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

Brad Steel

May 11th, 2009
9:30 am

This goes far beyond the abuse on eminent domain. This is abuse of common sense.

This appears to be a real-life script for Amy Poehler’s “Parks and Recreation” show.

gatorman770

May 11th, 2009
9:58 am

The tragedy of Flight 93 and the murder of 33 passengers by low-life swine-like islamic terriorist deserves a memorial as does the others murdered at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, but The National Park Service stealing part of 2,200 acres for a $58 million dollar memorial(66.6 acres and $1.75 million per person) seems a bit extreme over spending compared to the scale and money spent for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial (less than a acre)in Washington DC to honour over a half a million Vietnam Veterans.

US Army Vietnam Vet

the evil rich

May 11th, 2009
9:59 am

I used to really admire Bob, until he joined the whack-job, leaglize ALL drugs, open borders, and it’s your body, libe-ral-terians. But, he’s back to the conservative Bob on this one. Hopefully, it’s not just a blip on the screen.

Ward

May 11th, 2009
10:06 am

I can’t even begin to imagine what the government wants (or needs) that 2,200 acres for. But the right of private property is a core value in a free republic, and the government’s growing abuse of eminent domain illustrates how far we’ve drifted from real freedom.

And frankly, the Libertarians’ failure to make this the cornerstone of their appeal to America is why they remain a 3% party after all these years.

Carroll

May 11th, 2009
10:16 am

Hey Mr. Barr, I think that “the evil rich” has it absolutely right…shame on you, you doggone lib dem…real “conservatives” should want to dictate how people live their lives and what they do with their bodies etc…just like that bastion of conservatism Nancy Pelos…wait…I meant Harry Rei…er, uh Fidel Cas….Bah! nevermind!

Not only is this project wrong for every obvious reason, but let me add that I am suspect of the whole “Flight 93″ story to begin with. Now, I’m not a 9-11 truther by any stretch…I certainyl dont think that our gov’t caused or wanted 9/11. BUT, the Flight 93 story is just WAY too convenient for my liking. i mean…we were a nation desperate for something to feel good about after 9/11, and here were these ready-made heroes that thwarted another attack. Yet, they did it in a remote, middle-of-nowhere location where nobody witnessed anything about it, and it left virtually no evidence in its wake. Methinks our gov’t shot this plane down. And justifiably so. but it would clearly not by out of character for our gov’t to be dishonest with us…they always have to think of a way to sugar-coat and package everythig for easy digestion for our simple minds.

Mrs. Norris

May 11th, 2009
10:19 am

Don’t even get me started on eminent domain! It’s beginning to look more and more like feudalism to me.

Carroll

May 11th, 2009
10:23 am

Ward: They remain a 3% party because all the idiots who would/should support them always get bogged down with nonsense issues such as gay marriage and abortion. News flash, folks: If you go with a party who is all about freedom from gov’t, and if we the people are able to take the power back as it was intended by our founders, THEN you never would have to worry or care about what a particular politican’s views are on these social subjects, because they wouldn’t have the power ability to do anything about it….you would have the power to handle these matters as you see fit at your local and state level, regardless of what washington thinks about it.

But instead, we nominate that idiot Palin to represent us because we liked the holy image she portrayed and because she gives great lip service to all these dumbed-down issues that “conservatives” go so ape-sh!t crazy about thse days. In reality, she’s a nice person, but she can’t even string a thoughtful, intelligent sentence together when she’s under the microscope. And you wonder why we got killed in the election?!

Davis

May 11th, 2009
10:29 am

I wish to make it very clear that I sympathize with the families of the victims of Flight 93 and revere and commend the bravery of the passengers at the hands of the heartless, cold blooded murderers that took such promising lives. I do, however, feel it is wrong and a sign of things to come that the ALL POWERFUL US Government can steal land from property owners, some of which have been in the families for generations to erect and establish such an all encompassing memorial, the same purpose and reverance could be demonstrated on a somewhat smaller scale. I know the families miss their loved ones and rightly so, but after observing the sometimes militant actions of the families of the World Trade victims, I really feel they are wanting to do anything, everything something in an attempt to replace what they lost, sometimes at the violation of the rights of others. I sometimes wonder, and again, any and all loss of life is a tragedy, why if so many lives were lost on 9/11 and mourned, there is not the same dignity and respect afforded to the countless of unborn babies murdered at the hands of the ruthless abortionists, doing it for profit, seems if you make it out of the mother’s womb, then you are home free, the Bible teaches ALL life is precious, not just the ones ‘allowed’ to continue their life when they arrive at merely a new destination, ie, the place of their delivery! God Bless America and also the victims of ALL murders……

atlmom

May 11th, 2009
10:56 am

Mr. sir,

Bob’s view here *is* the libertarian view. Which is basically, leave me alone to do stuff, if I hurt anyone else, then, there aughta be a law against that.

cranky old man

May 11th, 2009
11:57 am

Why does the memorial have to be ready for the 10th anniversary anyway? Why not the 12th? Or the 17th? I’ve never had much patience for symbolic nonsense.

