Ivory Tower

     A musical dedication goes out to the non-mayoral members of the Brownsville City Commission: “I Wonder if I Care As Much,” by the Everly Brothers.

***

     Mayor Pat Ahumada has had some questionable ideas for using taxpayers’ money. He killed an ongoing review of development impact fees, only to push through another one — the city’s fourth — and the second from the same company. He cut money for the single most critical thing residents are screaming for, street repair, and tried to raise taxes higher than anyone else was willing to go, saying there was simply no money in the city coffers. Then he worked to give special allocations to the Convention Bureau, art museum and community playhouse after announcing that the city had $13 in surplus funds. On all these questionable moves the city commissioners simply went along for the ride.

     They’ve also joined Ahumada in condemning the plan to build a fence along the river, despite concerns from most sane people who know that the fence won’t keep anybody out, it wreaks havoc on the environment and further alienates one of our closest diplomatic partners (and third-largest trading partner).

     Unfortunately, that’s as far as they’re willing to go.

     Commissioners unanimously passed a resolution declaring their opposition to the proposed border fence. But when the mayor asked for a commitment of $200,000 to the effort, the commissioners balked. When he later proposed a resolution to deny federal access to city property for the purposes of building the fence, no one had the guts to even second the motion for discussion.

     “We need to fight, but we also need to be smart about it,” Troiani said at the public commission meeting on Oct. 16.

     Indeed. With that statement, Troiani made it clear that he and the others are neither smart nor willing to fight. They’ll gladly throw $300,000 at an arts museum that grossly miscalculated its ability to pay for a new building, but won’t put up two-thirds of that amount to address the single most important domestic issue that’s now being discussed throughout the country: our nation’s border policy. And since we just happen to be on the border, Ahumada is right in saying that this is Ground Zero.

     This newspaper, and plenty of other people, have made it a point that one of the most glaring points that can be made on our border issue is that the border knows it’s a bad idea. People living and making laws thousands of miles away are telling each other that terrorists are streaming across our borders, putting us all at risk. We’ve been quick to ask the obvious question: If there’s such a danger, then where is it? Why do those most opposed to this stupid nationalist jabbering those who actually live on the border and who know who and what might be coming across, and whether we’re actually in danger or not.

     We can’t do that anymore. Our elected officials have weenied out and refused to defend our homeland from those who would be just as happy to kick their own brown butts out of the country if they had the chance.

     Somebody should file a lawsuit, if only to open the door for anybody or group to offer amicus filings on any of the issues surrounding the fence, be it environmental, property rights, foreign relations or civil rights.

     Maybe it’s the mindset of those who seek elected office in the Rio Grande Valley. They are quick to call themselves elected leaders, not servants. If they believe they have so much power and authority, then they must see the federal government through similar prisms, and not recognize that our nation was designed to have the people rule, and elected officials are merely representatives.

     And that’s what this battle is all about: who has final say over the land that is in private hands, even when it’s along the border.

     If the city chose to challenge the feds, it would help address the questions that have been gnawing at so many Americans for some seven years now: Does one appointed homeland security director really have the authority to set policies that supercede laws passed by 535 elected members of Congress?

     Such a fight could well burn up $200,000, or just a portion of it, if others are willing to join in the litigation. Maybe the American Civil Liberties Union would be willing to help litigate the issue; it doesn’t charge directly for its legal services. But somebody has to at least put up the filing fee to get the case started.

     And who knows? It could meet with success. U.S. District Court Judge Ellen Huvelle on Oct. 10 ordered a stop to any work toward constructing a border fence in the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area in Arizona. Huvelle ruled that the federal Bureau of Land Management didn’t complete a thorough environmental impact study on the planned fence. The judge noted that the feds didn’t allow enough time for public input in order to make more informed determinations. The same concerns have arisen in Texas, after the government rejected pleas from residents and lawmakers to extend the short window for public input.

     Certainly, the fight against the fence will continue; there are enough responsible, committed people, both local and national, to maintain opposition. Unfortunately, our local commissioners don’t have the character to put actions behind their words. The worst part is that knowing these guys, they will be the first to bask in the glow of any successes the real opposition might win.

     Maybe they don’t seem to care as much because this fence doesn’t really affect them. After all, it shouldn’t be so hard to slither through a fence if you have no backbone.