Welcome to PatsFans.com

U.S. gives Flight 93 site landowners one week to sell

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Real World, Jun 16, 2009.

  1. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    144
    Ratings:
    +296 / 4 / -2

    This is complete BS. My guess is that this has been in the works for some time, but I can't say for sure. Why do they need so much land for a memorial? It seems like an outrageous amount of property. Aside from that, confiscating people's private property is pure evil! :mad:


    Posted on Sat, Jun. 6, 2009


    U.S. gives Flight 93 site landowners one week to sell

    By Amy Worden

    Inquirer Harrisburg Bureau

    The federal government issued an ultimatum yesterday to people who own land designated for the Flight 93 memorial in Western Pennsylvania: They have one week to reach an agreement on the sale of their land or the government will initiate proceedings to seize it.

    The order came hours after Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter (D., Pa.) met with people who own 500 acres in and around the Shanksville area, where Flight 93 crashed on Sept. 11, 2001, and with victims' relatives eager to see the memorial built in time for the 10th anniversary of the terrorist attacks.

    "After meeting with the landowners and the Park Service today, I have high hopes that the parties are close to agreement and will be able to reach consensus over the land in the next week so we can keep the memorial on track without using eminent domain," Salazar said. "Only if the parties are not able to reach agreement will we have to use the last resort of eminent domain to acquire land."


    U.S. gives Flight 93 site landowners one week to sell | Philadelphia Inquirer | 06/06/2009
  2. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,980
    Likes Received:
    102
    Ratings:
    +180 / 5 / -22

    Bigger is better??

    They do need some space for when the US aircraft that shot it down is retired so they can display it prominently.
  3. Mogamedogz

    Mogamedogz Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    Messages:
    3,032
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    :goodposting:

    I wonder how much $$ the gov is offering up per acre.
  4. scout

    scout Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    7,700
    Likes Received:
    26
    Ratings:
    +36 / 0 / -2

    #15 Jersey

    How many acres does the gov. want?
    I was thinking a large rock type sculpture with a plaque would be sufficient.
  5. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Does not matter. The government has no functional need for this land. This is absurd.
  6. scout

    scout Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    7,700
    Likes Received:
    26
    Ratings:
    +36 / 0 / -2

    #15 Jersey

    I agree, just trying to reason why they would want all the acreage. It's not like people are going to travel there to see the site. Are they going to put a national park in that location?
  7. Patsfanin Philly

    Patsfanin Philly Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -0

    #95 Jersey

  8. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    Honestly....thats some funny $h!t...


    along those same lines, this investigation into 9-11, the comission etc....is pretty much complete Bull$h!t...why would we create a memorial to something that we have yet to full get closure on? What if Cheney DID give the oreders to shoot it down?

    This makes no sense.
  9. scout

    scout Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    7,700
    Likes Received:
    26
    Ratings:
    +36 / 0 / -2

    #15 Jersey

  10. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    I think the idea of profiting from a national tragedy is abhorrent.

    If they won't sell for what the land was worth on September 10th, then screw 'em.
  11. tanked_as_usual

    tanked_as_usual Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,981
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    naaahhhh......what's funny is your 'what if's'
  12. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    I agree. I think a memorial to Fl 93 should be integrated into the bigger 9/11 Memorial in NYC or DC. No one will go to western PA to visit this site. Within 20 years, there will be a Walmart there.

    The gov't has no right to confiscate land for a memorial. Memorials are nice, but they're not needed for the government to function or for people to survive.
  13. mcgraw_wv

    mcgraw_wv Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    If the Government decided tomorrow to build a 100 billion FBI HQ next to my property, my home value just went through the roof...

    Those people who want their land, should not have to sell at any price... period.

    Perhaps they wanted to leave this land to their kids, perhaps their ancestors settled that land 100 years ago...

    Personal Property is what makes this land great. If the government just take it away from you, what's the point of Personal Property, all that means is it's all on loan, and they can call it in and force you to trade it for paper slips they print off.
  14. Patsfanin Philly

    Patsfanin Philly Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -0

    #95 Jersey

    Amen. Unfortunately the Supreme Court ruled (wrongly) in Kelo v New London
    KELO V. NEW LONDON
    effectively eviscerating private property vis a vis the takings clause..
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2009
  15. scout

    scout Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    7,700
    Likes Received:
    26
    Ratings:
    +36 / 0 / -2

    #15 Jersey

    What's worse is eminent domain. 60 Minutes had a show where one business owner was being booted so that another business could take over his property, per order Gov. There was also a community where the houses were condemned (nice properties) and were to be replaced by someone's pipe dream (shopping center/condo?).
  16. scout

    scout Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    7,700
    Likes Received:
    26
    Ratings:
    +36 / 0 / -2

    #15 Jersey

    "What if Cheney DID give the order to shoot it down".
    What bewilders me, Tanked thinking that the Gov. would never cover up shooting an airliner down which was probably headed for the White House or Tank thinking that Cheney would never give the order.
    Reading the documentation on our air defense system as it related to 9/11 that day, I'm somewhat leaning toward the plane not being shot down. The determining factor was the total incompetency of the air defense explaining any type of timeline. I do believe they would take a fall if told to do so by the higher ups, but not in that embarrassing nature. Surely, they could have arranged some alibis.
    Would our government cover it up? History tells us many times over that the answer is yes. Would Cheney give the order? LMFAO!

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>