Tired of it!

May 11th, 2009
12:22 pm

Is it just me or is anybody else sick and tired of 9/11 victim stuff? We have a memorial once a year on 12/7 for Pearl Harbour. Their relatives never got the millions the victims of 9/11 received and yet they survived without confiscating acres of land from property owners. Why do we have to have constant reminders, millions of dollars in memorials, etc to remember a tragedy? Can we start looking to the future and put the past where it belongs? We are not going to ever forget 9/11 but do we have to constantly have it in our face years later? Give it a break!

Joe

May 11th, 2009
12:24 pm

Wow, congrats Davis! You managed to sneek abortion garbage into a discussion about eminent domain. That takes a special kind of idiot.

sd

May 11th, 2009
12:36 pm

Imagine what you could do with 2,200 acres and $60m!!!

What a waste.

Just make a green space out of the actual field where the crash occurred. Then erect a tasteful monument with the names of the victims. You’d need 3 acres and $1m to do it nice.

Copyleft

May 11th, 2009
12:40 pm

Oh, so Mr. Barr HAS heard of eminent domain. Right up until the very end of this column, I was wondering if somebody would have to clue him in on this important principle written directly in our Constitution.

Now: What’s the problem again? Because most of his rant is about the evils of “government taking private property for public use” and paying them for it–in other words, the core of the eminent domain ideal. But then at the end, he shows that he HAS heard of it. So what’s the problem?

Ward

May 11th, 2009
12:40 pm

All I have to add is, those who say they respect life above all else had better be vegetarians. I respect our right and ability to make hard choices for ourselves.

MrLiberty

May 11th, 2009
12:41 pm

9/11 marked the final nail in the coffin for both liberty and common sense in this country. Just look at how far our government has taken us down the totalitarian rat hole since that day. We don’t respect civil war battle fields as much as this crash site. You can be sure that if a well-connected property owner had the plane crash on his property this wouldn’t be going on at all.

While we’re at it, maybe now would be a good time to call for the truth on what really happened to flight 93. We know that the official version is nothing but lies. Maybe this will just end up being another memorial to the truth like so many other government tragedy memorials.

itpdude

May 11th, 2009
12:45 pm

Spot on, Mr. Barr, spot on.

GOP take note: Barr’s libertarian ways are the winners for a new GOP.

Texas Pete

May 11th, 2009
12:56 pm

I’m sure Obama will find a way to tax the land holders forced sell to the point there will be no profit from the transaction. Welcome to Socialism.

Marsha Bond

May 11th, 2009
1:17 pm

Wow Texas Pete, I knew I could not get through this blog without somehow this being President Obama’s fault.

Texas Pete

May 11th, 2009
1:25 pm

After Obama and his media thugs got the Chrysler bond holders to give up any hope of ever getting repaid, I’m sure these land holders will be identified and villified to the point that they will give their land to the government and pay for the monument themselves.

Kermit

May 11th, 2009
1:26 pm

Yeah – this is Change We Can Believe In!

Mike D

May 11th, 2009
1:28 pm

I’m sure were only a few years away from the government thinking that no small group of people should own 2200 acres to begin with. That it would be best if the government held all the large tracks of land for the good of the people.

Tired of it!

May 11th, 2009
1:30 pm

Texas Pete – just to refresh your short memory, Obama was not President when this as voted in TWO years ago!

Kermit

May 11th, 2009
1:33 pm

Yeah, but the democrat-controlled Pelosi congress was!

SaveOurRepublic

May 11th, 2009
1:38 pm

This is yet another eminent domain encroachment of Americans private property rights (falling in line with the UN’s Agenda 21/sustainable development ruse). We see more government abuse of (un-Constitutional) power & squandering of taxpayer dollars…and for what?? ….more propaganda leveraging the 9/11 false-flag as a pretext for an Orwellian police-state & Globalist foreign entanglements!!!

http://www.seeloosechange.com

TheForgottenMan

May 11th, 2009
1:49 pm

We are all victims of terrorism — a government that woould behave in this manner.

