Flight 93 conundrum: Eminent domain to seize the land for memorial
posted at 2:15 pm on May 7, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
On September 11, 2001, the national resistance to radical Islamist terrorism began in the air over Pennsylvania, when the passengers of United Flight 93 gave their lives to save perhaps thousands of others and thwarted the plans of four terrorist hijackers. The site of their heroism has been honored as a de facto monument to their courage and sacrifice, and eventually will host a formal monument to their defense of liberty. Unfortunately, the government has chosen one of the least honorable methods to secure the property:
The government will begin taking land from seven property owners so that the Flight 93 memorial can be built in time for the 10th anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks, the National Park Service said.
In a statement obtained by The Associated Press, the park service said it had teamed up with a group representing the victims’ families to work with landowners since before 2005 to acquire the land.
“But with few exceptions, these negotiations have been unsuccessful,” said the statement.
Landowners dispute that negotiations have taken place and say they are disappointed at the turn of events.
This announcement took the landowners by surprise. They had planned all along to cooperate with the government once the time came to start construction of the memorial. One owner said he’d actually planned to donate the land. Their attorneys say the government never started negotiations on the sale of the land.
In fact, NPS spokesman Phil Sheridan seems to implicitly confirm that negotiations weren’t really the issue:
“We always prefer to get that land from a willing seller. And sometimes you can just not come to an agreement on certain things,” park service spokesman Phil Sheridan said.
“Basically, at this point, we have not been able to acquire all the land we need,” he said.
Even with willing sellers, Sheridan said title questions, liens and other claims can arise that would have to be worked out and could delay the project.
Well, did they bother to try? Not according to the owners contacted by the AP. One said that NPS showed up on his doorstep for the first time on Friday with an offer, which he forwarded to his attorney. The attorney called Monday to arrange for an appraisal in order to ensure that the offer was valid. Ronald Musser didn’t even get that much, but he sits on the committee which acts as a liaison between NPS and the owners — and says the NPS promised not to use eminent domain to seize the properties in 2002.
Unlike the Kelo case, in which a city grabbed property from residential owners to flip it to commercial developers, there is a legitimate public interest in this land. Eminent domain would be a rational last step in order to ensure that the memorial got built, but it should never be a first step in any project. Respect for property rights means that the government should have made an honest effort to work out the deal with the owners prior to filing an eminent-domain seizure complaint. Given the nature of this memorial, perhaps that should have been even more the case here.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
But it’ll still look like an islamic symbol, right?
lorien1973 on May 7, 2009 at 2:17 PM
There is?
Because people died there, the government has some right to seize it?
lorien1973 on May 7, 2009 at 2:18 PM
I’d give the NPS a big Crescent Moon if I were one of the landowners.
omnipotent on May 7, 2009 at 2:20 PM
One’s public use, the other is private use.
Ed Morrissey on May 7, 2009 at 2:20 PM
Sounds like Phil Sheridan is lying.
Christien on May 7, 2009 at 2:23 PM
wonderful. out of all the crash sites on 9/11, the feds pick the one that will look like a red crescent facing mecca each september and start construction on IT.
meanwhile, lower manhattan has two holes in the ground, with “legal battles” a raging.
OBAMA’S “SMART POWER” everyone!
battleoflepanto1571 on May 7, 2009 at 2:24 PM
Establishing bad precedence.
If terrorists attack your home, it will be susceptible to being taken by the government.
The horrible incident deserves a monument as a memorial. But there should be no seizure of property without proper compensation and agreement with the owner.
maverick muse on May 7, 2009 at 2:24 PM
Back to that troublesome sanctity of legal contracts thingy. Isn’t it amazing how far a rubber band can be stretched to fit around objects shaped much differently than originally intended?
a capella on May 7, 2009 at 2:24 PM
Flight 93: “Let’s Roll.”
National Park Service: “Let’s Steamroll.”
Christien on May 7, 2009 at 2:25 PM
Ummmm…so they agree, the passengers were brave, and died to protect the lives of others, and to preserve liberty, and the government wants to honor that, by committing an act (eminent domain)that is so far opposite of liberty, it’s laughable.
Change you can believe in. Now how long do we get to have our homes?
capejasmine on May 7, 2009 at 2:26 PM
Yes. The very famous “mosque” symbol.
LibTired on May 7, 2009 at 2:26 PM
Them’s the rules bcs the govt says so.
