required to continue with its economic development plans.

Troiani's comments, however, also showed that he is very concerned that the agreement might not be included in the federal court's order granting DHS possession of the property.

Willette hinted that it might not be possible and that if there were any disputes in the future, these might have to be resolved in a court of claims rather than in federal district court. Willette predicted that DHS would probably object to attaching the agreement to the order of possession, but said that he would try to convince the federal court, where condemnation proceedings are under way, to allow this.

Troiani wanted the attachment of the agreement to be a condition of the agreement but Garza said it would be too risky.

Asked by Ahumada if he (Willette) trusts the federal government to keep its word, Willette summed it up: "I don't think we have a lot of choice."

http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/agreement-98637-city-commission.html

Border fence to get green light

Brownsville Herald
June 1, 2009
by Emma Perez-Trevino

The City Commission today is poised to approve an agreement with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, allowing the construction of the border fence between Brownsville and Matamoros.

The proposal also contains provisions that the city's land would revert to the city upon construction of replacement barriers and a new levee.

But the vote is not expected to be unanimous as Mayor Pat M. Ahumada Jr. continues to voice opposition to the "shameful" fence.

Ahumada instead proposes the Brownsville-Matamoros dam project, which he calls a virtual fence, as an alternative.

Ahumada has scheduled a 2 p.m. press conference for today to discuss the proposal with DHS.

The commission will consider the agreement at its regular meeting a few hours later, starting at 6 p.m. at City Hall, 1001 E. Elizabeth St.

The proposed agreement comes on the heels of DHS' action in May in federal court to take possession of 15.919 acres of city land while negotiations with the city were ongoing.

The proposed temporary border fence would be built on the East Loop levee and between the Gateway International Bridge and the B&M International Bridge.

In a statement issued Friday, City Manager Charlie Cabler said that he, members of his staff and DHS had reached an agreement, subject to the commission's approval.

Cabler said that reversion of the properties to the city would allow the city to complete the East Loop, which will carry heavy truck traffic from the international bridges to the Port of Brownsville. He said the land also is vital to the contemplated development of the historic downtown area.

Under the proposal, the city would be responsible for designing and constructing the replacement levee and barriers. The temporary fencing would be removed by DHS if funding were available.

Ahumada has urged opponents to the fence to again petition the commission not to enter into any agreement with DHS.

Prior to the regular meeting, the commission will hold a workshop at 5:15 p.m. and an executive session at 5:30 p.m.

http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/city-98608-fence-border.html

Residents seek Obama's intervention on border fence debate

Brownsville Herald
May 20, 2009
by Emma Perez-Trevino

"Dear Mr. President."

Thus begins a letter to President Barack Obama that residents in Brownsville and along the U.S.-Mexico border opposed to a border fence are signing. They are seeking his intervention, "having been rebuked by a range of officials in your Department of Homeland Security Homeland Security."

"We write you as our last hope," states the letter to Obama, which reminds him of unfulfilled promises of added manpower and technology as alternatives to a fence.

"Absent your intercession, a great, lasting and damaging injustice will be dealt to the people of the Texas-Mexico border," the letter, being e-mailed en masse throughout the border communities, states.

Circulation of the letter gained momentum following the City Commission's decision Tuesday not to pass a strongly worded resolution calling on DHS to stop "bullying" the community, to put an end to the proposed construction of the fence, and demanding that the federal agency negotiate in good faith with Brownsville.

The commission tabled action.

The agenda reflected that the resolution was placed on the agenda by Commissioner Edward C. Camarillo and Mayor Pat M. Ahumada Jr.

At the onset of the commission meeting Camarillo said that it is no mystery that everyone on the commission is against the fence. "The fact of the matter is that there is law and law supersedes everything else in this country," Camarillo said, but he also noted that "putting up a fence is not the sole solution."

Camarillo said that the commission should be "very careful" of actions that it takes while negotiations are still ongoing with DHS.

DHS moved last week in federal court to take possession of nearly 16 acres of city-owned land amid negotiations with the city.

And, although Commissioner Charlie Atkinson said last week that DHS' move to take possession amid talks with the city was in bad faith, he found that the proposed resolution tabled Tuesday was too "radical" and "crazy" and not written professionally. "It was like yelling on paper," Atkinson said.

Atkinson said that the mayor claimed not to know how that resolution ended up on the agenda and that the resolution would likely hurt the city rather than help it in the pending federal case.

