Flight 93 Memorial Victimizes Property Owners

More than 7-1/2 years after Flight 93 crashed into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, killing 33 passengers and seven crew members on September 11, 2001, the tragedy is claiming more victims — this time, at the hands of the U.S. government. Because a number of landowners who own land at or near the crash site have not caved into government demands that they sell their land and the businesses located thereon to the government so the National Park Service can build a $58 million, 2,200-acre monument, the Justice Department is preparing to condemn the land and take it forcefully from the owners.

Leaving aside questions about why on earth the government (or anyone, for that matter) would need over two thousand acres and nearly $60 million for a simple monument — forcing landowners to sell their property to Uncle Sam for such a project is outrageous. Yet, thanks to the Congress two years ago enacting legislation authorizing such a condemnation, this is precisely what is about to happen. So much for property rights. So much for basic fairness. And so much for fiscal responsibility in lean economic times.

A National Park Service spokesman, Phil Sheridan, was quoted in newspapers over the weekend as spouting the typical government double speak, in claiming that the government certainly would “prefer to work with sellers” but that they had not been able to come to an agreement in time for the government to begin construction and have the memorial ready for the tenth anniversary of the hijacking, on September 11, 2011. In effect, what Mr. Sheridan and his fellow federal employees are saying is, “if a few stubborn, unpatriotic, money-grubbing property owners won’t agree to our terms, we’ll just force them to sell their land to us whether they like it or not; it’s the American Way.”

Unfortunately, forcing property owners to sell their land and businesses to local, state and federal government agencies for all manner of projects that have nothing whatsover to do with essential, legitimate government purposes, has become the American Way. Bulding an outrageously expensive and disproportionately huge memorial is but the latest example of the government’s abuse of its power of eminent domain.

69 comments Add your comment


May 12th, 2009
9:56 am

So, how is eminent domain being “abused” here? Is the property being taken for a private corporation (as in the regrettable Kelo decision)? No.

Is it not being paid for? Nope, that’s covered. So again (for the fourth time): what’s the problem?


May 12th, 2009
11:18 am

CopyLeft – the problem is twofold, 1) the amount of land being snatched (on the taxpayer dime) from private property owners for 2) a propaganda piece for the Macheviallian, Orwellian police state to leverage their rhetoric against (using the 9/11 false-flag as a pretext).



May 12th, 2009
11:44 am

Copyleft, I will tell you what the problem is. ED was intended to be a tool, used by the government, to take privately owned land, ONLY WHEN THERE IS NO OTHER “RESONABLE” OPTION!! There are obviously many other options in this case, as there often are in most cases. Using ED to take away private property to increase tax receipts, Walmarts, business parks, etc….. is NOT a valid reason.

a former republican

May 12th, 2009
12:34 pm

okay..this happens everyday to build roads and schools because the city, county or state deem it necessary. Many other projects could have been avoided. Ask the famiiies that owned the property that is now Lake Lanier for generations but you want your WATER out of the tap right?

Chris Broe

May 12th, 2009
12:38 pm

More than 7-1/2 years after Flight 93 crashed into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, killing 33 passengers and seven crew members on September 11, 2001, Osama Bin Laden remains at large, sponsoring the next 911. Listen to Cheney about this. We’re gonna get nailed. and sooner rather t

Try to focus, people.

I donts be expectin’ that I be respectin’ no man what lives by the Barr Code.

Democrap Party

May 12th, 2009
12:38 pm


Donald Trump on Miss California: Same as Barack Obama

President Barack Obama ended up in the middle of an unlikely controversy this morning — the debate over Miss California’s position on gay marriage.

At a press conference addressing Carrie Prejean’s disputed title in the Miss USA competition, pageant owner Donald Trump compared Prejean’s stated views on gay marriage to Obama’s.

“It’s the same answer that the president of the United States gave,” Trump said. “She gave an honorable answer. She gave an answer from her heart.”

