Taking Shanksville land for a memorial (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

DomImus -> Taking Shanksville land for a memorial (5/29/2009 8:39:06 PM)

I understand using eminent domain to take land that is needed for a highway or a highway expansion or something along that line. This huge chunk of land they 'need' out in the middle of nowhere for this memorial seems to be a bit extreme to me. "The amount of land needed for the memorial is just over 2,200 acres, about 1,400 of which is near the crash site, where there will be a visitor center. The other 800 acres would create a buffer around the site to protect the rural setting." 2200 acres. That's a lot of football fields for a memorial. "Government lawyers are expected to file a lawsuit in Pittsburgh next week to condemn the property for public use."

Maybe if these landowners were Gitmo prisoners somebody would care.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/29/flight.dispute/index.html







Owner59 -> RE: Taking Shanksville land for a memorial (5/29/2009 8:46:25 PM)

Yawn... That whiner should just donate the land...

Btw,who controlled every branch of government in '02'?



OrionTheWolf -> RE: Taking Shanksville land for a memorial (5/29/2009 8:52:14 PM)

So you support government theft of property? US Citizens do not have the right to their property? He just a whiner? You just do not like the US Constitution and the ideas it's founders had, do you? Who cares who did what in the past? Now is the time for "Change" right?



CruelNUnsual -> RE: Taking Shanksville land for a memorial (5/29/2009 9:02:31 PM)

Since there wasnt really a crash and theres no debris, why do they even want it?



dcnovice -> RE: Taking Shanksville land for a memorial (5/29/2009 9:10:13 PM)

Here's the National Park Service statement on the actions. If I'm reading it right, they're invoking eminent domain for only 231 acres of land.

The monument does seem rather large. The FDR memorial here in DC, which seems huge when you're in it, is only 7.5 acres, and the whole Pentagon (building and land) is 583 acres. I don't know if the large amount of acreage for the Flight 93 memorial has to do with the size of the debris field and trying to set aside any land that may be a resting place for those on the flight.



Owner59 -> RE: Taking Shanksville land for a memorial (5/29/2009 10:07:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

So you support government theft of property? US Citizens do not have the right to their property? He just a whiner? You just do not like the US Constitution and the ideas it's founders had, do you? Who cares who did what in the past? Now is the time for "Change" right?


Theft would imply that the owners weren`t payed.

On a scale of one to ten,this rates less than one.



DomKen -> RE: Taking Shanksville land for a memorial (5/29/2009 10:17:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomImus

I understand using eminent domain to take land that is needed for a highway or a highway expansion or something along that line. This huge chunk of land they 'need' out in the middle of nowhere for this memorial seems to be a bit extreme to me. "The amount of land needed for the memorial is just over 2,200 acres, about 1,400 of which is near the crash site, where there will be a visitor center. The other 800 acres would create a buffer around the site to protect the rural setting." 2200 acres. That's a lot of football fields for a memorial. "Government lawyers are expected to file a lawsuit in Pittsburgh next week to condemn the property for public use."

Maybe if these landowners were Gitmo prisoners somebody would care.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/29/flight.dispute/index.html

Eminent Domain is only being used to condemn 230 odd acres. Would you rather that land, containing human remains, be put back into agricultural production?



DomImus -> RE: Taking Shanksville land for a memorial (5/30/2009 12:01:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Eminent Domain is only being used to condemn 230 odd acres. Would you rather that land, containing human remains, be put back into agricultural production?


Would those very human remains - pulverized to the point that they apparently were - really be any worse than what exists in nature as it is? Particularly after almost 8 years? There reportedly wasn't much left of that plane much less the passengers on board. The spot that plane crashed into didn't look like a cornfield to me. I would rather the land be left in the hands of its deed holding owners if they choose to keep it. Eminent Domain is being used to take from people what rightly belongs to them and what that they wish to keep.



DomKen -> RE: Taking Shanksville land for a memorial (5/30/2009 12:14:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomImus

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Eminent Domain is only being used to condemn 230 odd acres. Would you rather that land, containing human remains, be put back into agricultural production?


Would those very human remains - pulverized to the point that they apparently were - really be any worse than what exists in nature as it is? Particularly after almost 8 years? There reportedly wasn't much left of that plane much less the passengers on board. The spot that plane crashed into didn't look like a cornfield to me. I would rather the land be left in the hands of its deed holding owners if they choose to keep it. Eminent Domain is being used to take from people what rightly belongs to them and what that they wish to keep.


And if that land is turned into some tacky "attraction" to take advantage of the memorial built next to it? What degree of disrespect of the dead are you personally willing to accept? Personally if that plane had crashed on my land I would have found some tax neutral way to donate it and been done with it a long time ago and that those landowners haven't strikes me as a failing of civic virtue.



sirsholly -> RE: Taking Shanksville land for a memorial (5/30/2009 3:23:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual

Since there wasnt really a crash and theres no debris, why do they even want it?
...oh sure. And those of us who live there did not smell the burning jet fuel? [8|]



OrionTheWolf -> RE: Taking Shanksville land for a memorial (5/30/2009 3:52:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

So you support government theft of property? US Citizens do not have the right to their property? He just a whiner? You just do not like the US Constitution and the ideas it's founders had, do you? Who cares who did what in the past? Now is the time for "Change" right?


