Why the Fight Over the Wall Matters

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

@Carborendum and @Scott, reading your posts makes me smarter, so thanks.

One observation, @Carborendum, is that I don’t think there would be much need for eminent domain proceedings.  Build the wall on public lands and private lands where landowners want it, leave gaps where the landowners don’t, and let ‘em deal with the highway of human traffickers and drug runners that will appear in their backyards.  Then hold the landowners strictly liable for any injuries and deaths of immigrants, and environmental issues, that occur on their land as a result of all the new human activity.  Give it a couple years, and most of the holdout landowners will eventually come back to the feds begging for a wall.  

I had considered that.  And it might make sense if there are sufficiently long stretches of wall.  But it would depend on the continuity of the wall using that method.  If it were "every other property" that was, say a couple thousand feet long, that would be pointless.

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, Scott said:

I will. 

I took a quick scan of the stuff below.  And it appears you're taking it seriously. I want you to know that it does Not go unappreciated.  Thank you.

31 minutes ago, Scott said:

Wouldn't it still have to sit on a footer?   What would the dimension of the footer be?

A sheet pile?  No.  That's the definition of a sheet pile.  But the picture you show below is a good representation of it.  I'll address that below.

31 minutes ago, Scott said:

As far as excavation cost, we're both probably showing our bias due to geographic location.  It sounds like you are from Texas?   If so, unless you are building a road/wall though Big Bend, the Davis Mountains, or Guadalupes, would it be correct to say that you don't have to deal with rock excavation?

Almost all of my projects and all of them that have had walls are in the Rocky Mountains.   We usually plan for $100 per CY for rock excavation and $25 per CY for unclassified excavation.  Obviously, it's going to be cheaper in most of Texas.    The average of where the wall would be would likely be between the two (Texas and the Rocky Mountains).

Right.  In Texas and a large part of New Mexico (and I'd dare say a significant minority of Arizona) will not require rock excavation.  And as I said before, those areas that it is impractical to build will be enforced by personnel rather than a physical barrier (per Trump's own words).

31 minutes ago, Scott said:

Anyway, if you are curious, here are some photos of the roads and projects that I helped manage in recent years.   All of them had walls.  (I am not on any project right now).  The dates are the dates that I was on the projects.

<snip>

So yes, there will be some different biases due to geographic location between us when cost comes into play.   Presumably, the cost will be somewhere between what we're both used to.

Yes, those kinds of terrain will make it too onerous to build a wall.

31 minutes ago, Scott said:

As far as the concrete strength goes, unless we are putting caissons in, the strength of the concrete below ground is at least as strong as the part above ground.

Usually, yes.  But I believe that we can generate economy by doing things differently, while still satisfying function.  Different design.

31 minutes ago, Scott said:

Also, as far as excavation goes, you wouldn't excavate just the width of the wall; you would need to excavate a few feet on either side. 

Not so, if we're talking about a sheet pile.  I'd really have to draw out the hole design.  But I've done these designs before in remote areas.  And they work.  The clients loved me because I was able to generate some savings while maintaining function.

31 minutes ago, Scott said:

PS, I did find the specification for how far the wall has to be underground.  It is six feet:

<snip>

30 feet is considered ideal.   Here are some more specs:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/national/border-wall-prototypes/?utm_term=.db01b0e9afaf

Not exactly.  The 6ft dimension is how far the "no dig" barrier must go.  But SOMEthing must be used to anchor it down.  The footing may be one method. But I believe the sheet pile method would go much deeper and be cheaper to boot.

31 minutes ago, Scott said:

That's not how it works here.  Is that really how it is in Texas?

I'm actually licensed in Colorado (BTW)

For highways, no, it would not work that way.  And that is what you're used to.  But for something like this border wall?  We'd have to get into the legal aspects of it (which I'm not quite an expert in).  But my experience has been that if it is in an area that cannot otherwise be used, then only an easement is required for an "unused structure".  The key here is that no one is allowed to build anything within a certain distance of the borderline itself.  So, the landowners can't use it anyway.

IF someone more versed in property law could chime in, I am willing to admit that I'm wrong.  But I've seen things like that happen.

31 minutes ago, Scott said:

Unless on Federal or State Lands (State Parks, SITLA, Forest Service, BLM, National Parks, etc.) easements are for temporary impact and land that is permanently impacted is purchased.

