The 638 acres (2.58 km2) of land [We Build the Wall] built on is part of farmland that belongs to Neuhaus and Sons, and the wall added over $20 million in taxable land improvement, increasing the tax burden by 75 times. In January 2020, Fisher Industries started a lease-purchase agreement with Neuhaus and Sons for the land under the wall, but had not completed the ownership transfer by their court hearing on December 12, 2020, citing a problematic land survey by Fisher. Fisher’s attorney, Mark Courtois, was hopeful the US government would become owners of both the wall and land. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Public Affairs Officer Thomas Gresback said that the wall was privately paid for and on private property, and CBP does not have anything to do with the project. CBP is constructing its RGV-03 project wall outside the floodplain 0.3 miles (0.48 km) away.[66] As of July 2021, the property had been reassessed at 100 times its original value, and Fisher was hoping to sell a 3-mile section of wall (4.8 km) that had cost $30 million to build.[67]

  • Dkarma@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    I hate these right wing shitheads as much as the next rational person but this is bullshit.

    How the fuck is a fence considered developing land? How are they assessing square footage? The idea that there’s increased value there is nuts.

    • Dragonstaff@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      With no information, the blurb is almost designed to be infuriating. But remember that they didn’t just drop a wall there. We’re talking about grading and building roads for heavy equipment to get there, probably storage, and who knows what else. My money says that was the grift in the first place: scam Trump voters into paying to turn a worthless piece of land into something usable.

    • ReluctantMuskrat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s keeping people off their land, as designed. I’m sure people buying property on the border do in fact find it beneficial not to have immigrants coming across on their property. Might even lower insurance too if it’s viewed to reduce risk of liability.

      Funny that they used donations to make their property more desirable and surprise Pikachu face its worth more now and taxes went up!

      • Stovetop@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I never saw as many fences in my life as I did when I took a trip to the South. So many people in that “fuck you, got mine” mindset.

        The US needs the sort of “right to roam” laws that other countries have.

    • lemming741@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      If I put up a privacy fence, my assessment is going up.
      If a farmer puts up a cattle fence, it’s an improvement.
      What’s the difference here?

      • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        The two things you mentioned actually benefit the property. Can’t see the same being true for the border wall