Why should we expect the fed govt to respect the Constitution?
They haven’t been doing that for a long time.
They feel they can steal & take whatever they want.
After all-litigation is expensive & who has the cash to defend themselves against a govt agency?
Consider the fight of the late Wayne Hage & his late wife Helen Chenoweth-Hage.
http://www.treasure-signs.com/wayne.html
This is just a place to start reading.
This man put up one hell of a fight. But he was only one man.
Think of all the people like him in the W who have been at the mercy of the fed govt bcs they grace/use federal lands.
It will op0en your eyes.
We in ag live in fear of the fed govt bcs of the tactics they have been know to use, like with Hage.
Badger40 on May 7, 2009 at 2:26 PM
from wiki…
call me an islamophobe
battleoflepanto1571 on May 7, 2009 at 2:27 PM
It’s … it’s almost like government bureaucrats tend to be heavy handed, stupid, and needlessly authoritarian! I’m agog!
TheUnrepentantGeek on May 7, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Badger40 on May 7, 2009 at 2:27 PM
I wanted to add…..does it not seem like the terrorists are granted more rights, dignity, respect, and support , then these hard working tax paying land owning, American citizens?
capejasmine on May 7, 2009 at 2:27 PM
This has far less of a legitimate public interest than Kelo.
Kelo was a good decision – New London was a run down town and they had the opportunity to provide at least a 1000 new jobs and a safer community, and the only thing standing in there way was a couple families who valued their houses more than the fair market value. Now those people can buy new homes, and experience a relatively minor loss, but the overall economic benefit is enormous. Kelo’s easy.
So is this, in the other direction. This is a memorial. You don’t have to build it right there. What different does it make where the plane crashed? Build the friggin’ thing wherever you want, but you don’t need to take away people’s property because their homes happened to be near where a plane crashed.
Proud Rino on May 7, 2009 at 2:28 PM
every september 11, the crescent of trees (FACING MECCA) will turn RED.
and i believe there are also trees representing the hijackers.
what a country!
battleoflepanto1571 on May 7, 2009 at 2:29 PM
There is no conflict here. Since the architects have as much as admitted that the construction will not be so much a memorial to the heros of Flight 93 as a multi-culti effort to “reach out” to Islamists, it is all bad. The Government is already telling us to roll over and take it. The use of Eminent Domain is just the icing on the cake.
gridlock2 on May 7, 2009 at 2:30 PM
The government has not completed the contract that will stipulate to the landowners how they can spend the money that the government provided in purchasing the land. I saw a rough draft of the contract and some constraints include:
- A 30-day review of the landowners business to see if his employment should be terminated.
- Carbon footprint is no greater than George W. Bush’s ranch.
- Proper political conributions are maintained.
- Pledge of 2 years of service to the Civil Defense Service.
WashJeff on May 7, 2009 at 2:30 PM
The government has had this power since ratification. Always going to have it, too. I agree that this particular taking is inappropriate, but not all takings are. Your home isn’t any less safe because of Obama.
Proud Rino on May 7, 2009 at 2:30 PM
“We had to steal that land in order to respect it.”
LibTired on May 7, 2009 at 2:31 PM
NO. Isn’t it silly?
Eminent domain is so misconstrued.
It’s for the public good-but I guess some people think public good involves things other than necessary transportation venues etc.
Evidently a memorials is considered extremely necessary.
We need a memorial for this-but the Constitution must be adhered to & even if the land owners didn’t want to cooperate, the govt still has no right to impose its will on this. It is not necessary for safety or commerce.
Badger40 on May 7, 2009 at 2:31 PM
Dolt…
The land in question for Kelo was NEVER BUILT ON! Developer ran out of money. Land sits EMPTY.
Romeo13 on May 7, 2009 at 2:31 PM
I am aware of eminent domain, and I understand what you’re saying. However…eminent domain, traditionally isn’t used, unless an agreement isn’t forth coming. In the case laid out here, it seems the owners weren’t even given the courtesy of having a meeting, or consulting their attorneys first. I find this kind of behavior on behalf of the NPS reprehensible, and criminal.
capejasmine on May 7, 2009 at 2:34 PM
Unless it is your property they are taking away.
Profit & jobs does not translate into an excuse for taking land.
Transportation & safety issues are really the only true reasons to seize land this way.
