LA LINDA: Legislation that Needs to Be ReIntroduced...

[SHANEA]

This popped up on one of my auto Google Spybots...  

This is legislation that was introduced during the 78th Texas Legislative Session... (2003).

Hey, maybe Jeff Blaylock has some legislative pull on getting this passed and then getting the US Government off their duff and getting the bridgbe opened and also legalized "ports of entry" within BIBE.  PAGING JEFF BLAYLOCK...

By:  Madla                                                      S.C.R. No. 37



SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
   WHEREAS, In 1962, Pub. L. No. 87-525 authorized the
construction of an international bridge across the Rio Grande to
join Heath Canyon in Texas with the village of La Linda, Coahuila,
Mexico, for the purpose of transporting refined ore into the United
States from nearby mills in Mexico and to one day facilitate the
movement of tourists interested in visiting the Sierra del Carmen
mountain areas across from Big Bend National Park; and
   WHEREAS, Since the bridge was constructed, the Texas
Department of Transportation has, without interruption, maintained
Farm-to-Market Road 2627 as a paved two-lane highway for a 28-mile
stretch connecting the bridge to United States Highway 385, which
leads from that junction southward to Big Bend National Park and
northward 40 miles to Marathon and United States Highway 90; and
   WHEREAS, La Linda Bridge, also known as the Hallie Stillwell
Memorial Bridge, is still in place and is in good repair but cannot
be crossed by vehicles or pedestrians because of barriers and the
placement of "no trespassing" signs at the bridge since 1997
pursuant to orders issued by the governments of the United States of
America and the Republic of Mexico; and
   WHEREAS, The La Linda international crossing is the only
bridge structure in place and the only point of entry authorized by
public law between the United States ports of entry at Presidio and
Del Rio, a distance of 385 miles; and
   WHEREAS, The principal owner of the United States section of
the international bridge at La Linda, the National Parks
Conservation Association, is prepared to donate its interest in the
bridge and associated properties to the State of Texas through the  
General Land Office so that the bridge may be reopened and operated
as a legal border crossing; and
   WHEREAS, The tourism industries serving scenic and
recreational areas joined by this bridge, including the Big Bend
mountains of Texas and the Sierra del Carmen mountains of Northwest
Coahuila, wish to promote, accommodate, and economically benefit
from cross border tourism but are unable to implement those
objectives if the La Linda crossing is not functioning; and
   WHEREAS, The safety of tourists wishing to enjoy the area,
the binational scientific cooperation called for under existing
international agreements, and the security and public safety of
communities and citizens on both sides of the international border
would be enhanced by a functioning border crossing at La Linda; and
   WHEREAS, The State of Coahuila and the commissioners court of
Brewster County, respectively represented by the Instituto de
Turismo and the Big Bend Border Council and joined by a coalition of
local residents and the Big Bend National Park Superintendent, have
twice requested that the Binational Bridges and Border Crossings
working group, which is convened semiannually by the United States
Department of State and the Mexican Secretaria de Relaciones
Exteriores, take the necessary actions to have the bridge and
border crossing at La Linda reopened by the United States and
Mexican federal governments; and
   WHEREAS, The working group, composed of United States and
Mexican federal authorities responsible for authorizing
international ports of entry and required inspections along the
international boundary, will convene again in the coming months to
consider action on either reopening the bridge at La Linda or
ordering its removal; and
   WHEREAS, It is in the economic, cultural, and security
interest of the State of Texas and the homeland security interest of
the United States of America to have a functioning border crossing
station under the management and control of trained and equipped
law enforcement and public safety officials in the extensive area
known as the Big Bend; now, therefore, be it
   RESOLVED, That the 78th Legislature of the State of Texas
hereby express its support and encouragement for the reopening of
the bridge and border crossing at La Linda to accommodate trade and
tourism between Texas and Coahuila, Mexico, and to better protect
residents of both countries and secure the protection of our nation
from threats that might be associated with the illegal crossing of
individuals or materials with a lethal intent; and, be it further
   RESOLVED, That the legislature hereby urge the General Land
Office to proceed expeditiously with the due diligence needed to
make a determination regarding acceptance of an ownership interest
in La Linda Bridge by the State of Texas; and, be it further
   RESOLVED, That the legislature hereby urge that the governor,
the Texas Department of Transportation, the secretary of state, the
Department of Public Safety of the State of Texas, the Parks and
Wildlife Department, the Texas Department of Economic Development,
the Texas Historical Commission, and other appropriate state
agencies render encouragement and assistance to the General Land
Office as it proceeds in this matter and render encouragement and
assistance as well to Brewster County and to private and public
advocates for tourism in the Big Bend in their efforts to develop a
regional tourism economy in conjunction with a reopened bridge at
La Linda; and, be it further
   RESOLVED, That the legislature hereby call upon the United
States Department of State to communicate the interest of the State
of Texas in this matter to the government of the Republic of Mexico
and to all other parties participating in decisions relating to
either reopening or removing the bridge at La Linda; and, be it
further
   RESOLVED, That the Texas secretary of state forward an
official copy of this resolution to the United States secretary of
state.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlo/78R/billtext/SC00037E.HTM

[homerboy2u]

So this means what :?: ..the Texas gvt.s starting to roll the ball or is it already snowballing on the cause :?: .

   Put in short , Shane :!: ...don't get my hopes too high :lol: ... ... :? ... ... :x

[BigBendHiker]

This is encouraging!


BBH

[randell]

At least some resolution is being considered...it's not a forgotten matter just yet. (as of 2003)

[Casa Grande]

this is good news....let's stand by before we have a party at the bridge...

[homerboy2u]

this is good news....let's stand by before we have a party at the bridge...