Charlie Kane

May 11th, 2009
1:50 pm

Anyone who uses “eminent domain” and “ideal” in the same sentence is obviously retarded. And, BTW, “paying for it” is not the “core of the concept. TAKING is the core of the concept, as in the King takes what he wants; peasants “own” property at the pleasure of the King. The US constitution merely added that “just compensation” be paid for what is taken “in the public interest.” of course, now politicians have strange ideas what constitutes “public interest.” As for “just compensation,” it is what the government says it is. Don’t like the amount, then you have to take government, with it’s limitless pockets, to court. Difficult for a private citizen to take on that fight. so, let’s try not to be disingenuous about what eminent domain in a real, practical sense really means: It’s the government stealing private property at the point of a gun.

Allen

May 11th, 2009
1:54 pm

Bob, you left out something here: “forcing property owners to sell their land and businesses to local, state and federal government agencies for all manner of projects . . . ”
Eminent domain is actually used as much, if not more, to force landowners to give up their land to private businesses, utilities in particular, for private profit in the form of easements for pipelines, power lines, and the like, not to mention for construction of such things as privately owned mining and drilling (natural gas etc.) projects. Surf around ferc.gov’s library for comments from private citizens, particularly for the easements, if you don’t believe me.

Slick Willy

May 11th, 2009
2:11 pm

I bet under Obama we’ll use a giant portion of that land to build a mosque, and a Mecca of the west. Its not a very well kept secret that Obama is going to convert us to Islam.

Snuggie

May 11th, 2009
2:23 pm

Now that Obama has become so successful, do you think he will dump Michelle for a white woman?

Davis

May 11th, 2009
2:28 pm

An idiot is one who does NOT know how to spell the word SNEAK!!!, I rest my case…….CHOOSE LIFE……..

Bob J

May 11th, 2009
2:40 pm

For a good discussion on this eminent domain issue rent the movie “castle.” “A man’s home is his castle.”

Copyleft

May 11th, 2009
3:07 pm

Charlie: So basically, like Mr. Barr does, you have a problem with part of the Constitution itself? You’d prefer that eminent domain NOT be in there?

Then propose an amendment instead of griping that this is somehow “unconstitutional” when it obviously is not.

Been there

May 11th, 2009
3:17 pm

I visit the temporary crash site of Flight 93 every year during my visit to PA for my family reunion. I always thought that the simple memorial that was created was a wonderful way to remember the people who lost their lives there. It’s amazing how you drive out the small country backroads to get to the area and realize how incredible it was that the plane was downed in such a remote area without injuring any persons on the ground. Visitors can quietly reflect what happened on that day. I think that a nicer permanent memorial is warranted but certainly it could have been created without seizing land from homeowners and without spending mega-millions. It’s in a very small town — it’s not New York or Washington,D.C. where there are other things to do. How many people are going to plan a trip just to visit the multi-million dollar crash site if there’s nothing else to do there?

Joe

May 11th, 2009
3:30 pm

Davis your mother didn’t believe in abortion. Too bad for us.

Democrap Party

May 11th, 2009
3:30 pm

WELCOME TO THE WONDERFUL WORLD OF SOCIALISM FOLKS! IT STARTED UNDER BILL CLINTON, GEORGE BUSH AND NOW BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA!

Davis

May 11th, 2009
3:38 pm

You are misguided and have too much ego if you consider yourself with the ‘us’ you are referring to, haven’t figured out what you are yet, but glad you made it through your mother’s womb any way, so one day you may figure it all out, you have the liberty to do so…CHOOSE LIFE…

Texas Pete

May 11th, 2009
3:48 pm

I wonder what the next thing our government will take because it thinks it is excessive. It wont be long before anyone making over minimum wages will be called greedy sobs and the IRS will hammer them into submission.

The REAL GodHatesTrash, Superstar

May 11th, 2009
5:19 pm

I’m embarrassed that the Bush administration set aside $58M for this monument to fearmongering.

A couple of summers ago I was walking in London, and I noticed a 2 square foot plaque on a fence at the site of the bus that was blown up on the day of the tube bombings there.

I wish this nation had a stiff upper lip, instead of all the wailing, moaning, and hiding under the bed from our cowardly neo-con friends.

Eric

May 11th, 2009
6:14 pm

Once again, good article, Mr. Barr! I am very upset with this government abuse and it needs to stop! A more modest marker/site would be appropriate, given such a somber event.