For example, if a road embankment or wall went all the way to the Highway ROW (Right of Way), you would need an easement because you would have get on and impact someones land to build the embankment or wall.    The same is true for a bridge detour.   If a detour was needed while you build a bridge and it had to be on someone else's land, you would need an easement.   You pay them to use the land and pay them for the impacts to the land, but after the project you restore the land as much as possible and return the land to the land owner.

if any permanent structure and including roadway embankment (and obviously a wall) outside the ROW and on someone's land, you have to buy the land, not just have an easement.    

I'd suggest you go look at some pipeline easements and utility easements.  They are easements, not separate parcels.  And the owners of the easements can build quite a bit on them.

31 minutes ago, Scott said:

Depending on application, usually 4500 psi, but some is 3000, some 4000, and some higher than 4500.   It's usually 4500 though.  

I agree about the sledge hammer.  I was thinking of something like a concrete cutting saw.  

What, the diamond blade saws?  That is not a battery-powered tool.  You've got to have a generator to run it.  And the hand-held variety would not be cutting  much before it ran out of power.

[Guest Scott]

37 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

@Carborendum and @Scott, reading your posts makes me smarter, so thanks.

One observation, @Carborendum, is that I don’t think there would be much need for eminent domain proceedings.  Build the wall on public lands and private lands where landowners want it, leave gaps where the landowners don’t, and let ‘em deal with the highway of human traffickers and drug runners that will appear in their backyards.  Then hold the landowners strictly liable for any injuries and deaths of immigrants, and environmental issues, that occur on their land as a result of all the new human activity.  Give it a couple years, and most of the holdout landowners will eventually come back to the feds begging for a wall.  

I don't think that would work.

You would need to change the law and it would be illegal for the government to hold the landowner responsible for the injuries or deaths for immigrants unless you can prove that the landowner was out to harm the immigrants.   The immigrants themselves though could try to sue the landowner.

One thing to keep in mind is that although there is a lot of private land along the border, no one lives on most of the land.   The do around the cities and towns, but most of the private land is vacant of people and used for grazing or not much at all.

You would think that landowners would be happy to get rid of such lands, but you would be surprised.  

Although most people sell without any trouble since we usually pay more than the land is worth (usually 15% above market value in order to avoid conflicts as much as possible), there are always a few that won't for whatever reason.

Here's a good example I ran into along Highway 131 between Oak Creek and Yampa Colorado.   I don't work in ROW, but the ROW issues did delay the project.   The discussion between the landowner and ROW went something like this.

ROW:   We'd like to buy this property for highway construction.
Land owner:   I'm not selling to the government.
ROW:   There is already a sign on your property saying that it is for sale.   We'd like to buy the entire parcel for 15% more than you are selling for.

Land owner:  I don't care.   I'm not selling to the government.    You can all go to ____.

Anyway, you would be surprised.  Luckily it usually isn't a problem with most land owners.  
 

Edited January 17, 2019 by Scott

[Just_A_Guy]

16 minutes ago, Scott said:

I don't think that would work.

You would need to change the law and it would be illegal for the government to hold the landowner responsible for the injuries or deaths for immigrants unless you can prove that the landowner was out to harm the immigrants.   The immigrants themselves though could try to sue the landowner.
 

I think the legal architecture is already in place to hit the landowners for environmental issues that crop up on their land regardless of the owners’ role (or lack thereof) in creating the mess.  

As far as holding landowners liable for injury/death on their property: I don’t think you need specific intent to harm; a showing of recklessness or negligence would probably get you there.  As I understand it, standing would be the bigger issue; the potentially novel question being whether the government can assume parens patriae authority on behalf of injured parties who were not legally members of the patriae.  And of course, with our partisan judiciary the answer is:  “depends on who’s asking, and which political agenda it benefits”.  These, for better or for worse, aren’t really issues of “changing the law” so much as “finding a sympathetic judge”.  

But as you say, just exposing the landowners to independent lawsuits from the invaders themselves might do it.  And again, you don’t need to change the law for that—just fund a “victims clinic” and lawyers will come to these cases like sharks to blood. 

Edited January 17, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest Scott]

30 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Usually, yes.  But I believe that we can generate economy by doing things differently, while still satisfying function.  Different design.

Not so, if we're talking about a sheet pile.  I'd really have to draw out the hole design.  But I've done these designs before in remote areas.  And they work.  The clients loved me because I was able to generate some savings while maintaining function.

