fbpx

Issue: Private property

House passes bill to cut red tape on border wall construction on private land

In this April 5, 2019, file photo, a U.S. Customs and Border Protection vehicle sits near the wall as President Donald Trump visits a new section of the border wall with Mexico in El Centro, Calif. A federal judge has denied a request by the U.S. House of Representatives to prevent President Donald Trump from tapping Defense Department money for a border wall with Mexico. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File)
In this April 5, 2019, file photo, a U.S. Customs and Border Protection vehicle sits near the wall as President Donald Trump visits a new section of the border wall with Mexico in El Centro, Calif. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File)

Calling it a matter of property rights and security, the state House voted Thursday to let those living along the border to construct walls without first getting local permission or building permits.

The 31-29 party-line vote came a week after it fell one vote short when Rep. Tony Rivero, R-Peoria, refused to go along with the Republican majority. Rivero, who has led trade missions to Mexico and elsewhere, told Capitol Media Services at the time that he was “not sure this was the right way to go.”

Tony Rivero
Tony Rivero

On Thursday, Rivero did not explain his change of heart.

But Democrats, in opposing the measure, said HB 2084 sends precisely the wrong message as Arizona seeks to build ties with its southern neighbor.

Rep. Diego Rodriguez, D-Phoenix, specifically mentioned a trip by state legislators to Guanajuato that Rivero recently organized.

“We were welcomed with open arms,” he said.

“We were treated with respect,” Rodriguez continued. “We were treated with friendship.”

This legislation, he said, does the exact opposite, sending the message “that we prefer a wall to friendship.”

But Rep. Gail Griffin, R-Hereford, had a different take.

“We respect our neighbors to the south,” she said.

“This is not about race,” Griffin said. And if there’s someone these walls are aimed at, she said, it is the drug cartels that operate along the border.

And she also said it has nothing to do with the wall being built by the federal government along stretches of the border, construction that already can take place without state or federal permission. What’s at issue, Griffin said, is what landowners living along the border build on their own property.

“This is an issue of private property and private money to move forward with safety of your property, of your and your family’s ability to keep people out,” she said.

Rep. Mitzi Epstein, D-Tempe, said she has “a firm conviction” to protecting private property rights.

“I also have a firm belief that building permits help us to keep buildings safe, help us to make sure that a plan for a building is a safe building,” she said.

“It is about building anything safely and not going around the permitting process,” Epstein said. “If there’s going to be construction it needs to be safe construction.”

Rep. Kelly Townsend, R-Mesa, said there’s a safety reason for exempting privately built border walls from local permitting. But she said it’s about the safety of local officials who, threatened by cartels that want open borders, would be loath to grant the necessary permits.

The proposal by Rep. Warren Petersen, R-Gilbert, is in direct response to problems faced by We Build the Wall, a private group that accepts donations to build barriers on private land along the border in places where there is no federally constructed fence.

That group ran into problems last year while building a 1,500-foot fence on private property in Sunland Park, N.M., near El Paso, Tx., without first getting city permission. That brought construction to a halt until We Build the Wall agreed to comply with city ordinances.

HB 2084 is designed to eliminate that possibility from occurring here.

Facing questions about safety, Petersen did agree to language requiring that the property owner must provide the local government with a statement by a professional engineer that the wall “was built according to the plan and safety requirements.” That filing, however, does not need to come until two months after completion.

But Rep. Kristen Engel, D-Tucson, said this is less about security than politics.

“This is obviously an ideological bill,” she said. “It’s designed to reach out to the base, the base of the Republican Party on immigration issues.”

 

Private landowners can build unregulated border wall under proposed legislation

In this March 30, 2017 file photo, Workers use a crane to lift a segment of a new fence into place on the U.S. side of the border with Mexico, where Sunland Park, New Mexico, meets the Anapra neighborhood of Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, As President Donald Trump's administration fights to fund a new, multibillion-dollar border wall, government lawyers are still settling claims with Texas landowners over the fence Congress approved more than a decade ago. (AP Photo/Rodrigo Abd)
(AP Photo/Rodrigo Abd)

A top Republican lawmaker wants to allow people who own property along the border to build a wall without first getting any building permits.