The proposed resolution also noted that the federally mandated "one-size-fits-all" border fence is "irrational" and that technology and more manpower, as recommended by the U.S. Border Patrol sector chief, should be applied instead.

On the other hand, U.S. Border Patrol Rio Grande Valley Sector Chief Patrol Agent Ronald D. Vitiello said the enforcement model developed for Brownsville included infrastructure border fencing and patrol roads together with technology and more manpower.

"The ongoing consultations with the City of Brownsville have been focused on ensuring that the city could continue with its river walk project development as well as the East Loop project. This agreement would allow the government to revert the properties needed for these projects back to the City of Brownsville," Vitiello said in a statement dated Tuesday.

Vitiello said that since October, Border Patrol agents assigned to the Rio Grande Valley Sector have arrested 36,190 people attempting to enter the country illegally and have seized over 560,000 pounds of marijuana. "To put it into perspective, every single day, Rio Grande Valley Sector agents arrest 162 people and seize 2,500 pounds of drugs," Vitiello said.

"As we continue to complete border fence projects in the region, it will enhance national security and improve the quality of life for residents on both sides of the border. Tactical infrastructure on the border alone is not the sole solution but when combined with front-line Border Patrol agents and technology, it will provide us with a more secure border and a safe and effective enforcement zone for front-line Border Patrol agents," the sector chief added.

Sector spokesman John A. Lopez said that the sector covers nine stations along the Rio Grande from Rio Grande City to Brownsville and into Falfurrias, Kingsville and Corpus Christi.

Ahumada said Wednesday that initially, there had been two proposed resolutions that had been penned by volunteers opposed to the border fence. The resolution attached to Tuesday's agenda was stronger than the other, which called for opposing DHS' move to take possession of the city land.

"They (commissioners) blamed me. They said that I switched resolutions," Ahumada said Wednesday. The mayor also said that he didn't place the item on the agenda and that he had only volunteered to sponsor the resolution if no other commissioner did.

Ahumada said that commissioners could have modified the language of either resolution to better suit them.

"But they didn't and this shows that they are not committed to fighting the fence," the mayor said. "What are they going to do, pass a resolution after the fence is built?" Ahumada said.

Meanwhile, the letter that is planned to be forwarded to Obama this week states that "officials of your administration, in their zeal to satisfy the goals of the previous administration, are out of control. They (are) bullying local landowners and officials, violating the law and court orders as if they were former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff armed with legal supremacy to waive any law."

http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/border-98230-resolution-city.html

Ortiz opposes seizing city land for border fence

Brownsville Herald
May 17, 2009
by Emma Perez-Trevino

As the U.S. Department of Homeland Security moved to take possession of city property for a border fence between Brownsville and Matamoros, U.S. Rep. Solomon P. Ortiz expressed his displeasure.

"I am not pleased," Ortiz, D-Corpus Christi, said of DHS' move amid negotiations with the city on a proposed levee-temporary fence alternative. Ortiz's spokesman Jose Borjon said Friday that the congressman had asked DHS not to begin proceedings to take possession of city land.

The Brownsville Herald also learned that Ortiz is attempting to obtain funding for the levee-temporary fence alternative.

This comes on the heels of DHS' trip to the federal courthouse May 12 to file the motion to take possession of 15.919 acres of city land, although DHS officials say talks with city officials continue in an effort to reach an agreement on a temporary fence.

Under the proposed agreement, DHS would build temporary fences on the East Loop levee and between the Gateway International Bridge and the B&M Bridge. Control of the property would revert to the city when the city provides replacement barriers, including construction of a new levee.

The temporary fence would be removed by DHS if there is funding. If there were no federal funding, its removal would be the city's responsibility. The city also would bear the cost of the replacement barriers.

"But at what cost to the city?" Mayor Pat M. Ahumada Jr., who favors developing a dam as a natural barrier, said of the proposed agreement on the table.

The mayor said the cost to the city could be as much as $13 million and that the city does not have the money.

Ahumada said that instead of fighting among themselves, city officials should have been using the time to strategize in opposition to the border fence.

Ahumada also said that Ortiz had initially supported the weir project as a barrier and wondered why the congressman is now supporting a temporary fence. Borjon said that Ortiz continues to support the weir project, but not as an alternative to the fence.