Not exactly.  The 6ft dimension is how far the "no dig" barrier must go.  But SOMEthing must be used to anchor it down.  The footing may be one method. But I believe the sheet pile method would go much deeper and be cheaper to boot.

I see (sort of).   I guess I would have to see it and see the cost to understand how it can be done for the cost that you say it can.

Quote

I'm actually licensed in Colorado (BTW)

And you choose to live in Texas instead?   What's wrong with you?  ☺️  j/k.

Quote

For highways, no, it would not work that way.  And that is what you're used to.  But for something like this border wall?  We'd have to get into the legal aspects of it (which I'm not quite an expert in).  But my experience has been that if it is in an area that cannot otherwise be used, then only an easement is required for an "unused structure".  The key here is that no one is allowed to build anything within a certain distance of the borderline itself.  So, the landowners can't use it anyway.

IF someone more versed in property law could chime in, I am willing to admit that I'm wrong.  But I've seen things like that happen.

Interesting.   How close can they build to the border?   As far as using the land, most of this land (as far as I have seen and can see on the maps) is void of buildings but  is used for things like grazing.  It seems that land the wall is sitting on would still have to be bought, but I admit I'm not 100% sure about this.    An easement is treated more like a rental rather than a purchase (at least in my experience), even if it is only paid for once.  

Quote

I'd suggest you go look at some pipeline easements and utility easements.  They are easements, not separate parcels.  And the owners of the easements can build quite a bit on them.

Yes, you are correct about this.   Utilities and pipelines are treated different.   That is because utilities and pipelines are treated special since they are considered to be means of transporting goods and services, but ones that can be done without large permanent structures (at least smaller pipelines), if that makes sense.  The highway department even gives free easements to utility companies because it is considered transporting good and services, which is part of what highways are for, even though most people just think of them as driving routes for cars and trucks.

I don't think that a wall would fit in the category of transporting goods and services, so I don't think that it would be treated the same way as a utility.

Maybe there are special provisions for border walls though.  I admit that I don't know the specifics.  

Quote

What, the diamond blade saws?  That is not a battery-powered tool.  You've got to have a generator to run it.  And the hand-held variety would not be cutting  much before it ran out of power.

There are battery powered saws that will cut through concrete and rebar.   You can also plug them into a pickup truck outlet.   Also, the above is a good point.  Shouldn't the specification also included tools that can be run on a small generator or air compressor?    Why include battery powered tools, but not ones you can plug into a pickup truck, generator, or air compressor?      

Edited January 17, 2019 by Scott

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, Scott said:

According to Trump's specifications, it has to be pretty/aesthetically pleasing.  

Well, government specifications always increase the cost.  Part of my 3x multiplier.  (Yes, I address this below).

21 minutes ago, Scott said:

Maybe they do, but I have never seen one that big (like the one in the picture) and for one that requires a footer.   Warehouses may use them, but warehouses are built on a flat foundation or subgrade.   Even if you could place ones that big (I have never seen it done), making the subrgrade flat would not be practical in many places.   How would you propose this happening.

Again, the constructabilty question.  Remember that currently the vast majority of the unprotected lands are on fairly flat grade.  And the sheet piles don't require it to be flat.

21 minutes ago, Scott said:

It would be interesting to see that geotechnical study too.   

Sorry.  Can't.  The report is "owned by the client".  I can only use it on their projects.

21 minutes ago, Scott said:

I don't doubt that your figures are accurate. Geotechical engineering isn't a one time thing though.  It will need to be continuous throughout the project.

That's the thing about this report.  And the wall project would have to get their own.  The "continuous throughout" aspect is looking at those areas that are questionable. And those areas would need a site specific report.  But the majority would be adequate with the summary report.

And soil doesn't change over the course of only 10 years (unless there are signs of construction or other activity).  I've used soil reports that were 25 years old.  And they are considered valid because nothing moved.

21 minutes ago, Scott said:

Yes, I have used wick drains.   Usually only for shalely areas, so not that often.  Most of our rock is granite and metamorphics, but with some areas of limestone, shale, and sandstone. 

Most of west Texas is sandy clay.  Not a lot of stone.

21 minutes ago, Scott said:

You would be surprised how much a fence can stop.  I was in the military.   Constantina wire will stop a tank.  Or a bulldozer.  It won't stop a blow torch or backhoe though.  

I've never heard of a tank being stopped by a consertina wire fence -- not a modern one anyway.  They may stop a bulldozer if there are exposed hydraulic lines.  But the caterpillars will run right over them.