Theft would imply that the owners weren`t payed.


So can I take your car and pay you without your permission? What if I just give you $50? Theft does not imply someone was not paid, that is ridiculous.

quote:


On a scale of one to ten,this rates less than one.


Ah, so you are selective on which rights to uphold and be upset about. I see.



OrionTheWolf -> RE: Taking Shanksville land for a memorial (5/30/2009 3:58:41 AM)

That would be the right of the land owner. This country was founded on the principles of land ownership. Now you are creating a hypothetical to justify government abuse, which is a rather shaky justification of an improper action. Regardless of whether you agree with the land owners morals/ethics, if they are not breaking the law then they can do as they wish. It is called being consistant in upholding rights from the US Constitution.

Yeah this is not Gitmo, so folks are justifying this abuse of rights. Hypocricy wins again.


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

And if that land is turned into some tacky "attraction" to take advantage of the memorial built next to it? What degree of disrespect of the dead are you personally willing to accept? Personally if that plane had crashed on my land I would have found some tax neutral way to donate it and been done with it a long time ago and that those landowners haven't strikes me as a failing of civic virtue.



TheHeretic -> RE: Taking Shanksville land for a memorial (5/30/2009 7:14:29 AM)

         Taking land for this purpose seems like the very reason we have eminent domain laws to begin with.  It's just as easy to spin these landowners as selfish and greedy, as it is to spin them as victims.

       Now if they were using eminent domain to build a mall, I might get bothered.



Arpig -> RE: Taking Shanksville land for a memorial (5/30/2009 7:18:19 AM)

quote:

...oh sure. And those of us who live there did not smell the burning jet fuel? [8|]



Holly!!! You're part of the conspiracy!!?[;)]



Owner59 -> RE: Taking Shanksville land for a memorial (5/30/2009 7:20:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

quote:

...oh sure. And those of us who live there did not smell the burning jet fuel? [8|]



Holly!!! You're part of the conspiracy!!?[;)]



Don`t take the bait,Holly and Airpig.........not worth it.



Rule -> RE: Taking Shanksville land for a memorial (5/30/2009 8:35:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sirsholly

quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual

Since there wasnt really a crash and theres no debris, why do they even want it?
...oh sure. And those of us who live there did not smell the burning jet fuel? [8|]


You live there and smelled burning jet fuel?
 
I googled "burning jet fuel" Shanksville - and all hits on the first page claim an absence of burning jet fuel.
 
As for the why of the land grab? Perhaps to establish a theme park?



rulemylife -> RE: Taking Shanksville land for a memorial (5/30/2009 8:45:33 AM)

I was going to post this a few weeks ago because I have problems with it too.

The first being the amount of land the government wants to take.  I have relatives not far from there and I visited the site shortly after the crash. 

The crash site is confined to a relatively limited area.  There is absolutely no need to establish a 2,200 acre memorial.  And if memory serves me correctly, the landowner of the actual site offered that limited piece of land to the National Park Service as a memorial.

The second problem I have is the slap in the face to the local residents who constructed the temporary memorial and volunteered their time and effort to staff and maintain it.

But my biggest problem with this is that the WTC site saw the greatest loss of life and destruction.  Yet the initial ideas of making it a memorial park were quickly ignored because it is such a commercially valuable piece of property.

Much easier for the government to use eminent domain to take land from rural property-owners than to try and take on wealthy developers over prime Manhattan real estate.



DomKen -> RE: Taking Shanksville land for a memorial (5/30/2009 8:50:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

That would be the right of the land owner. This country was founded on the principles of land ownership. Now you are creating a hypothetical to justify government abuse, which is a rather shaky justification of an improper action. Regardless of whether you agree with the land owners morals/ethics, if they are not breaking the law then they can do as they wish. It is called being consistant in upholding rights from the US Constitution.

Yeah this is not Gitmo, so folks are justifying this abuse of rights. Hypocricy wins again.

This isn't abuse, this is a fairly classic application of eminent domain. Want to guess how many US national parks include land condemned through eminent domain proceedings? How about all the land flooded by the TVA? Do you think that was all bought from willing sellers?



DomImus -> RE: Taking Shanksville land for a memorial (5/30/2009 8:51:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
        Taking land for this purpose seems like the very reason we have eminent domain laws to begin with.  It's just as easy to spin these landowners as selfish and greedy, as it is to spin them as victims.

      Now if they were using eminent domain to build a mall, I might get bothered.


Yes, when you put it that way it is easier to understand. I guess it was just an unfortunate situation for everyone involved and continues to be. Whether it's a mall or a memorial it still comes down to the government saying "You can either sell it to us at fair market value or we'll take it from you. Either way we will win". I know it has to be done sometimes. Thanks for your insight.



Roselaure -> RE: Taking Shanksville land for a memorial (5/30/2009 9:34:15 AM)

There seems to me to be a difference between using Eminent Domain to appropriate land for a legitimate public purpose with a tangible societal benefit (rural electrification) and appropriating land for a memorial. 



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875