New details scarce at checkpoint forum

Little new information resulted from a heavily attended meeting Wednesday in Tubac about the Border Patrol checkpoint on Interstate 19 but it provided a chance for residents and business owners to again air their worries and ask for answers.

There is still no word on when a public hearing will be scheduled for the community to learn details about changes to the highway resulting from the checkpoint upgrades and submit comments.

Various problems have hindered planned improvements at the U.S. Border Patrol immigration checkpoint now on I-19 between Tubac and Amado at Exit 42, but the agency is still committed to building a $27 million permanent multi-building facility there within a few years.

“Our intent has been to build a permanent checkpoint on I-19 and we have not wavered from that,” said John Fitzpatrick, division chief of operations for the Border Patrol’s Tucson Sector. “Believe me, if we didn’t have a critical operational need for checkpoints, we wouldn’t be here today talking about them.”

He characterized the checkpoint as a “choke point” and said smugglers “have to use it or go around it.”

The checkpoint improvement plan was first announced in 2006, and it has been controversial since then.

Delays have plagued the next step, a $1.5 million interim facility. For that, the northbound highway will be widened from two to three lanes and several modular buildings will be brought in with Internet and computer connections and an area in which suspects can be detained, and the East Frontage Road will be modified. A metal-framed shade canopy spanning the three lanes will be installed.

A year ago, Fitzpatrick said the work would be completed by now, but other than studies, nothing has started. A completion date is now set for May 2010.

Fitzpatrick and other Border Patrol officials spoke at the monthly meeting of the Tubac Chamber of Commerce. There was also a presentation by the Coalition for a Safe and Secure Border, which endorses more spending on Border Patrol resources, but opposes the permanent checkpoint.

A question-and-answer period was open to the public and 21 people made comments. Of those, 20 said they oppose enlarging the checkpoint and gave their reasons. One speaker said he backs the Border Patrol’s plan for a larger checkpoint. The session drew a standing-room-only crowd of about 150 area residents.

Fitzpatrick showed a five-minute video, which explained that checkpoints are part of a successful comprehensive enforcement strategy. The video was completed just the night before and was created in-house, spokeswoman Roxie Lopez said.

Nan Walden, vice president of the Coalition for a Safe and Secure Border (CSSB), said violence has increased in the neighborhoods around the checkpoint.

She said, “The effectiveness of checkpoints is really unknown. It’s never been proven. The Government Accountability Office has stated in reports that there’s been a lack of data and analysis.

“We do know there are public safety risks from these checkpoints” such as staging, flanking and loading.

She said, “Our big broad valley has too many neighborhoods and too many alternate routes,” which she believes means the checkpoint isn’t effective at stopping smugglers.

Walden said CSSB supports roving checkpoints for the element of surprise and coordination with local law enforcement and community involvement. They would like additional personnel assigned to the border, such as the National Guard.

“We need accountability. We need to know that these massive investments will pay off in terms of safety and long-term benefits,” she said.

Tubac residents Russell Palmer and Tom Bouchee spoke about seeing smugglers drop off illegal entrants repeatedly near their homes. Each said they were concerned at the lack of response when they called the Border Patrol to report it.

Jim Patterson of Tubac said the lack of detailed analysis bothers him. “You could put a checkpoint on any major highway in the country and show some kind of success.”

In regard to the delay over upgrading the checkpoint, Al White, patrol agent in charge for the Nogales Border Patrol Station, said required security features were lacking since the upcoming project isn’t for a permanent facility.

“The whole design had to pass the (Customs and Border Protection) internal audit. It doesn’t, because we don’t have the security features there,” White said. He said the interim checkpoint design “was being held to the same standards” as the design for a permanent checkpoint. “This was all uncharted ground for us,” he said.

He said that the facility on Interstate 19 will be the agency’s first interim checkpoint because all others are permanent facilities.

Now the planning is at what he described as “a 99 percent solution. We have a very good feeling that we’re going to be relieved of reaching that benchmark and we’re going to be able to get this implementation done.” White said he hopes to have it completed in 10 months, or May 2010.

So far, there has been no public hearing for the community to learn about the proposed physical changes to Interstate 19 and to submit their comments for consideration. In May, Greg Gentsch, the district engineer for the Arizona Department of Transportation, said it is the responsibility of the agency requesting permits from ADOT to schedule and hold a public hearing.

When questioned after the meeting about the date of a public hearing, White said, “We do border security; we don’t build. The Army Corps of Engineers is doing that for us.” He said, “As soon as we get a time line,” he would release it to the public.

(Reach the writer at kathleenvan@msn.com.)