Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Selfish much?Follow

#1 Dec 28 2008 at 11:52 AM Rating: Decent
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,143 posts
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/flight93_memorial wrote:
PHILADELPHIA – Relatives of those who died aboard United Airlines Flight 93 want the Bush Administration to seize the land needed for a memorial where the plane crashed in Shanksville, Pa., in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

The Families of Flight 93 sent a letter earlier this month asking President George W. Bush to empower the Secretary of the Interior to take the land in dispute from a homeowner who had been in negotiations with the National Parks Service, said Patrick White, vice president of the families' organization.

The group says ground must be broken early next year in time for a memorial to be build for the 10th anniversary of the crash in 2011.

Svonavec Inc. owns one of the last large chunks of land needed for the 2,200-acre memorial, including the area where the plane crashed Sept. 11, 2001. Svonavec's treasurer Mike Svonavec has said the park service has not done enough to negotiate a deal.


Eminent domain has its uses, but really should only be used as a last resort. I don't really know the history of this ongoing deal--hell I didn't even know a memorial was planned--but it appears that there is an ongoing negotiation. I would think that it's perfectly in the right of the current landowner to choose to not part with his property.

Can't the current landowner make a long term lease of part of the property for the memorial? The WTC memorial ground will still contain a building--assuming one gets built eventually.
#2 Dec 28 2008 at 12:39 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,909 posts
I don't get why the government doesn't just hurl money at him instead of forcing him off the property.
#3 Dec 28 2008 at 1:15 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Well, how many people will be made happy by this monument being built? If it is a lot of pleasure coming from it then the guy should probably move off of his land.. but.

I would expect the high and mighty government to be able to pay him at least enough money to buy another house of better quality (better quality to offset the landowners misery and sentiment concerning his land, whatever they may be) for compensation. It's the least they could do. Are they?
#4 Dec 28 2008 at 1:56 PM Rating: Decent
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,143 posts
Pensive wrote:
Well, how many people will be made happy by this monument being built? If it is a lot of pleasure coming from it then the guy should probably move off of his land.. but.

I would expect the high and mighty government to be able to pay him at least enough money to buy another house of better quality (better quality to offset the landowners misery and sentiment concerning his land, whatever they may be) for compensation. It's the least they could do. Are they?


It's obviously ongoing and posed as a 'What if?'

Also, it appears that it's a corporate holding of some sort. The owner is most likely holding out for the biggest bucks he can get. I assume it's a small company since the treasurer has the same last name as the INC name.
#5 Dec 28 2008 at 4:04 PM Rating: Decent
****
8,619 posts
For all we know the company might need that land as collateral against debts etc.

black and white is a bad way of looking at things.
#6 Dec 29 2008 at 10:46 AM Rating: Decent
*****
19,369 posts
We should force land out of Vietnam, Iraq, Kuwait, etc.

I think a memorial on the exact land is kinda stupid, imo.
#7 Dec 29 2008 at 2:16 PM Rating: Good
MentalFrog wrote:
I think a memorial on the exact land is kinda stupid, imo.


Like taping a bullseye over a bullet hole?
#8 Dec 29 2008 at 3:27 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Pensive wrote:
Well, how many people will be made happy by this monument being built? If it is a lot of pleasure coming from it then the guy should probably move off of his land.. but.


How many other people may benefit is irrelevant. The entire concept of private property rights somewhat assumes that "public good" can't be the only consideration here. We're not talking about needed infrastructure here, so Eminent Domain is completely incorrect.

Quote:
I would expect the high and mighty government to be able to pay him at least enough money to buy another house of better quality (better quality to offset the landowners misery and sentiment concerning his land, whatever they may be) for compensation. It's the least they could do. Are they?


I would assume that offers to buy the property have been made. I also haven't researched the issue though, but it's a reasonable assumption. But guess what? If someone doesn't want to sell their land, that's their right. The memorial can be built anywhere really...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#9 Dec 29 2008 at 3:35 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

We're not talking about needed infrastructure here, so Eminent Domain is completely incorrect.


John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Anthony Kennedy disagree with you. You'd better go see what it is you're supposed to believe about this before you make a big mistake.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 298 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (298)