But then has anyone ever tried to tell you what to do with your home or property? Have you ever been faced with losing something so precious just bcs the govt wants it?
Badger40 on May 7, 2009 at 2:34 PM
I don’t know if that’s true, but that’s not really surprising. If you tried to negotiate with govt and they specifically want *your* land, it’d make a lot of sense to jack up the price above market value. If you didn’t have ED, you’d be crazy not to.
So if that’s the case, why bother with the negotiation? If govt is not going to pay one cent beyond FMV, why would they pretend to ‘negotiate,’ unless they thought you’d sell it for less.
And why the heck would you do that?
Proud Rino on May 7, 2009 at 2:38 PM
The problem with Kelo is that land speculation is one of the primary ways public officials become corrupted. Developers buy politicians so they will provide the below-market-rate real estate that they need to make money. Everybody gets well on the deal, so nobody objects.
Of course, at the end of the day, somembody has to pay. Usually it is the landowners first, and the taxpayers later.
I would ask, except I already know the answer… Have the taxpayers of New London been forced to guarantee the losses of the developer of the Kelo property? Of course they have…
gridlock2 on May 7, 2009 at 2:38 PM
Same thing happens all the time all over the country. DOLTS try their hand at “redevelopment” or hand prime land to big developers while taking a heavy hand and offering small compensation to the rightful owners. Freedom and justice are just words without meaning when the Statists are through with them.
peski on May 7, 2009 at 2:40 PM
I have a hard time believing that there’s been no effort since 2001 to gain title to the property for a memorial. Color me skeptical.
DaveO on May 7, 2009 at 2:43 PM
Wow. So goes the sanctity of private property. And choice. And the 4th amendment.
But if the greater good is served. Huzzah!
lorien1973 on May 7, 2009 at 2:43 PM
I wonder if the owners have considered placing that land in a trust and then leasing the trust to the NPS in perpetuity, much like, umm….GITMO is leased from Cuba.
BobMbx on May 7, 2009 at 2:43 PM
This is pathetic. They can’t wait to walk their jackboots over citizens. Can’t we hire some treehuggers to do a sit-in? They should have lots of spare time now that the oceans are receeding.
Vashta.Nerada on May 7, 2009 at 2:46 PM
Pathetic. Just pathetic.
There is no critical public need which would justify the seizure of this private property.
The lack of critical thinking skills from our elected leaders is just appalling. In order to commemorate the heroism and sacrifice of Flight 93, our government resorts to it’s usual thuggery. So now, instead of a site celebrating honor in the fight against terror, we’ll have yet another site representative of government tyranny.
You’d never catch me with one foot on the place. I’m not much of a fan of Eminent Domain to begin with. But if it’s going to be used at all, it ought to be used wisely and only at greatest need. This is abuse.
Murf76 on May 7, 2009 at 2:52 PM
You must have slept through the federally subsidized ACORN bus visits to threaten AIG executive homes.
Your statement is decisively and astonishingly ignorant.
jeff_from_mpls on May 7, 2009 at 2:52 PM
these are GREEDY KULAKS (er landowners) that got this land by cheating the taxpayer out of OUR MONEY, that we would use for investments to benefit all people…
its the people’s land!!
power to the people!!!
right4life on May 7, 2009 at 2:55 PM
We can thank retiring justice Souter for this travesty! I say, if they can’t negotiate and buy the land, then build the memorial somewhere nearby where they can. Govt. is trying to take over everything! When does it stop?
Christian Conservative on May 7, 2009 at 2:57 PM
A 9-11 memorial in Shanksville would be nice. But we don’t need it. Eminent domain should never be used to to build a stupid monument. They’ll just have to build a smaller monument on the land they were able to buy. I’m sure we’ll all survive.
patriette on May 7, 2009 at 3:02 PM
Oh quit beating up on Souter. He didn’t write the opinion. He didn’t write any concurring opinion. Why not pick on Stevens? Or Kennedy, since he was presumably the swing vote in that case, and he sided with the city?
Proud Rino on May 7, 2009 at 3:02 PM
+10
MBuck on May 7, 2009 at 3:04 PM
Yeah, it doesn’t count if Souter signed onto the majority opinion. They really didn’t need his vote in that 5-4 case, right?
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on May 7, 2009 at 3:09 PM
Why is this thing so big? My town has memorials for WWII, Korea and VN all on the same house lot sized chunk of land.
jmarcure on May 7, 2009 at 3:11 PM
It just seems kind of arbitrary, that’s all.
