Flight 93 families ask Bush to OK land seizure

[DiveCon]

Yes, even for a memorial. I think the owners are somewhat stingy, but it's immoral to take what is theirs. I don't think anyone will forget Flight 93 anytime soon.

its not TAKING

 

[DiveCon]

I didn't say fuck the memorial, I said that the government should not steal land from a private company to put the memorial on. If the company wishes to sell, and they come to an agreement with those that are trying to get the land then that's great.

I would not define myself as an anarchist. Property rights have meaning to me.

nor is it STEALING

 

[RodISHI]

Reasonable value for something that somebody does not wish to sell is not reasonable, it's stealing.

I agree.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

nor is it STEALING

Yes, it is. The government is going to steal this company's private property and give it to others.

 

[WillowTree]

its not TAKING

How is it not taking if they are unwilling to sell? I see it as taking.

 

[DiveCon]

How is it not taking if they are unwilling to sell? I see it as taking.

its not that they are unwilling to sell
what it looks like is they want to extort more money for it

 

[DiveCon]

Yes, it is. The government is going to steal this company's private property and give it to others.

no it isnt
that is a complete LIE
it will be a part of the larger national park

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

its not that they are unwilling to sell
what it looks like is they want to extort more money for it

It is their property, they can attempt to sell it for whatever they wish. If I have a lemonade stand and am selling a glass of lemonade for $100 then nobody has the right to take a glass of lemonade without paying me $100. It is stealing if you only give me a quarter and take a glass anyways.

 

[Steerpike]

its not that they are unwilling to sell
what it looks like is they want to extort more money for it

Since you're holding people to the definition of words they use (like taking and stealing) let me point out that this is in no way extortion. Extortion involves an action that one is not legally entitled to undertake. A property owner is legally entitled to ask whatever price she likes for her property.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

no it isnt
that is a complete LIE
it will be a part of the larger national park

It is not the government's property to make it a part of the larger national park. Therefore, they have to steal it to make it a part of the park.

 

[DiveCon]

Since you're holding people to the definition of words they use (like taking and stealing) let me point out that this is in no way extortion. Extortion involves an action that one is not legally entitled to undertake. A property owner is legally entitled to ask whatever price she likes for her property.

they are willing to sell, but are holding out
the national park has already purchased all the land around it that is needed
at this point it IS extortion

 

[Steerpike]

they are willing to sell, but are holding out
the national park has already purchased all the land around it that is needed
at this point it IS extortion

No. It isn't. But apparently you don't hold yourself to the same standard of word usage that you apply to others.

 

[DiveCon]

No. It isn't. But apparently you don't hold yourself to the same standard of word usage that you apply to others.

oh sheeesh
ok ok ok
it ISNT legally extortion
but you know that they are just holding out for more money than the land is actually worth

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

oh sheeesh
ok ok ok
it ISNT legally extortion
but you know that they are just holding out for more money than the land is actually worth

That is their right, it is their property. If they were desperate to sell they would lower their asking price, the fact that they don't implies that they don't really wish to sell the land.

 

[Steerpike]

oh sheeesh
ok ok ok
it ISNT legally extortion
but you know that they are just holding out for more money than the land is actually worth

Maybe. Hard to say what it is worth. The fact that a party is very interested in buying it makes it worth more. Typically, a property is worth what the market will bear.

But as a private property owner I should be able to ask for far more than my property is worth. I'm not likely to get it, but nevertheless....the government shouldn't force me to sell except in very rare instances where there is a need for infrastructure, etc. Something that is a necessity.

 

[WillowTree]

oh sheeesh
ok ok ok
it ISNT legally extortion
but you know that they are just holding out for more money than the land is actually worth

I see what you mean DiveCon but that's relative. The property is worth a great deal to the families of the victims. It became more valuable when that airplane crashed there. Maybe the gov. could help the families by paying the asking price rather than siezing.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I see what you mean DiveCon but that's relative. The property is worth a great deal to the familites of the victims. It became more valuable when that airplane crashed there. Maybe the gov. could help the families by paying the asking price rather than siezing.

The government should not involve itself at all.

 

[WillowTree]

The government should not involve itself at all.

why not? they gave millions to the families of the victims of the twin towers. What's the difference?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

why not? they gave millions to the families of the victims of the twin towers. What's the difference?

No difference, they shouldn't have done that either. The government needs to curb it's spending.

 

[WillowTree]

No difference, they shouldn't have done that either. The government needs to curb it's spending.

I agree on that. But I'd rather see it go to these families than to those corrupt unions.