But with the demise of caterpillar warfare, MRAPs like the Cougar are the preferred military vehicle now.

21 minutes ago, Scott said:

Thanks for the discussion.   It has been interesting.

And I thank you.

21 minutes ago, Scott said:

To me it is an issue, but not a gigantic one in the grand scheme of things.   Illegal immigration has many negatives, but several positives as well.   I still think that people should migrate here legally.

I'll say something that is usually never brought up in the legal / illegal discussion.

I an a legal immigrant.  For a while I didn't know I was illegal.  But when I found out I could have easily chosen to stay illegal.  But I didn't.  The fact that Liberals don't want you to know is that lawful presence is probably the single most important status that can help you in your career.  My college degree and my licenses would be useless and meaningless without lawful presence.

By encouraging illegal immigration is encouraging people being kept under someone else's thumb.  It is an immorality to encourage it.  Thus, while I admit that there are a large number of people who just want a better life and are willing to work for it, those who encourage it are being either ignorant or immoral because of what that condition does to a person living here illegally.

21 minutes ago, Scott said:

I used to do jobs for the private industry and now I do a lot for the government (though I don't work for them directly).   It sounds like you have done both too.

In my experience, government jobs are actually less costly for items with the same specifications as the private industry, though public perception is the exact opposite.   My perception was the same as yours before I started working in the industry.  

From reading your post it seems as if your experience is the opposite of mine.  Why do you think that is?   I'm just curious rather than arguing.

It boils down to experience and expertise.  There are certain things (very few) that government has done for so long and so regularly, that they have gotten fairly efficient at them.  Road construction is one of them. 

Most other things are a LOT more expensive because the government bureaucrats aren't the experts.  But they're telling the experts that they're doing it wrong.  Then when they go to build the thing, the bureaucrat has to issue a correction notice, which prompts a change order -- which HAS to be paid -- which is GOING to cost more than it really should...

In construction, government projects are often design-build.  And if there is a change notice, that upsets construction which is a major cost...  You get the picture.

And, of course, there is the corruption side of it.  Many government contractors are government contractors.  They have "an in" with some politician.  They get to charge more money because . . . reasons. . .  you get my drift?  So, even if they are low-bidders among those who are "qualified" to be government contractors, ALL those "qualified" are bidding outrageous rates to begin with.

21 minutes ago, Scott said:

I do agree however that government projects have more specifications (Labor, construction, EEO, etc.) and can be more expensive that way. 

Actually, having well thought out and well validated specification are the thing that help the costs stay down.  As far as the employer's requirements, you're right.  That is part of it.

21 minutes ago, Scott said:

From my experience though, the government jobs usually worked out to be cheaper (per item or mile) than those that were private, but with similar specifications.

Here are reasons I can think of:

Government projects are usually bigger which usually bring item cost down.

By law, government projects have to take the low bids (even if they know another contractor is better). 

Government jobs carry less risk in many ways since you are less likely to get sued and the government you are working for isn't likely to go bankrupt.

I'm just curious about your experience in the matter.   I used to think the same as you, but my perception has changed over the 18 years I have worked in the industry.   If you want to, feel free to share your thoughts.  

Well, I think I answered it.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Scott said:

I see (sort of).   I guess I would have to see it and see the cost to understand how it can be done for the cost that you say it can.

Just because it "can" be done that way, doesn't mean a government bureaucrat will accept it.  C'est la vie.

6 minutes ago, Scott said:

And you choose to live in Texas instead?   What's wrong with you?  ☺️  j/k.

HAH!  Actually, if you want to change fields and make a LOT more money, I can get you a job here.  Let me know.

6 minutes ago, Scott said:

Interesting.   How close can they build to the border?   As far as using the land, most of this land (as far as I have seen and can see on the maps) is void of buildings but  is used for things like grazing.  It seems that land the wall is sitting on would still have to be bought, but I admit I'm not 100% sure about this.    An easement is treated more like a rental rather than a purchase (at least in my experience), even if it is only paid for once.  

An easement owner has more rights than the land owner on an easement. The easement owner can build some things on it, while the property owner can't. 

6 minutes ago, Scott said:

Yes, you are correct about this.   Utilities and pipelines are treated different.   That is because utilities and pipelines are treated special since they are considered to be means of transporting goods and services, but ones that can be done without large permanent structures (at least smaller pipelines), if that makes sense.  The highway department even gives free easements to utility companies because it is considered transporting good and services, which is part of what highways are for, even though most people just think of them as driving routes for cars and trucks.