Proud Rino on May 7, 2009 at 3:11 PM
Totally. All 5 of the majority should have their homes Kelo’d and then we can see if their opinion changes.
lorien1973 on May 7, 2009 at 3:13 PM
That would be disgraceful. But since the “memorial” will probably end up being a thinly disguised tribute to Islam, it’s downright evil. What a brazen slap in the face to the victims of 9/11 and their families.
infidel4life on May 7, 2009 at 3:14 PM
Check it out:
http://www.bizzyblog.com/2007/05/19/kelo-new-lond-aftermath-the-fort-trumbull-crumble-gets-no-old-media-attention/
Kelo was still a good idea?!
Badger40 on May 7, 2009 at 3:16 PM
This type of land acquisition should take months not years. I don’t buy the nonsense about liens and whatnot either. If you want to lease or buy land bad enough, you can just pay them off and deduct it from the price, or just pay it off to get it out of the way.
I don’t believe whatthe Parks people say because acquiring land is what I do for a living, and their excuses don’t cut it. I’d be canned if a client found out I hadn’t bothered starting negotiations with the owner after a couple weeks. 7 years? You gotta be kidding me. The arrogance of the Government never ceases to amaze me.
forest on May 7, 2009 at 3:18 PM
It’s a slam dunk. – Proud Rino.
lorien1973 on May 7, 2009 at 3:20 PM
Someone forgot to read the memo: “We won”
right2bright on May 7, 2009 at 3:21 PM
Can you think of a better way to let Islamics know they garner more sympathy, and respect, than those Americans that died that day, and their families that mourned their loss?
capejasmine on May 7, 2009 at 3:25 PM
I was just at the site and at least they have changed it to the “Field of Honor” rather then the “Crescent of Embrace” which I had read about when it was first purposed. I wonder if it will still have the names of all the people killed including the scum a-holes that high jacked the plane.
jmarcure on May 7, 2009 at 3:25 PM
jmarcure on May 7, 2009 at 3:25 PM
Kelo was a bad decision. Of course my home might mean more to me than simple dollars. Why should someone else say diferently?
Kelo did not have to build right there. What diference does it make where the private development goes. Build the frigging thing wherever you want, but you don’t need to take away people’s property because their homes happened to be near where someone thought they could make more money.
As to the flight 93 memorial, I thought it was already a memorial. Should memory trump private property rights? I’d need to think about that more. I do agree that eminent domain should be the last step, if the step should be taken at all.
AnotherOpinion on May 7, 2009 at 3:26 PM
Kelo was the end result IMHO of the mindset that anything corporations do in secret must be bad, so corporations are not allowed to do anything in secret. If things like land acquisition by a corporation in an area with multiple property owners can’t be kept secret anymore, corporations that need land for something are forced to go out in the country (fewer owners per acre)or find tools like Kelo.
Disney was able to acquire the land for Walt Disney World by setting up dummy corporations and paying “independent” land buyers. That way, the corporation was more or less dealing directly with the land owners and paying the prices at which these owners would sell.
What this helped to prevent was a land speculator coming in, paying the orange farmers for their property/moving expenses/etc, then turning around and charging double those expenses (at least) for what was formerly the farmer’s land.
The better, more Constitutional answer to the problems of land acquisition is to allow a little more opaqueness in the process, or something that can lock out sellers who have not owned the land a certain amount of time.
Sekhmet on May 7, 2009 at 3:27 PM
I am totally against them taking this property. I was so shocked at the Kelo decision, I thought there was no way it could happen, fooled me.
Cindy Munford on May 7, 2009 at 3:28 PM
Well, no, obviously in Kelo’s case, it probably shouldn’t have gone down that way, although obviously the Court is only examining whether this is constitutional and not whether *this particular plan* is a good idea. That’s not the Court’s job, to make sure that the individual decision is good – their job is to set the boundaries for what decisions are permissible.
The decision – allowing governments to give land to private developers if it’s for a legitimate public purpose – was right no matter how you see it, honestly. Because prior to Kelo, the law was unclear regarding whether governments could do that, and the Court said it was permissible.
What *this* did led to legislatures making laws that specifically outlawed Kelo-esque takings, and it’s better to have that law made through the legislature rather than the courts.
