Because nothing says “they hate us because we’re free” like the government taking someone’s land
Government to condemn land for Flight 93 memorial
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.
May 7th, 2009 at 10:40 am
And do you know what? The courts will back this. As long as it’s remotely connected to a state purpose, the deal’s sealed.
May 7th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Markie Marxist sez: “Any excuse to confiscate private property and make it public property is a good excuse. When we can take a plane crash, and turn it into a $58 million, 2,200-acre, federal government owned park, located in the middle of nowhere, by seizing the land from private owners, you know we Marxists own America. There is no private property, only public property we just haven’t confiscated yet! Like privately owned guns! Ha! Ha!”
May 7th, 2009 at 11:01 am
I can understand the desire for a memorial, but WTF do they need 2200 acres for?
May 7th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Hmmm… 2200 acres out in the middle of nowhere? Sounds like a good place to go target practice.
May 7th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Honestly, I’m the last person to stand up for the eminent domain actions of the federal government generally, but this time I actually think this might not be so bad. All of those battlefields that were once private property and farmland before the unfortunate happenings of the War Between the States turned them into historic landmarks that need to be preserved, and not turned into parking lots for strip malls and truck stops.
This is one of those incidents where some of the owners have been incredibly short sighted and abusive. Due to the fact that a nearly worthless piece of grassland is now a historic landmark some of the owners have tried to sell it for hundreds of times what it was worth a few moments before impact. They even talked about this in an episode of Penn and Teller’s Bullshit. It’s fine as long as the owners receive fair compensation, which is far less than they were asking for, but it’s probably still more than some of them deserve.
Eminent Domain is frequently abused, to be sure, but this isn’t someone’s livelihood that’s being threatened, it isn’t someone’s home, this is grassland. 2200 Acres sounds like a hell of a lot of land to me too, but I’m sure that most of it will be surrendered back to the public after they realize there’s no call for a park that big.
May 7th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Matt – How big of you. Statist prigs like you are part of the problem now.
May 7th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
“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.”
I love how they use the words “work with” as if the landowners have any say in the forieture of their property.
May 7th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Had a look at the design of that “memorial”? It’s not a crescent, and it doesn’t point to Mecca. Wink, nod.
May 7th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
“This is one of those incidents where some of the owners have been incredibly short sighted and abusive.”
*Hey*, you: freedom doesn’t mean that you have to like them. You just have to respect their rights.
Stop being a fuckin’ asshole.
May 7th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
This is one of those situations where the memorial for an historic event has become a political power struggle. First the design, then the land issues, next will come the “interpretation” of the event in whatever texts are displayed in the visitor’s center….
The initial, spontaneous memorials were likely the best this site will ever see.
May 7th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Matt:
While eminent domain does have legitimate uses(i.e. schools, roads, and necessary government buildings and facilities), building a memorial is not one of them. If the owners don’t want to sell for what the government is offering, then that is their right. It’s also the government’s right to not pay excessively inflated prices for land, but then they don’t get the land, either.
Eminent domain is intended for those situations where the government needs the land for a necessary government function. A memorial is not a necessary public use, no matter how noble the intent.
May 7th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Matt you said …
“It’s fine as long as the owners receive fair compensation, which is far less than they were asking for, but it’s probably still more than some of them deserve.”
I take it you live in an apartment or something and have no ancestral connection to any land or the heritage of stewardship that comes from that .
I am a 4th generation family farmer/rancher ( of the same land ) and there is no fair price for my land . Fair is leave my land alone and let me make a living . If you want a ” fair price ” on the land just set a price on the ground any one of the marble memorials in DC proper sets on. Had such jet crashed on my acreage i would resist any coercion to sell it to the park service or any other agency with all legal means , and possibly some shady . Conversely i might well either donate or make available to a non profit org ( at a common local per acre price ) ground for said memorial and easement to get to it as needed . One thing i would not do is use such hallowed ground for production even without recompense no matter how i feel about land grabs ( see the pinion canyon debate ( colorado ) and the actions of the .gov in the past on it ). In short sir in absence of evidence to the other I will say that you who does not even own the ground he stands on is mighty ready to take the ground of others .
May 7th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
And here I am, thinking a “fair price” is one which is accepted by the buyer and seller.
Leave it to the feds to call a price offered at the point of a gun “fair”.
May 7th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Like I was saying, what’s yours is yours only until a politician with an agenda wants it too.
A Flight 93 memorial isn’t just important, it’s essential. But I also don’t see why it’s gotta be 2200 acres nor why it needs be placed where it’s taking away that much private land. I rather doubt the brave folks on that flight–who very much do deserve a memorial–would want to see this happen.
If the NYC WTC site debacle is any indication, this probably won’t go any better.
May 7th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
PGP is most probably correct. Those people on Flight 93 didn’t die to validate theft by government.
May 7th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
I tried to give that Pataki jackass as much benefit of the doubt as I could…I remember telling people to wait, see the final plans, he’ll come up with something good, stories about the “freedom center” being political in nature are overwrought…
Then it turned out after 4 or 5 years of wrangling and corruption, they’d come up with a building that was an engineering impossibility and a misguided cultural eyesore instead of a decent memorial. Today Ground Zero is still a big pit in the middle of the most valuable real estate on the planet.
People in the halls of power invariably fuck this sort of thing up.
May 7th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Chas, that is the PERFECT statement. What on earth could they want that for in the middle of nowhere? That is so assanine.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Whoever compared a plane crash site to a Civil War battlefield is an idiot.
May 7th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
The worst part of this is that the design of the memorial is still a crescent of red trees, aligned on the qibla. Why are these blatant muslim symbols put on a memorial of a small victory in the battle of western civilization vs. islamic fundamentalist teorrism? Yes, I am aware they changed the crescent to an “interrupted circle” and that the alignment is supposed to be flight path of the plane and just coincidentally aligns to mecca. Why just they just build an old school marble monument, or a bronze statue? Why memorialize the terrorists?
May 8th, 2009 at 8:52 am
Because they have won?
. . . or do you just like catching athlete’s foot in the “security” checkpoints?
May 8th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Couldn’t we just put up a commemorative plaque instead?
May 10th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
I don’t get it. Wouldn’t the best memorial be a placque on the side of the road and a paved over and in use farm field? Wouldn’t it be a testament to why those people brought down the plane for it to be put back into regular use by a free citizen of the United States?
Wouldn’t it say F U to the terrorists to NOT let them dictate what we do with our own property?