House Majority Leader Warren Petersen, R-Gilbert, said he fears that overzealous local officials will block construction by erecting procedural barriers.

The exemption in HB 2084 would mean that walls could go up without any requirement to comply with local building codes or safety inspection. But Petersen said it’s a question of balance.

“On the other side of the risk is dangerous drug cartels,” he told Capitol Media Services.

Warren Petersen
Warren Petersen

“We have every crime that you could imagine coming across these borders,” Petersen continued. “And people that live along these properties that don’t feel safe should have every right to protect themselves, including erecting a wall if they need to.”

The legislation has caught the attention of some county supervisors who question the need − or the advisability −to exempt private wall construction from local regulation.

Bruce Bracker of Santa Cruz County said there are processes in place for situations where the federal government desires to build a wall along the international border. He questioned why there needs to be any sort of additional exemption from local ordinances for individuals who want to erect their own barriers.

Yuma County Supervisor Tony Reyes called the proposal “pretty dumb.” He said he was concerned about “that liability issue about building something without a permit without anybody checking, making sure that the public is protected.”

The question, Reyes said, is what happens if the structure falls.

“This is not a property rights issue,” he said. “It’s a health and safety issue.”

And Cochise County Supervisor Tom Borer said he sees no reason to grant a blanket exemption from existing regulations governing construction of barriers and fences just because it would be erected on private land near the border. More to the point, he questioned why the Legislature would intercede.

“As far as I’m concerned, I would not support anything that took the county’s rights away to govern their own county,” he said.

Petersen, however, said any concerns about safety are addressed by his belief that those who do the actual construction will recognize that they remain financially liable if someone is injured due to improper construction or installation.

The Gilbert lawmaker acknowledged that, to date, no Arizona county or city actually has sought to block a landowner from building a wall along the border.

But he cited an incident last year in Sunland Park, N.M., near El Paso, Texas., where a privately funded group erected 1,500 feet of bollard-style fencing over the Memorial Day weekend along a tract of private property without first going through that city’s review process.

City officials issued a cease-and-desist order against We Build the Wall Inc. halting further construction.

The Texas Tribune reports the city ultimately issued permits for lighting and construction, along with a warning to have the company come into compliance with all city ordinances.

Petersen said his measure would protect Arizona landowners from similar delays.

“It’s a great property rights bill,” he said of the legislation.

“It’s something we want to prevent from happening,” Petersen continued. “Sometimes you don’t think cities will do something like this.”

But he said there is evidence of hostility to border security issues in Arizona, specifically citing the efforts by some to have Tucson declared a “sanctuary city.”

That proposal was rejected at the ballot. And Petersen acknowledged that, even if it had succeeded, no part of Tucson is adjacent to the border.

Bracker sniffed at the idea of enacting a new state law here based on what has happened elsewhere.

“That’s New Mexico, that’s not Arizona,” he said.

“So we haven’t had any issue in Arizona yet, we’re trying to put legislation into place,” Bracker continued. “That just doesn’t make any sense.”

Anyway, Bracker said, the federal government is busy building walls on its own property along the border. Petersen, however, said that privately constructed segments will help fill the gaps where there is no federal funding.

But Bracker, beyond the issues raised about Petersen’s bill, questions the whole premise for more border barriers built by anyone, including the federal government.

“The focus should really be on trade and commerce and tourism,” he said. “They should be putting the billions of dollars into ports of entry.”

Tom Belshe, executive director of the League of Arizona Cities and Towns said his legal staff is still reviewing the proposal. But he said that, in general, cities oppose any efforts by lawmakers to preempt local control.

Clarification: The 13th paragraph of this story has been rewritten to eliminate an erroneous statement attributed to Rep. Warren Petersen that he was unconcerned about safety.