Flight 93 families ask Bush to OK land seizure

[Anguille]

For maybe 10 minutes. Then everyone would forget about it.

You seem to be in favor of building an expensive memorial? Why?

 

[tigerbob]

More waste of public funds.

Different point, and this time we agree!!!

 

[tigerbob]

You seem to be in favor of building an expensive memorial? Why?

No. I'm neither for nor against. But...

• The significant majority is privately funded
• A group of people who know much more about it than anyone on this board have reached this decision after years of discussion, not at the end of 90 minutes typing
• It will be a public park
• It appears not to be being used for any other purpose
• The $15m or so in public funds would disappear into a government spending programme. Spending in this manner at least provides something public, tangible and seems to be to be a good way to commemorate those who died.

$56mn is a lot of money, and if all that money was for a single memorial then I would question it more. But the vast majority is to create a new national park. I think that is a good use of the money.

 

[tigerbob]

What do you consider "fair market price"?

With the recent housing crisis, the amount a house/land is worth has dropped considerably. Probably much more then a year ago.

Houses in the U.S have lost value over $2 trillion in the first three quarters of 2008 alone.

So a "fair market price" might be even lower then what you paid for it originally. Does that sound fair?

Trust me, I myself would be proud to sell my land for a memorial. However, I'd doubt I'd get a fair price in this day and age while most likely be making a loss.

C'mon Robert. I've now answered your questions twice and you still haven't answered mine, even though I asked politely and said please etc...

How about it? Post 88? When you have a moment...?

 

[Modbert]

C'mon Robert. I've now answered your questions twice and you still haven't answered mine, even though I asked politely and said please etc...

How about it? Post 88? When you have a moment...?

Didn't see it, give me a second.

 

[Modbert]

What makes you say the price offered is lower than it is worth? If you've seen something about this, can you link?

Well two reasons I would think so:

1.) The prices of all homes and lands have dropped in the last year to a value in which if a economy was stable it'd be higher.

2.) It's the government, and they rarely do if anything right.


Now I heard the families offered about $700,000 for 200 acres correct?

 

[tigerbob]

Didn't see it, give me a second.

Thank you!

 

[Lycurgus]

I cannot agree with the forced sale of private land unless it is for extremely serious reasons. National Security or during a time of war being two.

It's a damn shame that the property owner cannot work something out to honor these American's. They willingly and knowingly gave their own lives to save others. True hero's in my book.

I would think that a small parcel of this land, by a main road could serve as a memorial and make everyone happy, with the owner being compensated for it. I don't see why so much land is needed, can't they do a memorial without a national park added?

Nevertheless, no matter how much I disagree with not making something available for a memorial, I cannot in my mind justify taking the land.

 

[DiveCon]

I cannot agree with the forced sale of private land unless it is for extremely serious reasons. National Security or during a time of war being two.

It's a damn shame that the property owner cannot work something out to honor these American's. They willingly and knowingly gave their own lives to save others. True hero's in my book.

I would think that a small parcel of this land, by a main road could serve as a memorial and make everyone happy, with the owner being compensated for it. I don't see why so much land is needed, can't they do a memorial without a national park added?

Nevertheless, no matter how much I disagree with not making something available for a memorial, I cannot in my mind justify taking the land.

then kiss goodbye all the interstate highways, airports, etc

 

[Gunny]

Emminent domain must have limits or government is little more than petty tyrant. What I am trying to say here is that if yoiu choose to memorialize every tragedy on the spot at which it occurred pretty soon the only available jobs will be monument polishers.

Nonetheless, the right exists. That is her point.

Ever wonder who used to live under the highway you drive to and from work on? Or the football stadium that houses your team?

It really doesn't matter what you want to do with the land. The fact remains, the government can seize it, and pay you the absolute bottom dollar for it. Happens all the time.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

then kiss goodbye all the interstate highways, airports, etc

I don't think those would vanish if the government suddenly decided that it's as wrong for it to steal as it is for a private citizen to steal.

 

[DiveCon]

I don't think those would vanish if the government suddenly decided that it's as wrong for it to steal as it is for a private citizen to steal.

the point you miss, is that we wouldnt have them if you had your way

and its not stealing to pay fair market value

 

[Anguille]

Nonetheless, the right exists. That is her point.