In her own remarks moments later, Prejean echoed Trump’s statement, telling reporters: “The president of the United States, the secretary of state, and many Americans agree with me in this belief.”

In the final round of the Miss USA pageant, Prejean told judge Perez Hilton: “I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised.”



May 12th, 2009
1:35 pm

What’s so “excellent,” Crap? Trump pointed out she has the right to her opinion, and she does.

How is that somehow a blow to the gay-marriage advocates?

Democrap Party

May 12th, 2009
1:46 pm

Copyleft, gays were outraged that she had an opinion against gay marriage. What is awesome is Trump throwing President Teleprompters own opinion on marriage in their face. It’s a conundrum for the democrap party right now.

Democrap Party

May 12th, 2009
1:48 pm

Copyleft, either you are too dumb to figure out my point or you really are ignorant. I will take the latter. Why don’t you head back over to your dad’s blog, Bookman, and continue your cult worship of your false messiah Obama Hussein.

Redneck Convert

May 12th, 2009
3:20 pm

Well, I say property is more important than people. We got everything backward in this country. A person ought to be able to hold onto land even after he’s dead. Heck with what other people want to do with it. If the owner don’t say OK then the place ain’t for sale. Period.

Unless you’re like the people in Buckhead that kept holding out when the state wanted to run GA 400 thru there. They sued and sued. I had a buddy that owned a place there and he decided it was OK to sell when the guvmint offered him $700,000. For a shack that a bulldozer could knock down in 10 seconds.

Property. It’s what us Libraritarians value. People? Not so much.

Mrs. Norris

May 12th, 2009
3:27 pm

First let me state roads, railroads and even lake Lanier are vital to the general populace. A 2,200 acre monument is not. Keep in mind the twin-tower monument is not 2,200 acres. If you can’t see the difference, the I want waste my time trying to show it to you. I suspect there is coal in those fields.

Any, in regards to Ms. Prejean what gets my fur in a twist is she was asked what her opinion is. If you don’t want to know the answer, don’t ask the question. Hissssss!

Mrs. Norris

May 12th, 2009
4:22 pm

Please forgive my atrocious spelling and typos. My fur is still in a twist.

You are not funny and please don’t pretend to speak for the Libertarian party, as you know very little about it.


May 13th, 2009
8:40 am

“Crap”–Nope, no conundrum for liberals and Democrats at all. She had a personal opinion–a profoundly silly and ignorant one, but that’s her right. And this was hardly an intellectual quiz-bowl setting to begin with.

If you’re hoping this is some sort of “setback” for the cause of equal rights, you’re really kidding yourself. Of course, that IS a specialty of the rabid right these days… (chuckle)


May 13th, 2009
5:31 pm

Evil rich you are so off base. Protecting private rights is both conservative and libertarian. The only liberal part about being libertarian is protecting civil liberties.

Hillbilly Deluxe

May 16th, 2009
4:42 pm

2200 acres is 3.4375 square miles. Why is such a large area needed?


May 28th, 2009
9:14 pm

Funny how none of these property heirs gave a second thought about inheriting stolen native american lands. Karma is a bitch


May 30th, 2009
12:10 am

It is so obvious to me that the reason the government is taking such a large area of land is so that people will not have access to the area where these planes crashed and possibly find something they don’t want to be found. I’m usually not one for conspiracy theories, but come on. Why else would they need such an incredibly big area for a memorial???

Lynn S

May 30th, 2009
12:56 pm

I understand the loss of life that day was very hard for everyone. But do we need over 2000 acres to remember it???? did they not die for to protect the core right to freedom. Seems the Park Service, the Govt. and ther abuse of emminent domain forgets the basic rights of the land owners. Again why such a large area??

Kelse Jacskon

March 28th, 2010
3:02 pm

I’m doing an argument paper over eminent domain (I’m against it). I would love anyone to contact me if they were a victim of it or have any suggestions for research I could use. Thanks.
Email: juicygirl4056@gmail.com