Regarding the motion for possession that DHS filed, Ahumada said, "What do we do now? What I've said all along; we should be looking for a third party to mediate and that is U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen."

The federal case is before Hanen's court.

DHS' motion is slated to be on Hanen's court docket June 1.

http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/city-98127-fence-ortiz.html

Mayors decry ‘culture of fear' on border

March 9, 2009
The Monitor
by Jennifer Berghom

AUSTIN -- State and national influence makers have exaggerated the security situation on the Texas-Mexico border, creating a "culture of fear" that has hurt economic development, a panel of mayors said Monday.

The city heads urged politicians, law enforcement officials and media organizations to find a balance between economics and public safety when developing their response to Mexico's mounting drug violence.

"It's important to understand that the situation in Mexico is not the situation in Iraq," Brownsville Mayor Pat Ahumada said, testifying before the state House Committee on Border and Intergovernmental Affairs. "While there are places with great turmoil, this is not the whole country."

Since Mexican President Felipe Calderon launched his ongoing campaign to root out his nation's entrenched crime syndicates in 2006, sporadic violence has erupted up and down the border between cartels fighting federal forces and each other.

More than 6,000 people died last year as a result of drug-related violence, according to statistics kept by the Mexican attorney general's office.

"I've seen those heads of people cut off and rolled across the floor," said Dan Flynn, an East Texas Republican who serves as the committee's vice chair. "Anytime you have that kind of violence, you have to be prepared for spillover."

But aside from exceptions like Ciudad Juarez - where more than 460 people have died this year -- most Mexican border cities remain relatively safe. That hasn't stopped a handful of politicians and law enforcement officials from using sporadic incidents to push perceptions of a rapidly deteriorating situation, the mayors said.

"The more they shout wolf, the more funds they get sent to them," said Eagle Pass Mayor Chad Foster.

Gov. Rick Perry cited a Feb. 17 shootout in Reynosa that left six dead in his request last month for troops to help protect against the threat of "spillover violence."

Last week, U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, re-emphasized the need for federal intervention by noting U.S. Defense Department estimates that Mexico's two largest drug cartels had amassed a "small army" of 100,000 foot soldiers.

Such talk at the state and national level has already had an impact on the Rio Grande Valley, McAllen Mayor Richard Cortez said.

Nineteen businesses considering moves to McAllen and the bordering Reynosa maquila district have backed out in the past several months over security concerns.

Brownsville Mayor Pat Ahumada pointed to his city's recent Charro Days festival, in which the city had planned to host more than 600 square dancers for a record setting event. Instead, only 80 showed up.

The misperceptions have become so widespread, Cortez told lawmakers, that members of his family living in other cities expressed concern recently that he might be assassinated.

"I can tell you today that there is no violence in the streets of McAllen," he said.

The mayors urged lawmakers to consider policies that would address the demand for drugs on this side of the border, crack down on U.S. cash and arms smuggling networks and upgrade technology and personnel along the ports of entry.

"Unless we address the underlying problem you'll have to keep spending more and more," Hidalgo Mayor John David Franz said. "The day drugs are worthless on the American streets - that's the day the drug cartels move away from our border."

http://www.themonitor.com/articles/border_24074___article.html/violence_mayor.html

Officials present ‘no fence' alternatives

March 6, 2009
Brownsville Herald
by Laura Tillman

Brownsville officials presented a "no fence" alternative to officials from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on Thursday, a proposal to designate the city a "center of excellence" where alternative border surveillance technologies would be tested in lieu of a U.S.-Mexico border fence.

No agreements were reached during the meeting, which was held in Washington, D.C., but city officials said the opportunity to sit down with members of the Obama administration and discuss alternatives was a hopeful change from the tenor of the Bush administration.

Mayor Pat M. Ahumada Jr. and U.S. Rep. Solomon Ortiz, D-Corpus Christi, along with other Brownsville city officials, urged DHS Acting Deputy Secretary Rand Beers to impose a moratorium on fence construction until the impact of the structure on the city's environment and economy could be assessed.

Brownsville officials who joined Ahumada and Ortiz were City Commissioners Anthony Troiani, Leonel Garza and Edward Camarillo and Historic Downtown District Manager Peter Goodman. Also joining the group was developer Sam Marasco, who resides in California.

"(DHS) hasn't agreed to our proposal yet, but they were very receptive and very willing to listen," Troiani said.