I don't think that a wall would fit in the category of transporting goods and services, so I don't think that it would be treated the same way as a utility.

You may have a point about a continuous wall being built.  That might not be an acceptable structure for an easement.  As an alternative, they could simply split off a strip of land near the border and simply buy that much land instead of an entire parcel.  It would still save money.

6 minutes ago, Scott said:

Maybe there are special provisions for border walls though.  I admit that I don't know the specifics.  

There are battery powered saws that will cut through concrete and rebar.   You can also plug them into a pickup truck outlet.   Also, the above is a good point.  Shouldn't the specification also included tools that can be run on a small generator or air compressor?    Why include battery powered tools, but not ones you can plug into a pickup truck, generator, or air compressor?      

The idea is that you can't build a perfectly impregnable wall.  You just have to build a "sufficient deterrent".  If you get a bunch of guys who are dead set on getting through that wall, they will.  It's just a question of resources and time.

[Tyme]

It's amazing to me that Mormons are arguing against immigrants because they will change the culture. The odd part is that Mormon culture is so much different than American culture. In a couple generations immigrants would be more in tune with American culture than Mormons have been for the last couple hundred years.

[Guest]

On 1/16/2019 at 12:00 PM, Godless said:

Lost in this conversation is the fact that Congress, including some Democrats, already approved $1.6B for the wall last March. At that time, Dems were able to add restrictions on where the wall could be built and what materials could be used for it. Trump came back and demanded more. Not gonna hold that against him, but it's hard to say that the Dems haven't tried to hash this out with their GOP counterparts.

Right, and the left NEVER moves the goalposts.

[Guest]

Yes, Jim Acosta.  There are bad things that happen on the border.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mexico-cartel-violence-tamaulipas-21-bodies-miguel-aleman-texas-us-border/

[Guest Scott]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I've never heard of a tank being stopped by a consertina wire fence -- not a modern one anyway.  They may stop a bulldozer if there are exposed hydraulic lines.  But the caterpillars will run right over them.

A double strand will stop a tank (though I haven't been in the military since the 1990's).  Just in case you are interested, it's not the hydraulic lines, but the wire gets caught in the sprockets:

 

Quote

I an a legal immigrant.  For a while I didn't know I was illegal.  But when I found out I could have easily chosen to stay illegal.  But I didn't.  

I'd be interested to hear your story if you every wanted to tell it.

Quote

Most other things are a LOT more expensive because the government bureaucrats aren't the experts.  But they're telling the experts that they're doing it wrong.  Then when they go to build the thing, the bureaucrat has to issue a correction notice, which prompts a change order -- which HAS to be paid -- which is GOING to cost more than it really should...

I know what you are saying.  When I worked for the government, I'd have to deal with that too.

Also, a lot of politicians don't understand engineering or road construction.  This is just an example.   I hear some politicians and citizens say that fuel efficient cars don't pay their share of highway construction since they use less gasoline.  

Well, this really isn't true (the part about the share).   An average full sized pickup truck does approximately 40 times more damage to the road than a lightweight sedan.  Even this is insignificant though since an 18 wheeler does approximately 10,000 times more damage to a road than a pickup truck.   Excluding weathering, or if there is a flood or earthquake, it is really heavy truck traffic that is causing  almost all damage to the road.   That's a whole different topic though.

Anyway from the government (engineering, not politician) side, things can be difficult when designing a road.   You really don't get that much training and you have to write the plans and specifications so that (hopefully) everyone bidding on them reads them the same way.   This is actually a lot harder than it sounds.

Another thing that was hard and stressful is that if someone makes a mistake in a design for the private industry, it can be costly and you might even get disciplined.    If it's a really big mistake you can get fired.

If you do a design as a government employee, and you make a mistake, it can end up on the evening news.   This is actually quite stressful.

Here's the big thing I hated about working for the government though:

While most employees were hard working (believe it or not), a few weren't.   It's way too hard to fire government employees.   While I've heard people say that this is a sweet deal for government employees, it isn't (except for the person that doesn't get fired when they should be).     It sucks for everyone else except for that employee.   No one wants to work with someone who doesn't pull his or her weight and it's a burden to other employees who have to pick up the slack.

Anyway, that's a whole new topic (and I work for a private company now anyway). 

