If the Trump administration moves ahead with plans to build a border wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, it would "completely ruin the experience" at Big Bend National Park in Texas, according to a former ranger.
The national park's boundary runs 118 miles along the border with Mexico. Building a wall along that stretch likely would jeopardize wildlife crossings and require a buffer cleared along the U.S. side of the wall to allow for maintenance and observation.
“It would completely ruin the experience of one of the most beautiful natural places left in this country,” Rick LoBello, a former Big Bend park ranger and director of conservation group the Greater Big Bend Coalition, told the Los Angeles Times last week in discussing the impact a border wall would have on the park.
In a similar story for the Dallas Morning News, Mr. Lobello said, “A big wall in Big Bend would basically destroy the wilderness quality Big Bend has protected.”
Of course, another impact of such a wall would be the likely demise, for now, of the proposal to create Big Bend Rio Bravo Binational Natural Area in the Big Bend area of Texas and northern Mexico being promoted by the coalition.
Comments
Thanks, Jason!
"Texans Receive First Notices of Land Condemnation for Trump's Border Wall"
https://www.texasobserver.org/texas-border-wall-mexico-condemnation-letter/
The article is a little misleading. The land would not be "siezed". The owner would be forced to sell at market value - which may indeed be $2,900 or something higher or lower. I'm not a big fan of emminent domain or the wall (I believe there are cheaper and more effective ways to accomplish the goal) but nevertheless we should present the facts accurately.
I suppose we'd parse the phrases "forced to sell" and "seized" differently.
(I'm not sure how the title is misleading since it doesn't say "the land would . . . be seized." Or who is your antecedent for "we.")