And if the legislature in your jurisdiction has not made Kelo-esque takings illegal, then you’re probably not going to bother going to court with it, which saves everyone except the lawyers money.
Proud Rino on May 7, 2009 at 3:28 PM
They added a couple of trees and are calling it the Bowl of Embrace instead of Crescent of Embrace now, but the design is the same tribute to Islam.
The website is:
http://www.honorflight93.org/
and here is the design
http://www.nps.gov/flni/parkmgmt/the-memorial-design.htm
If I were these landowners I would fight with everything I had until they change this design that is a tribute to Islam for a 9/11 memorial.
JeffinSac on May 7, 2009 at 3:30 PM
In my opinion, since this is going to be a national site of remembrance, on American soil….then only those Americans, who died bravely, should be listed.
If Islamic nations want to glorify the acts of these terrorists, let them do so. With their own money , in their own countries.
capejasmine on May 7, 2009 at 3:30 PM
Kelo was a good decision – New London was a run down town and they had the opportunity to provide at least a 1000 new jobs and a safer community, and the only thing standing in there way was a couple families who valued their houses more than the fair market value.Fair market value is whatever price both the buyer and seller agree upon. It’s not what a bunch of bureaucrats decide to give you after they annex your property for the gain of someone else.
patriette on May 7, 2009 at 3:31 PM
My how times have changed. Now, Phil Sheridan is taking land from white Yankees instead of Southerners and Indians.
Ampleforth on May 7, 2009 at 3:34 PM
I’m not sure how old Proud RINO is, but his/her inability to look at the facts and arrive at an objective conclusion seems mighty young.
In the face of being told that the land was never developed, we hear nothing.
And buying into the idea that a rundown town can create 1,000 new jobs by developing some property is ridiculous on its face. How many examples of that in history can you conjure up? Or did you just accept whatever number the developers threw out there?
To be so proud, Proud RINO, really should stop hiding behind anonymity.
beatcanvas on May 7, 2009 at 3:37 PM
The Islamo-fascist bootlicker of an architect who designed the memorial can plant all of the trees he likes. All it takes is a few good citizens with chainsaws to fix his design for him.
I don’t see how the government can justify building a monument at the exact spot of the crash and taking hundreds of acres around it. Many a Civil War monument has been moved from it’s original site to make room for shopping malls, highways, and housing developments. In fact, many important Rev War & civil War battlefields have little more than an acre left of them, or are so cluttered with peripheral development that an understanding of what transpired there is simply impossible.
I would urge the homeowners to fight this taking for as long as possible in court, and then to defend their property in whatever manner they still can. This site does not require hundreds of acres of land. It needs only two or three and a simple monument, with access from the nearest road.
AW1 Tim on May 7, 2009 at 3:48 PM
Excellent. Just excellent.
Government in cahoots with business. I think there is a name for that. Can’t think of it though. Can you?
You have a point though. I think city’s should take a more forceful step in removing “low tax” residents out of their communities. Only people who bring in big tax dollars should be allowed to reside in cities. If they won’t leave voluntarily; we can just take their property against their will.
That’s America!
lorien1973 on May 7, 2009 at 3:49 PM
There are legit reasons for government to seize land…this is not one of those cases. So what do you do if some zealous farmer decides to defend the land his family has owned for generations? Shoot him. What a nice memorial that would be. Do I think the people there should sale their land for this purpose…yes, I would probably even donate some of it…but not now. Right now, I’d be heading to court.
b4itsover on May 7, 2009 at 3:49 PM
Ich bin aus der Bundesregierung, und ich bin hier um zu helfen.
Johan Klaus on May 7, 2009 at 3:51 PM
Why would they even go THERE??? Why design it even remotely islamo-kookish, why not a square or diamond or star?
Alden Pyle on May 7, 2009 at 3:52 PM
Me thinks DK, and Huffpo, are sending out recruits to divert, persuade, rally for, the Big O. That, or it’s damage control Thursday! LOL
capejasmine on May 7, 2009 at 3:53 PM
Run Forest, run!
forest on May 7, 2009 at 3:55 PM
I feel for the victims families of flight 93, but this is totaly wrong. The government has once again crossed the boundary of personal property rights and American freedom. They could build a memorial anywhere for this cause, they shouldn’t steal property from another American citizen to make themselves feel better.