The DHS Office of Public Affairs declined to comment on the meeting.

Ahumada said he presented 14 reasons why a moratorium on city fencing should be declared. He also urged Beers to consider the proposed dam project east of Brownsville, which would raise the height and width of the Rio Grande, thereby making it more difficult for people from Mexico to cross and easier to patrol by speed boat.

Commissioner Camarillo called Thursday's proposal "Option 1," in which no fencing would be built in Brownsville. But Camarillo said that if DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano doesn't agree to forgo fencing altogether, city officials would be willing to discuss excluding the fence in certain key areas, like the proposed site of the river walk development and the East Loop project.

"This is a time to think outside the box," Camarillo said. "With this new administration there's no limitations to what we could do to work out this issue."

The river walk project developer, Marasco, said that he had lost hope for the multimillion-dollar development during the past year, but was optimistic after Thursday's meeting.

Brownsville Crossings L.L.C., Marasco's development group, stands to lose millions of dollars and two and a half years of investment if the project does not work out, Marasco acknowledged.

"I think ‘no fence' would be a great win for the city," Marasco said. "But it's very important for the city to realize that they may have to create a compromised solution, otherwise they will be shooting themselves in the foot by losing these other projects."

Ortiz agreed that the border fence would hinder the city's economic growth.

"The current border wall plan would limit Brownsville's ability to improve its local economy and infrastructure," Ortiz said in a press release. "I am grateful that DHS has an open ear to working with our local community while finding effective ways to address our border security concerns."

http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/city_95513___article.html/officials_brownsville.html

Ahumada: Meeting with DHS officials was 'positive and constructive'

March 6, 2009
Rio Grande Guardian
by Steve Taylor and Joey Gomez

BROWNSVILLE, March 6 - Brownsville Mayor Pat Ahumada says a meeting he and other city leaders had with Department of Homeland Security Under Secretary Randy Beers in Washington, D.C., on Thursday was productive.

The Brownsville leaders wanted to see if DHS officials are more accomodating and open to ideas under new Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano than under the department's previous chief, Michael Chertoff. Ahumada said the answer is, yes.

“The meeting was positive and constructive but no decisions were taken on the issue of the border wall,” Ahumada told the Guardian. “I spoke in depth against the border wall and requested a moratorium on construction until an environmental and economic study is performed and a re-assessment of the effectiveness of a wall is completed.”

DPS would not comment on how the meeting went.

Congressman Solomon Ortiz, D-Corpus Christi, set up the meeting. Others elected officials participating were City Commissioners Edward Camarillo, Leonel Garza and Anthony Troiani. Brownsville Historic Downtown District Manager Peter Goodman and California developer Sam Marasco, who are looking to develop a river walk in downtown Brownsville also attended.

The meeting was set up following a public outcry by Brownsville residents last month over plans by Brownsville City commissioners to sign a contact with DHS to have “temporary” sections of the border wall built. City commissioners said they were left with no option but to sign the contract. However, when Ortiz inquired if this was true the new leadership at DHS, led by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, said they had not delivered an ultimatum to Brownsville.

Ortiz pointed out that DHS is planning construction of border fencing between the Gateway and B & M bridges in Brownsville, which lie directly in the path of anticipated downtown revitalization projects. He said the proposed construction will affect an anticipated East Loop project that would connect Port of Brownsville with Veterans Bridge.

Ortiz said Thursday’s meeting focused on alternatives to the current DHS plan, including designating Brownsville as a city for emerging border security technology.

“The current border wall plan would limit Brownsville’s ability to improve its local economy and infrastructure,” Ortiz said. “I am grateful that DHS has an open ear to working with our local community while finding effective ways to address our border security concerns.”

Ahumada said there was a difference in emphasis between his pitch to Beers and those of the city commissioners. “The commissioners’ agenda was primarily advocating solely for the developers, while mine was for landowners, environmentalists, river development, coalitions and citizens against the wall,” he said.

Ahumada said he also pitched the Brownsville/Matamoros Weir Project as an alternative to a border wall.

“The Weir project is a more effective way of securing the border and it will bring economic development and prosperity on both sides of the Rio Grande. It is needed to keep people from coming to the U.S.” Ahumada said. “The Weir project will create a river walk similar to that in San Antonio but it will be bi-national.”