Quote

And, of course, there is the corruption side of it.  Many government contractors are government contractors.  They have "an in" with some politician.  They get to charge more money because . . . reasons. . .  you get my drift?  So, even if they are low-bidders among those who are "qualified" to be government contractors, ALL those "qualified" are bidding outrageous rates to begin with.

I have heard about this with local agencies, but it would be hard to get away with on state projects unless someone really high up is somehow censoring the books.  I guess it can happen, but since everything we did was public record (even our personal emails), it would be hard to get away with and the risk of getting caught it pretty high.

I guess there are still other ways of cheating the system though.  I would never do this, but as a designer I could intentionally make a (seemingly innocent) mistake and tip off a certain contractor about it so they would win the bid and make more money.  It wouldn't be that hard.  I guess it does happen, but it would be risky and you would have to be really dishonest.  

In my 18 years that I have worked in the highway (and sometimes airport and subdivision) industry, I have never been ask (nor have done) anything shady.  This isn't true when I was in the gold industry or the coal industry though.   In those industries, I was constantly asked to do shady things and it led to me quitting, even if I lost out on a lot of money. 

Presumably the reason (Just my guess) is that when you work directly for or indirectly for a government agency, you are constantly under the microscope from different groups, while it would be easier to get away with things if you weren't.   

Edited January 17, 2019 by Scott

[Guest Scott]

58 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

HAH!  Actually, if you want to change fields and make a LOT more money, I can get you a job here.  Let me know.

 

I know I can make a lot more money in Texas, or even in Colorado if I moved to a large city (such as Denver or Colorado Springs), but one of the most important things for me is access to public lands and good hiking and climbing areas.   

I like Big Bend and Guadalupe National Parks in Texas, but there aren't many public lands outside these areas.  Plus I like seeing the mountains every day.   

Anyway, last year alone I hiked or climbed on 198 days (a lot of times after work rather than all day); climbed 113 mountains, did 50 technical rock or ice routes, and 16 technical slot canyons.   See the link for photographs.

https://www.summitpost.org/2018-trip-log/1013262

I don't think I could do that living in Texas, or even a place like Denver.  ☺️

[anatess2]

36 minutes ago, Tyme said:

It's amazing to me that Mormons are arguing against immigrants because they will change the culture. The odd part is that Mormon culture is so much different than American culture. In a couple generations immigrants would be more in tune with American culture than Mormons have been for the last couple hundred years.

I don't think you're talking about the same thing when you say "culture".  The cultural concern is the bedrock American culture that seceded from the British and the very culture that brought about the conditions that made the restoration of the gospel possible.  This is the culture of of personal liberty wherein freedom is not earned nor given but rather freedom is inalienable by virtue of a power greater than us.  And that such personal liberty is the responsibility of every individual to protect with certain specific enumerated powers granted by the individual to its government and that the Constitution is there, not to limit personal liberty nor personal responsibility but to limit government.  This culture is EXPORTED by the LDS Church to the rest of the world as it spreads its gospel far and wide.

This is a culture unique to Americans and happens to fall perfectly in line with the culture of the true Church of Christ.  Nowhere else in the world do you find this culture codified.  Having a new generation of Americans who do not understand nor value this culture is bad enough.  You don't need to be importing those who don't embrace this culture fully to add to it.  If you want to see how that would look like, all you have to do is look at what happened to the Catholic Church after they put a Pope from Argentina.  It didn't take long for the Catholic Church to start promoting a Socialist agenda which is a 180 degree turn from the work and efforts of Pope John Paul II.

Edited January 17, 2019 by anatess2

[Guest Scott]

10 minutes ago, Scott said:

I know I can make a lot more money in Texas, or even in Colorado if I moved to a large city (such as Denver or Colorado Springs), but one of the most important things for me is access to public lands and good hiking and climbing areas.   

I like Big Bend and Guadalupe National Parks in Texas, but there aren't many public lands outside these areas.  Plus I like seeing the mountains every day.   

Anyway, last year alone I hiked or climbed on 198 days (a lot of times after work rather than all day); climbed 113 mountains, did 50 technical rock or ice routes, and 16 technical slot canyons.   See the link for photographs.

https://www.summitpost.org/2018-trip-log/1013262

I don't think I could do that living in Texas, or even a place like Denver.  ☺️

Maybe a picture is worth a thousand words.   I took all of these photos either right from the office, the condo, or on my way to work.  It still does beat living in a big city, even if I don't get paid as much.

