Flight 93 families ask Bush to OK land seizure

[DiveCon]

Well I believe it is theft regardless, so that would infer that I believe it was abuse.

purchasing land by eminent domain for PUBLIC use is fine, its when its used for a NON-public use, like in my example(they used ED to purchase land to sell to another private individual) that is abuse

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

purchasing land by eminent domain for PUBLIC use is fine, its when its used for a NON-public use, like in my example(they used ED to purchase land to sell to another private individual) that is abuse

It is abuse when the government steals private property.

 

[tigerbob]

But you believe it's ok for the government to steal this company's land because this group of people think the company is asking for too much money?

That's obviously a leading question, since it is clearly not OK for anyone to steal anything.

For the purpose of answering your question therefore, I'll ignore your use of the word "steal" (as I believe that if due legal process is followed it is not stealing) and deal with the point you are aiming at.

Like I said...

but I'd like to know the results of the appraisal scheduled for Jan 5 before committing to that position.

That means that if the appraisal says the land is worth $2.5 million and the government has only offered $250,000, then the government will need to increase its offer. If it tried to force through a sale at $250,000 by using Eminent Domain that would be an abuse of power. However, looking at the process described in my earlier post, I would have thought that any judge would have thrown such an attempt out of court, or at least requested further appraisals be completed.

Since eminent domain requires due process of law, the owner should be protected from lowball offers, and the government should be able to purchase property that, given the altruistic nature of this project, is clearly intended for public benefit.

 

[tigerbob]

purchasing land by eminent domain for PUBLIC use is fine, its when its used for a NON-public use, like in my example(they used ED to purchase land to sell to another private individual) that is abuse

Agree completely.

 

[DiveCon]

That's obviously a leading question, since it is clearly not OK for anyone to steal anything.

For the purpose of answering your question therefore, I'll ignore your use of the word "steal" (as I believe that if due legal process is followed it is not stealing) and deal with the point you are aiming at.

Like I said...



That means that if the appraisal says the land is worth $2.5 million and the government has only offered $250,000, then the government will need to increase its offer. If it tried to force through a sale at $250,000 by using Eminent Domain that would be an abuse of power. However, looking at the process described in my earlier post, I would have thought that any judge would have thrown such an attempt out of court, or at least requested further appraisals be completed.

Since eminent domain requires due process of law, the owner should be protected from lowball offers, and the government should be able to purchase property that, given the altruistic nature of this project, is clearly intended for public benefit.

which again comes under "fair market value"

 

[geonerd20]

I read the original article. While this was a terrible tragedy, and the heroism of the passengers should certainly be recognized, this is a part of me that wonders if there is a better memorial. As I understand, the cost of this project is supposed to be on the order of $60 million. Why not set up a small, touching memorial (say 5 acres and 5 million), and use the remaining $50M or so to provide scholarships for sons and daughters of victims of terrorism? Or maybe build a new school in the name of the victims? Couldn't this money just be put to some good use???

 

[Anguille]

I do not think in this case the government should be able to force a sale of the land. Eminent domain should be limited to public necessities such as infrastructure, etc. when other options are limited. It should be used extremely sparingly.

I totally agree. To take this land for that purpose by eminent domain would be abusive.

 

[DiveCon]

It is abuse when the government steals private property.

you wish to say **** you to everyone else so one person can hold up things
again, your individual rights have limits

 

[Anguille]

the cost of this project is supposed to be on the order of $60 million.

What a waste. We have more pressing needs than another memorial.

 

[tigerbob]

I read the original article. While this was a terrible tragedy, and the heroism of the passengers should certainly be recognized, this is a part of me that wonders if there is a better memorial. As I understand, the cost of this project is supposed to be on the order of $60 million. Why not set up a small, touching memorial (say 5 acres and 5 million), and use the remaining $50M or so to provide scholarships for sons and daughters of victims of terrorism? Or maybe build a new school in the name of the victims? Couldn't this money just be put to some good use???

It's off topic to a degree, but still a fair suggestion. Yes, I'm sure it could be put to different (and some might say better) use. There seems to have been a committee set up to figure out what to do. I have no idea what they discussed before coming to this decision, nor do I know how much they consulted with the families.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

you wish to say **** you to everyone else so one person can hold up things
again, your individual rights have limits

No, they certainly don't. If rights have limits then you set a precedent for the government to ignore rights completely.

 

[tigerbob]

I totally agree. To take this land for that purpose by eminent domain would be abusive.

Not according to the law it wouldn't. As posted earlier (with link)...

Ordinarily, a government can exercise eminent domain only if its taking will be for a "public use" - which may be expansively defined along the lines of public "safety, health, interest, or convenience". Perhaps the most common example of a "public use" is the taking of land to build or expand a public road or highway. Public use could also include the taking of land to build a school or municipal building, for a public park, or to redevelop a "blighted" property or neighborhood.

 

[tigerbob]

What a waste. We have more pressing needs than another memorial.

The majority of the funding is private.

 

[Modbert]

you wish to say **** you to everyone else so one person can hold up things
again, your individual rights have limits

Do you mind if we take your house for a "reasonable price", demolish it, and make a memorial for the flight 93 victims then?

I mean, if you're so willing to defend that it's fair then you must be willing to give up your own home for a "reasonable price" then no?

 

[Anguille]

Not according to the law it wouldn't. As posted earlier (with link)...

Ordinarily, a government can exercise eminent domain only if its taking will be for a "public use" - which may be expansively defined along the lines of public "safety, health, interest, or convenience". Perhaps the most common example of a "public use" is the taking of land to build or expand a public road or highway. Public use could also include the taking of land to build a school or municipal building, for a public park, or to redevelop a "blighted" property or neighborhood.

In my opinion, if the government were to take this land to build a memorial it would be abusing it's right to eminent domain, perhaps not strickly according to how the law is written but as it ought to be applied.

 

[DiveCon]

Do you mind if we take your house for a "reasonable price", demolish it, and make a memorial for the flight 93 victims then?

I mean, if you're so willing to defend that it's fair then you must be willing to give up your own home for a "reasonable price" then no?

just **** off
you are not really interested in honest dicussion of this issue
you just want to disagree with me
so just **** off and stay out of it

you are free to ask your stupid ******* set up questions to anyone else
but you dont exist to me. you are a ******* MORON

 

[Anguille]

The majority of the funding is private.

Doesn't make it's being spent on a project like this any less wasteful.

 

[tigerbob]

Do you mind if we take your house for a "reasonable price", demolish it, and make a memorial for the flight 93 victims then?

I mean, if you're so willing to defend that it's fair then you must be willing to give up your own home for a "reasonable price" then no?

I'll answer your question (I know it wasn't meant for me) if you'll answer mine (post 88).

If the plane had crashed onto my house, assuming I was still alive, then yes I would be happy to sell it at fair market value for a memorial to be created. In fact, I would be quite proud to do so.

 

[tigerbob]

In my opinion, if the government were to take this land to build a memorial it would be abusing it's right to eminent domain, perhaps not strickly according to how it's written but as it ought to be applied.

So, like Kevin, you think the law is wrong?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'll answer your question (I know it wasn't meant for me) if you'll answer mine (post 88).

If the plane had crashed onto my house, assuming I was still alive, then yes I would be happy to sell it at fair market value for a memorial to be created. In fact, I would be quite proud to do so.

However, that would mean the government wouldn't have to steal your property from you because you would have already willingly sold it, which is your right. If you did not wish to sell your own property for "fair market value" then it would be stealing for the government to take your property at that rate.