Ahumada said he also stressed the need to protect the ecological, historical and agriculture corridor alongside the Rio Grande and requested that DHS start true and meaningful consultations with the Texas Border Coalition, a group representing cities and counties from El Paso to South Padre Island.

“DHS was non committal and mainly listened to us. As mayor, I thanked them and Congressman Ortiz for hosting the meeting,” Ahumada said.

Ahumada provided the Guardian with a list of 19 key points he presented to Beers. Here they are:

1) It is no secret that Secretary Napolitano is sensitive to border issues, particularly when it comes to immigration, drug trafficking, and all illegal activity that takes place along the Rio Grande River. We welcome and appreciate this fact.

2) As mayor I speak for all those who oppose the fence and firmly believe that any temporary fencing will most likely be permanent, unless DHS were to agree to build it, remove it and replace it at another location at their expense.

3) The Stimulus Bill does not provide funds for Levee / Border Wall construction. Funds appropriated to IBWC are solely for levee repairs and rehabilitation.

4) As mayor, I request that any lands taken from the city be assessed for their true value based on an economic loss and environmental impact study.

5) The October 2006 Secure Fence Act no longer requires that a Wall be built in Brownsville based on the Hutchinson Amendment to the 2008 appropriations bill amending the Act that allows Secretary Napolitano to decide if fencing is the best alternative and where the fencing should go.

6) As mayor, Brownsville has formed alliances thru TBC with those who oppose the Wall, which includes the Sierra Club and other environmental groups, along with state and federal legislators who oppose the Wall. The state is passing at TBC request has introduced a proposed Resolution opposing the border wall. We have also formed alliances with CASA, Valley Interfaith, land owners, and citizens from all over the Continental U.S.A. This alliance with TBC represents more than 4 million citizens along the southwest border region.

7) As mayor and on behalf of the citizens, I pointed out that the numbers supporting the Wall has dropped substantially after 9-11-2001. The knee jerk and extremist reaction for a border wall has diminished and will continue to do so, as people learn how ineffective and costly the proposed fence is going to cost taxpayers.

8) A Washington think tank headed by a former INS Commissioner has recommended border wall construction be halted pending a revaluation on border security.

9) TBC has filed suit to stop construction and is willing to work with DHS providing meaningful consultations with border governments, as required by law.

10) As mayor and TBC member, we believe DHS has not dealt in good faith. DHS approach is to reach an agreement with the City of Brownsville in order to divide and conquer land owners and anyone else who opposes the wall.

11) TBC has asked for a meeting with Secretary Napolitano, because meeting with staff is not the same, since staff is not able to discuss or respond to any dialogue by TBC. Meetings with staff are not enough at this point, because DHS staff can only hear us and is not able to respond to any of our questions or proposals to negotiate. Time is running out and a meaningful meeting with Secretary Napolitano would be beneficial before the wall is being built.

12) A Wall thru Brownsville will not provide the security DHS is seeking and it will be devastating to Brownsville in many different ways.

13) There are better more effective ways and less costly to secure the border. One of them being the Brownsville/Matamoros Weir Project, which causes the river to rise in dept from 12 to 26 feet, it will widen the river to 300 feet, and back up the high rise river to 42 miles, then will allow the river to be patrolled by high speed boats constantly and become a virtual fence with additional boots on the ground and sophisticated electronic equipment.

14) As mayor, I submitted Mexico’s State Department letter supporting the weir project as a virtual fence instead of the border wall being proposed to be built. This project will also help create a river walk and tourist corridor, along with securing water for Brownsville and Matamoros to 2050.

15) Building a Wall thru Brownsville will be devastating to our ecological corridor, which pumps approximately $150 million to our region’s economy. It will also adversely impact our historical and Agriculture corridor. A Wall will hurt our tourism industry.

16) As mayor, I believe this new administration has promised and given us hope for a meaningful dialogue and a different way of doing things with good will and transparency.

17) As mayor, I insist on the ecological and economical studies be performed before any more construction begins.

18) The citizens of Brownsville have expressed their frustration and lack of confidence in the Bush administration because it adopted secretive policies, demonstrated bad faith efforts, along with no good will behind the rush to build a Wall by relying on dictatorial methods.

19) The Obama Presidency gives us hope for a new beginning by granting a moratorium on fence construction until an economic and environmental study is performed.

http://www.riograndeguardian.com/rggnews_story.asp?story_no=27