I took this one right out of the office window:

I took this one on my way to the office:

I do sometimes run into traffic jams though, even on the projects and on my way to work:

This was taken out the condo window on the project (my work gave me a three bedroom condo so I could take my family with me to the project):

So, yes I could make more money working in the big city, but I don't know if it is worth the cost.

 

 

[NightSG]

On 1/16/2019 at 5:36 PM, unixknight said:

They won't do it.

Right now, the only thing blunting the Democrat's efforts to appeal to the emotion of the American people is the fact that Federal employees WILL receive the pay for the lost days.  Take that away, and there's a problem.

As I understand it, they'd still get paid for the furlough time up until the actual RIF.

Of course, with the exception of active duty military, they're all free to go get a job somewhere else at any time.

[zil]

[Guest]

17 hours ago, Scott said:

Hmmpf.  Never heard of it.  Whaddya know?

Quote

I'd be interested to hear your story if you every wanted to tell it.

Nah.  But it made for an interesting debate when I addressed the Colorado House when they were debating the bill that would give in-state tuition rates to illegal immigrants.

Quote

Well, this really isn't true (the part about the share).   An average full sized pickup truck does approximately 40 times more damage to the road than a lightweight sedan.  Even this is insignificant though since an 18 wheeler does approximately 10,000 times more damage to a road than a pickup truck.   Excluding weathering, or if there is a flood or earthquake, it is really heavy truck traffic that is causing  almost all damage to the road.   That's a whole different topic though.

This is very reasonable.  But you're not taking into account that politicians always talk out both sides of their mouths.  They say it's about "fair share".  It's really about the fact that they're losing income.

Quote

Anyway from the government (engineering, not politician) side, things can be difficult when designing a road.   You really don't get that much training and you have to write the plans and specifications so that (hopefully) everyone bidding on them reads them the same way.   This is actually a lot harder than it sounds.

One reason why the DOT is often more efficient is that most of the people handling the construction end of things, writing specs, reading proposals, etc. are roadway engineers or have been in the construction industry for many years.  But this simply is not so in many areas of government.

Quote

While most employees were hard working (believe it or not), a few weren't.   It's way too hard to fire government employees.   While I've heard people say that this is a sweet deal for government employees, it isn't (except for the person that doesn't get fired when they should be).     It sucks for everyone else except for that employee.   No one wants to work with someone who doesn't pull his or her weight and it's a burden to other employees who have to pick up the slack.

It is exactly this kind of thing that makes someone "go postal".

Quote

I have heard about this with local agencies, but it would be hard to get away with on state projects unless someone really high up is somehow censoring the books.  I guess it can happen, but since everything we did was public record (even our personal emails), it would be hard to get away with and the risk of getting caught it pretty high.

I guess there are still other ways of cheating the system though.  I would never do this, but as a designer I could intentionally make a (seemingly innocent) mistake and tip off a certain contractor about it so they would win the bid and make more money.  It wouldn't be that hard.  I guess it does happen, but it would be risky and you would have to be really dishonest.  

One of my internships was working as an inspector.  I was in charge of receiving the paperwork as trucks brought in their loads.  I'd verify all the information, sign it, and send the truck on its way.

One day, one of my managers came to me and brought a whole bunch of these papers to sign.  When I asked him where the trucks were, he stumbled over his words and talked gibberish.  When I told him I didn't understand, he just took the papers and started signing them himself.

I still don't know for certain what that was about.  But I have a hunch that it was something shady.

17 hours ago, Scott said:

I know I can make a lot more money in Texas, or even in Colorado if I moved to a large city (such as Denver or Colorado Springs), but one of the most important things for me is access to public lands and good hiking and climbing areas.   

I like Big Bend and Guadalupe National Parks in Texas, but there aren't many public lands outside these areas.  Plus I like seeing the mountains every day.   

Anyway, last year alone I hiked or climbed on 198 days (a lot of times after work rather than all day); climbed 113 mountains, did 50 technical rock or ice routes, and 16 technical slot canyons.   See the link for photographs.

https://www.summitpost.org/2018-trip-log/1013262

Yeah, if you're into that sort of thing.

Edited January 18, 2019 by Guest

[unixknight]

18 hours ago, Scott said:

Maybe a picture is worth a thousand words.   I took all of these photos either right from the office, the condo, or on my way to work.  It still does beat living in a big city, even if I don't get paid as much.

You're killing me, man.

