We Build the Wall - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org

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]

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
    192·
    2 months ago

    100x

    (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

    • BassTurd@lemmy.worldEnglish
      22·
      2 months ago

      The tax burden went up 75x and the property was reassessed 100x higher. Both are true.

    • Dkarma@lemmy.worldEnglish
      103·
      2 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.

      • ReluctantMuskrat@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        2 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.worldEnglish
          1·
          2 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.

      • Dragonstaff@leminal.spaceEnglish
        51·
        2 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.

      • lemming741@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        2 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.eeEnglish
          1·
          2 months ago

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

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
        185·
        2 months ago

        It’s not …

        100x means it’s 100 times as much, you add two zeros to the last number.

        Did you think the “75 times” also meant it increased by 75%? Because that’s not what it means either.

        Like if it was $100 and went up 75 times the original amount, and the new amount would be $7500. To go up 100 times the original it would be $10,000

        • protist@mander.xyzEnglish
          8·
          2 months ago

          What you quoted says the property was assessed at 100x its original value. The total taxes owed is a different number than the assessed value.

          In Texas we have a variety of taxing entities that may overlap a property, city, county, school district, community college district, hospital district, municipal utility districts, etc. Each adopt different tax rates and have defined percentages of valuations they’re allowed to tax. Point being, taxes owed do not scale linearly with assessed property valuations.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
            53·
            2 months ago

            by more than 7,500%”, so I trust that the journalists did their journaling.

            The “%” sign adds two zeros…

            So 75x is the same as 7500%

            I’m not trying to argue I’m trying to help you. If you don’t want help. That’s cool, I can stop trying.

            • Aatube@kbin.melroy.orgOP
              4·
              2 months ago

              I think we have a misunderstanding here, but I don’t know where. Here’s my impression of the conversation:

              1. You said the property tax actually was 100x.
              2. I said that’s 100x the land value; the tax rate isn’t necessarily 100% of the land value. Basically what BassTurd said.
              3. You said even if it was a different percentage, it increases linearly. (You then said something about increasing by 75x isn’t the same as becoming 75 times the original. To that I’ll say 1+75≠100 either.)
              4. I said it’s probably a bracket, so it probably doesn’t increase linearly, hence about 25x/26x of the value didn’t linear it. I do not understand the next reply.
      • mkwt@lemmy.worldEnglish
        13·
        2 months ago

        What they’re saying is this:

        1. That land used to have nothin much on it, so it was cheap land, and the property taxes were low.
        2. 30 million was spent on building the private wall. I don’t think this money came from the land owner. (This is the crowd funded Trump Wall, right?)
        3. With the fancy new wall on it, the property is now appraised at around 20 million (or maybe whatever it was plus 20 million). Whether it’s 75 times or 100 times what it was before is not super important. The point is it went from not much to quite a bit.
        4. Property taxes went up in accordance with the new valuation.
        5. Property owner is probably not wealthy enough to pay the taxes, so big picture he can’t continue to own the property.
            • Crashumbc@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              2 months ago

              No, it’s not, read below. It is has nothing to to do with Trump’s wall.

              (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

              • Aatube@kbin.melroy.orgOP
                21·
                2 months ago

                It’s not the official wall, but it lies on the path of the planned wall and was clearly inspired by Trump. Therefore, I consider it a part, though I understand that many may feel differently.

                • Crashumbc@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  3·
                  2 months ago

                  While it probably was “inspired” by Trump, it has nothing to do with the “official” wall, in fact if you read, the official wall will by pass it.

                  This is something THIS farmer/land owner, did on his own or with private donations. And the idiot built it in a flood plain so it’ll be gone next large flood.

                  He is solely responsible for the outcome of his own actions.

                  • Aatube@kbin.melroy.orgOP
                    21·
                    2 months ago

                    You have a point, but I don’t think they would’ve bypassed it had it not been built in a frequently flooded and rotted place. And I’m not saying Trump is responsible.

        • Aatube@kbin.melroy.orgOP
          32·
          2 months ago

          i understand that, but that’s what’s already in the article i posted, and i don’t see how that’s what they’re saying from something about what increasing about a percentage means. i also understand that it’s not important, but i don’t like being confused as i have a(n ir)rational fear of dementia

          • bobburger@fedia.io
            42·
            2 months ago

            I wouldn’t worry about it, you’re absolutely correct that the property value increase and the tax burden increase are not linear at all. The person who attempted to correct you is pretty notorious for being aggressively wrong.