SGinNC on May 7, 2009 at 4:01 PM
kelo is a crap decision. by the same reasoning, a private developer could have the city seize waterfront low income housing and build luxury condos b/c those condos will pull in more in property taxes. presto, city has an economic interest in the taking.
anna on May 7, 2009 at 4:01 PM
Yeah, I mean, this is the real problem. If cities allow this kind of thing you run the risk of MORE blighted communities, because of course, who’s going to *start* developing in a town that’s in trouble if you think there’s a risk of a taking in the near future?
And what if that taking never comes? No one develops and the worst neighborhoods, the ones most in need of development will just get worse and worse.
I mean, that’s the biggest concern as I see it. If there were evidence that this *actually* happens as a result of Kelo (and we don’t know how Kelo will be used yet), I would agree with you 100%. I don’t think that will happen though, because I think these takings will be pretty rare so ultimately the positives will outweight the negatives.
But that’s the risk. I was always disappointed the dissenters never mentioned that – it’s the most compelling utilitarian argument against Kelo by a mile.
Proud Rino on May 7, 2009 at 4:04 PM
I’m going to disagree with all of you just this once…
Don’t ask me about my source since it was more than a few years ago that I heard about this, but it was my recollection that the landowners in question had looked at the memorial effort as their federally subsidized “payday” (this IS Murtha’s district, after all), and that negotiations over a fair, market-based price for the land had all but broken down. I have deep suspicions about this notion that Uncle Sam “just came down the pike and took everything and paid nothing”. Consider how long it’s been since the crash.
mozemoose on May 7, 2009 at 4:05 PM
Following the Kelo logic, I want the vacant Obama house in Chicago so I can turn it into a halfway house for Gitmo detainees. Better use and for the good of the nation.
Alden Pyle on May 7, 2009 at 4:08 PM
who cares? it’s their property. they can ask whatever they want for it.
patriette on May 7, 2009 at 4:08 PM
Badger40 on May 7, 2009 at 2:26 PM
The Fed abuse of the Hage family ranch in Nevada is all the more disgusting considering how the Feds exploited the American inhabitants of Nevada regarding the nation’s nuclear testing program with all of the horrible illnesses that ensued thereafter.
maverick muse on May 7, 2009 at 4:18 PM
lorien1973 on May 7, 2009 at 2:18 PM
-
The government has NO RIGHT to seize that land! When the founding fathers created “Eminent domain” it was for roads, post office, water works, etc. Anything that is USED by the public! Creating a memorial to these poor people who died there is NOT public works! If justification for stealing someone’s land is “because people died there” than more than two thirds of this country should be a “Government Land Stolen Memorial!”
Confederate on May 7, 2009 at 4:19 PM
It’s a big frickin’ last minute land grab because they want to have something thrown up in time for the tenth anniversiary. They just realized that wasn’t too far off.
tree hugging sister on May 7, 2009 at 4:23 PM
I visited this Shanksville site in 2006 and it is a tranquil place that respectfully honors those who died on 9/11. True, there is no gift shop that sells “Change We Can Believe In” cup holders and “Yes We Can” bumper stickers, but I’m sure the NPS will rectify that ASAP.
kasubo on May 7, 2009 at 4:24 PM
Badger40 on May 7, 2009 at 2:31 PM
Historical markers were the traditional norm along highways.
A Roadside Rest Area Garden Memorial would make sense.
It might even motivate better highway patrols of rest stops.
The act of coercing private property from the owners, and erecting a monument honoring the terrorists is the very proof of federal abuse of powers, to disillusion Americans, to give up sensibilities because progressives say so, ostracizing American heritage as so intolerantly extremist.
Protest.
maverick muse on May 7, 2009 at 4:26 PM
yep, eminent domain when introduced was stipulated for specifics that do NOT include these circumstances.
maverick muse on May 7, 2009 at 4:28 PM
I’ve been to all 3 sites and Shanksville is my favorite (is that OK to say?) Seeing the unassuming stillness of the site was more powerful than any memorial could ever be. They died alone. It was them or the terrorists, and in the end they won. It would be a shame if the quiet sacredness of the site were marred by some Post-modern clap-trap. Many a sacred site has been ruined by good intentions and gaudy memorials.
.
I feel for the families, but they were not the only ones attacked that day, nor were they singled out specifically.
artlover on May 7, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Ed, you forget that the current administration has shown little respect for “property rights”.