Ever wonder who used to live under the highway you drive to and from work on? Or the football stadium that houses your team?

It really doesn't matter what you want to do with the land. The fact remains, the government can seize it, and pay you the absolute bottom dollar for it. Happens all the time.

A recent case of government abuse of the right to take privately owned land by emminent domain happened in New London, CT where the homes of longtime residents of a working class neighborhood fought to save their homes in face of a development scheme by Pfizer to raze them and build a luxury hotel. The case went to the Supreme Court and the residents lost.

This case was the first major eminent domain case heard at the Supreme Court since 1984. In that time, states and municipalities had slowly extended their use of eminent domain, frequently to include economic development purposes where applicable. In the Kelo case, there was an additional twist in that the development corporation was ostensibly a private entity; thus the plaintiffs argued that it was not constitutional for the government to take private property from one individual or corporation and give it to another, if the government was simply doing so because the repossession would put the property to a use that would generate higher tax revenue.

The first eminent domain case since Midkiff to reach the Supreme Court, Kelo became the focus of vigorous discussion and attracted numerous supporters on both sides. Some 40 amicus curiae briefs were filed in the case, 25 on behalf of the petitioners. Suzette Kelo's supporters ranged from the libertarian Institute for Justice (the lead lawyers) to the NAACP, AARP, the late Martin Luther King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and South Jersey Legal Services. The latter groups signed an amicus brief arguing that eminent domain has often been used against politically weak communities with high concentrations of minorities and elderly.



Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

the point you miss, is that we wouldnt have them if you had your way

and its not stealing to pay fair market value

If the owner of the property does not wish to sell for "fair market value" then it is stealing.

 

[Anguille]

No. I'm neither for nor against. But...

• The significant majority is privately funded
• A group of people who know much more about it than anyone on this board have reached this decision after years of discussion, not at the end of 90 minutes typing
• It will be a public park
• It appears not to be being used for any other purpose
• The $15m or so in public funds would disappear into a government spending programme. Spending in this manner at least provides something public, tangible and seems to be to be a good way to commemorate those who died.

$56mn is a lot of money, and if all that money was for a single memorial then I would question it more. But the vast majority is to create a new national park. I think that is a good use of the money.

I dissagree with all your points but most off all with your assertation that the land does not appear to be used for any other purpose. Undeveloped land serves a valuable purpose in providing natural habitats for wildlife and indigenous vegetation.

 

[DiveCon]

A recent case of government abuse of the right to take privately owned land by emminent domain happened in New London, CT where the homes of longtime residents of a working class neighborhood fought to save their homes in face of a development scheme by Pfizer to raze them and build a luxury hotel. The case went to the Supreme Court and the residents lost.

This case was the first major eminent domain case heard at the Supreme Court since 1984. In that time, states and municipalities had slowly extended their use of eminent domain, frequently to include economic development purposes where applicable. In the Kelo case, there was an additional twist in that the development corporation was ostensibly a private entity; thus the plaintiffs argued that it was not constitutional for the government to take private property from one individual or corporation and give it to another, if the government was simply doing so because the repossession would put the property to a use that would generate higher tax revenue.

The first eminent domain case since Midkiff to reach the Supreme Court, Kelo became the focus of vigorous discussion and attracted numerous supporters on both sides. Some 40 amicus curiae briefs were filed in the case, 25 on behalf of the petitioners. Suzette Kelo's supporters ranged from the libertarian Institute for Justice (the lead lawyers) to the NAACP, AARP, the late Martin Luther King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and South Jersey Legal Services. The latter groups signed an amicus brief arguing that eminent domain has often been used against politically weak communities with high concentrations of minorities and elderly.



Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

that is the perfect example of abuse of ED
the subject here is not

 

[Anguille]

that is the perfect example of abuse of ED
the subject here is not

Even if I thought a 56 million dollar memorial was a good idea, which I do not, I would still be opposed to taking the land by emminent domain for this purpose. It does not serve the public in a practical or very meaningful way and sets a dangerous precedent.

If I was ever killed in a crash like this I would never want anything like this done in my "honor".

This special interest group determined to have their monument should compromise and put it somewhere where is is wanted.