  Thatґd be fun...you guys on one side of the fence, me and my buds on the other..hahaha...emptying long necks,laughing and yelling on the bridge: Count me in. :lol:  

[randell]

We could get giant slings and lob water balloons at each other across the Rio Grande.  Water balloons full of beer.

[jeffblaylock]

Sen. Madla did not re-offer this resolution in 2005 and was defeated in his reelection bid this spring.  The incoming senator is current state Rep. Carlos Uresti, who I know pretty well.  If we do some homework and pull together a good case for moving forward on an official crossing, I believe he would be sympathetic.

As I recall, there is still some unresolved legal bickering over whether the bridge must be demolished because it, legally, is unused and crosses a navigable waterway (I know it really isn't navigable, but it is under the current interpretation of federal law).

Unfortunately, the establishment of a permanent border crossing is a federal matter, which would require the (successful) intervention of Congressman Henry Bonilla of San Antonio. And I don't count on Congress to do much these days. I wonder what the border wall would look like cutting across the bridge, though.

[MuleEarMick]

Unfortunately, the establishment of a permanent border crossing is a federal matter

The 2003 resolution makes very good points for re-opening the crossing and makes a lot of sense. However, common sense type decisions normally are not a part of the governmental process. Now maybe if we can get some legislators to buy some land across the Rio Grande.........

[SHANEA]

Good morning and thanks    for the input.  I knew you were the man to turn to!  If I recall correctly, "many" of the issues regarding the "ownership" of the bridge have been resolved.  One of the nature groups purchased the land around the bridge, etc.  There was some kind of an injunction or "something" filed against the Coast Guard to prevent the removal of the bridge.  As I have time, I will try to do some "research" on this and send you a word document of what I come up with.    There are probably some "links" here on the chatpage about La Linda with some links to other websites.  The La Linda bridge would be good for the economy of the region and would provide a great gateway to the International Peace Park.  

On another note, we really need to look into "doing something" for an "official" type of crossing between BIBE and the Mexican Communites of Boquillas and Santa Elena as it benefits both countries and BIBE.   Heck, make it some kind of an "exclusion" zone in which you can cross back and forth for a period of 10 miles or something like that.  I wouldn't even have a clue one about how to go about even proceeding with something like this.  I was recently surprised  to learn that there is some form of an official border crossing between Canada and the US on the boundry waters up in MN.

 

[randell]

I wonder how does Steve Smith in Lajitas still advertises

an optional par one in Mexico, Hole 11A

?

http://www.lajitas.com/Golf.html

I guess you could use binoculars verify that you made it.  But who maintains the course and cleans up the balls?  Does he send a crew all the way to Presidio and down to the hole every day?

[jeffblaylock]

I was recently surprised to learn that there is some form of an official border crossing between Canada and the US on the boundry waters up in MN.

There's actually one I'll be passing through between Waterton Lakes NP in Alberta and Glacier NP in Montana in September. The hiking trail literally goes past a ranger station which serves as a customs checkpoint. Only U.S. and Canadian citizens may proceed -- all others must turn back. I stood in line for a passport yesterday since I don't want to be hiking with a certified copy of my birth certificate in my bag.

By the way, in case y'all haven't heard, you will need a passport to travel to and from Mexico starting January 1, 2007. That includes Acuna. I suppose it doesn't include Boquillas, Santa Elena, and La Linda since it's illegal to re-enter the country there anyway. Passports will be needed for travel to and from Canada in 2008. They're a bargain at $97. NINETY-SEVEN! If you want them in less than six weeks, you need to shell out $60 more, so plan ahead ....

[homerboy2u]

 If we  pull together a good case for moving forward on an official crossing, I believe he would be sympathetic.

Unfortunately, the establishment of a permanent border crossing is a federal matter, which would require the (successful) intervention of Congressman

  There is always a back door to everything....life has taught me that. In this case, if you all in your end would ,thru normal procedures , establish a permanent border crossing . This means commercial traffic conditions would have to be met.Expanding the bridge to twol anes minimum,setting up customs buildings, cameras,lighting,sensors all over the mountains, and most important the very presence of the always seeing eye in the sky . Just thall of these means mounds of dinero, more lobbying and endless time after it. However, if you set it up as a tourist crossing for both sides of the border, now thatґs a different ball game. it inmediatelly falls in the fast track lane, because the bridge does not have the dimmensions to carry an 18 wheeler per say nor there is a commercial route to do commercial trade between two countries..hence the purpose of the bridge.

  On the other hand, if by initiating the rally under a tourist clause between the two pristine mountain areas of the Del Carmenґs & Big Bend. No international trade standards would have to be complied, hence the rapid approval of the act. Of course , there are other issues to contemplate like setting up permanent Custom offices and sanitary agencies would be involved in it. But that can easily be resolved to meet them.

  There is this very powerfull industrial group that already has the majority of the Del Carmenґs under its belt lobbying to buy the U.S. side of the Bridge . CEMEX, and i donґt know to what extent they have won theyr petittion but,should you get organized the Coahuila Goverment is readily available to do its part on the Mexican side.

 Something to ponder. Maybe our loyal Bill H has something to say here  :?:

[jeffblaylock]

The front door channel appears to be through the office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary (of the Treasury) for Regulatory, Tariff, and Trade Enforcement.  He or she has the authority to establish ports of entry. This is probably significantly more involved than any of us realize, and the result, if successful, is probably well more than what we have in mind.

Reopening the informal crossings with a little more formality -- specific hours, customs/border patrol/NPS officer on duty, limits on what you can bring in or out, documentation requirements, etc. -- would seem to be an easier path.

[Voni]

From today's Alpine Avalance:

http://www.alpineavalanche.com/articles/2007/12/06/front/news01.txt

The most positive news I've read in a long time!

Voni
  sMiling