GarandFan on May 7, 2009 at 4:31 PM
IOKIYAR (duh!)
benny shakar on May 7, 2009 at 4:54 PM
When you wonder why a border fence takes so long to build, just remember that in the texas segment, they have to do eminent domain actions on scores of landowners. It may be for a legitimate cause, but it’s very time-consuming to go through the negotiations, and the landowner will still probably be screwed anyway on the value of the taking.
Oh, and Kelo was a horrible decision.
juliesa on May 7, 2009 at 5:00 PM
Hey Pennsylvania….. The NPS’s VP is son of David Obey, big liberal from Wisconsin. This is what happens when you people in PA vote democrat. Thugs. This never would have happened under a Republican.
suzyk on May 7, 2009 at 5:13 PM
I vote with Christien!
Branch Rickey on May 7, 2009 at 5:19 PM
Were the owners of the property seeking FMV or were they seeking some enhancement due to the fact that the land was the scene of a national tragedy. In an ID action they would be limited to FMV and could not hold up the project seeking additional compensation. Filing the action will just convey in no uncertain terms to the owners that they will not profit from 9-11…
tommylotto on May 7, 2009 at 5:24 PM
I have mixed feelings about this yet will admit a bias.
What you may not know (or care to know) is the owner of the actual land where the plane crash was nearly taken by eminent domain. In was an unused, former strip mine site, worth about 287K that but he wanted $10 million. In February, the government began proceedings and the owner quickly “settled” lest he lose the offer of about six times the appraisal. The owners of these 7 properties knew the day was drawing near that it would be push come to shove; I suspect they were holding out for a similar deal.
Sergeant Tim on May 7, 2009 at 6:40 PM
Romeo13 on May 7, 2009 at 2:31 PM
But, but, but, they MEANT well!
oldleprechaun on May 7, 2009 at 6:44 PM
right4life on May 7, 2009 at 2:55 PM
Uhh, while I’m out would you like for me to pick up your prescription?
oldleprechaun on May 7, 2009 at 6:47 PM
The land belonged to a private citizen and he shouldn’t be forced to sell regardless the reason unless it was required for Eminent Domain. If the guy wanted his property for sentimental reasons because his great grandfather gave him the land he should not have it taken from him. If the Government offers you monies and you turn it down, you don’t automatically become a criminal.
SGinNC on May 7, 2009 at 7:21 PM
Ouch!
Trochilus on May 7, 2009 at 8:46 PM
if you like this, you’ll love the process used for the smart grid, windfarms, fast trains and anything else Obama wants to do. It is an emergency after all.
r keller on May 7, 2009 at 10:05 PM
The design of that new memorial is an insult to the victims of the crash. How many more anti-American 9/11 memorials are we going to fronting with our tax dollars? As it is, the word Freedom in “Freedom Towers” is anathema to the developers of the new WTC site. Isn’t there another so-called memorial in Phoenix with a similar anti-American sentiment? I’m beginning to wonder who the memorial is really for?
threeCents on May 7, 2009 at 10:21 PM
The Stolen Land Memorial… Thank God for the Flight 93 “Let’s Roll” guys and gals, but let’s not dishoner their memory by stealing land to build their memorial… That’s just sick and twisted.
-
-
Not calling for anything like this but… I suspect that this may become a target of extraordinary protest efforts. The first thought I had as I read your post was “so long as they stand”. There are may ways to kill a tree, not all involve chainsaws and axes. Could be a huge fence around the area someday, to protect the RED trees.
-
Also, finding a way to create a circle in the grass around the crescent… with a line through it would present a photo op for air traffic over the monument.
-
Then there’s the ole standard, “son… this is how we pee in the woods. Yup, right there on that RED tree”.
-
RalphyBoy on May 8, 2009 at 9:08 AM
wonderful. out of all the crash sites on 9/11, the feds pick the one that will look like a red crescent facing mecca each september and start construction on IT.
People have been protesting the design since it was announced during the Bush Administration. Nothing has stopped the process.
I cannot understand why there is no traction.
davod on May 8, 2009 at 10:19 AM
I smell Hussein’s hand in this.
Imagine if any memorial had mentioned why there was a memorial there. You know? Mentioning that islamic terrorists were stopped by patriotic Americans? Well, that would offend the muslim world.
And besides, we couldn’t have a memorial telling the truth about a man-caused disaster, could we?
madmonkphotog on May 8, 2009 at 12:39 PM