[anatess2]

22 hours ago, Scott said:

Maybe a picture is worth a thousand words.   I took all of these photos either right from the office, the condo, or on my way to work.  It still does beat living in a big city, even if I don't get paid as much.

So, yes I could make more money working in the big city, but I don't know if it is worth the cost.

I have 3 years and my last son is on a mission.  That makes me officially an empty nester.

My husband and I have been arguing over what we're gonna do with the rest of our lives.  He is completely against my plan to build a Tiny House on Wheels and be a full-time boondocker living off of BLM.

[Guest Scott]

41 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I have 3 years and my last son is on a mission.  That makes me officially an empty nester.

My husband and I have been arguing over what we're gonna do with the rest of our lives.  He is completely against my plan to build a Tiny House on Wheels and be a full-time boondocker living off of BLM.

I don't agree with you on a lot of things, but if you ever did want to come and see parts of Colorado, especially some of the ones off the beaten track, we'd be happy to show you around.

[Guest Scott]

6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Hmmpf.  Never heard of it.  Whaddya know?

I only knew because I was a combat engineer (12B) in the Army and one of our task was to set such barriers.   It is interesting that a tank can blast through a brick wall or building, or clear minefields, but can't get through double strand constertina wire fence.  

6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

One reason why the DOT is often more efficient is that most of the people handling the construction end of things, writing specs, reading proposals, etc. are roadway engineers or have been in the construction industry for many years.  

Not when I started out though.   We were sent to a few classes, given a few manuals, and then thrown on a project!  We would be checked in different meetings though.

When I was new, I only had one big screw up (all plans and projects have small errors), but it didn't effect the quality of the project.  It was really embarrassing though.  Once in white font (which doesn't show on documents), in the specifications, I typed "Scott ____ is the most awesome employee to ever work for CDOT".   I forgot about it, since it wasn't until months later that the projects went out to ad and no  one noticed it since it was in white font.

I had no idea that everything in white font shows up as blank when the ad sets are printed and sent out to all the state offices and contractors.

A revision under ad had to go out to everyone who received a set up plans, which included a lot of Colorado, New Mexico, and Nebraska, as well as a lot of state offices.   The revision told everyone to disregard the statement.

Obviously, I got my butt chewed big time and was harassed about it for a long time.  Luckily, it was the only time that I really screwed up while designing or being on a project.  
 

6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

One of my internships was working as an inspector.  I was in charge of receiving the paperwork as trucks brought in their loads.  I'd verify all the information, sign it, and send the truck on its way.

One day, one of my managers came to me and brought a whole bunch of these papers to sign.  When I asked him where the trucks were, he stumbled over his words and talked gibberish.  When I told him I didn't understand, he just took the papers and started signing them himself.

I still don't know for certain what that was about.  But I have a hunch that it was something shady.

Interesting.  I do know that items that are paid for by CY and tons are verified by survey (though tons are paid off tickets), so it would be hard to cheat too much on this unless the surveyor, contractor, and project manager were all in on it.  It sounds shady for sure, but it could be a lot of things (still shady).   The manager could have been trying to cover his own butt for some mistake he or someone else made.  For example, they could have used the wrong tare sheets that day and had to reprint all of the tickets (which is still not allowed).  Or some of the information was missing or wrong on the ticket.

Anyway, good conversation.   It has been entertaining and educational for sure.

[Guest]

@Scott,

I just found out that the $5B is supposed to build $253 miles of wall.  This is about 1/5 of the unprotected length.  It looks like they agree it will take about $25B to build the rest of the wall.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/42356/watch-ted-cruz-nails-it-about-why-pelosi-delayed-hank-berrien

I'm frustrated by this article because it doesn't say who the interviewer is.

Quote

In 2013, Chuck Schumer and every Senate Democrat voted in favor of 350 miles of border wall. They have right now shut the government down to stop 234 miles of border wall. I don’t know how you explain that you voted in favor of 350 miles but you shut the government down to stop 234 miles. That is incoherent.

 

Edited January 19, 2019 by Guest

[Just_A_Guy]

I know this is true, because I saw it on Facebook:

[NeuroTypical]

Ugh.  Here's a disheartening read from 8 years ago.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/16/barack-obama/obama-says-border-fence-now-basically-complete/

 

[anatess2]

On 1/18/2019 at 2:32 PM, Scott said:

I don't agree with you on a lot of things, but if you ever did want to come and see parts of Colorado, especially some of the ones off the beaten track, we'd be happy to show you around.

I have family there so I've been around.