Hillbilly Nationalist

May 11th, 2009
6:20 pm

Eminent domain is a legitimate tool. It’s a tool to be rarely used, but invocable if the purpose is clearly for the the common good. Many times it has not been used correctly. It should also be used very sparingly. Many times this has also not been the case.

This is certainly not an example of what our founders had in mind.

booger

May 11th, 2009
6:30 pm

Why should this be a surprise. If the govt. can fire the CEO of a company, Give itself power to take over any bank it sees fit, Tell California it cannot cut state workers salaries or it will lose its stimulus money, Change longstanding rules by moving unions ahead of secured bondholders in the Chrysler fiasco, They certainly have no problems shafting a few property owners in Penn.

I’m sure the govt. response will be similar to that to the bondholders of Chrysler. These people are not putting national interest ahead of their own.

SJM

May 12th, 2009
7:27 am

I grew up in Somerset, Pa and lived about 9 miles from the crash site. I sympathize will all the victims and I cannot speak for their families; however, I do know that the government is also ‘hijacking’ the rights of these landowners. There are stealing from lower middle class – poor, hard-working farmers and miners, who desperately need their land to keep from becoming a victim of our government’s misuse and abuse of power!

Copyleft

May 12th, 2009
7:47 am

Booger: So, you’re claiming that eminent domain is NOT Constitutional? Or just that it should never be used?

You need to clarify exactly what you’re outraged about today.

Arnie

May 12th, 2009
8:20 am

Thought this would be of interest to readers.

Since September 2001 I have maintained a free and confidential “9/11 list-serv”.

The “9/11 list-serv” distributes daily e-mails containing newspaper articles and other relevant information re: 9/11 issues of interest to 9/11 families, 9/11 organizations and interested individuals.

The 9/11 List-serv archives can be accessed at http://groups.google.com/group/911-list-serv

If you would like to ’subscribe’ to this free news service – send an e-mail to amkorotkin@aol.com with the word “subscribe” in the subject box.

Arnie

Charlie Kane

May 12th, 2009
8:52 am

Copyleft, where I did I say that eminent domain was “unconstitutional”? In fact, I did not. You, however stated that the “core” of the eminent domain “ideal” was payment for the property taken. Part of that is laughable, and part of that is simply in error. Eminent domain is clearly constitutional, but that doesn’t make it right. (Slavery and segregation were once constitutional.) I have no illusions that this loathsome remnant of the absolute power of kings will be eradicated from the constitution, nor do I have realistic hope that it will be applied as the founding fathers intended (which wasn’t construct to wal-marts & monuments). It’s just such cretins as you that potentially serve on juries in eminent domain cases that makes the State feel secure in wielding its Taking power with impunity.

SaveOurRepublic

May 12th, 2009
9:10 am

Folks, it is the utter abuse of “eminent domain” that is the core issue (as witnessed in Kelo vs. New London). This abuse/expansion of eminent domain falls squarely in line with the sustainable development objectives set forth via the (Globalist) UN’s Agenda 21.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21

Pat

May 12th, 2009
9:21 am

I think a simple, dignified monument and small garden with benches for visiting family members would be appropriate to the tragedy and far more respectful to American ideals. How ironic that the assault on our Constitutional liberties that the terrorists sparked, and the Bush administration was emboldened to wage full scale, is now being continued by those purporting to honor the Flight 93 victims. The Obama administration has probably allowed this farce to proceed due to being cowed by fears of being accused of “not sufficiently honoring the victims of terrorism.” They need to yield to non-partisan common sense. Outrageous.

Democrap Party

May 12th, 2009
9:26 am

More liberal hypocrisy. President Teleprompter tells us that owning a private jet hurts the environment. Yet………….

Oprah: It’s Great to Have a Private Jet

The private-jet industry may have finally found its savior.

During a speech to Duke University’s graduating class, Oprah talked about the secrets and joys of success. Among them: owning a mansion and a jet.

“It’s great to have a nice home. It’s great to have nice homes! It’s great to have a nice home that just escaped the fire in Santa Barbara,” she told the students. “It’s great to have a private jet. Anyone that tells you that having your own private jet isn’t great is lying to you.”

She went on to explain that “you haven’t completed the circle of success until you help someone else move to a higher ground and get to a better place.”

The golden nugget here is the jet part. In these times of hair-shirt capitalism and envy politics, the wealthy have been going to great lengths to pretend they don’t enjoy luxury or want nice stuff. If Oprah were like most of the faux-populist rich today, she would have said something like, “I don’t need private jets, in fact I’m happier flying commercial and living in a small house. I like the simple life.” Of course, she would be lying.

Democrap Party

May 12th, 2009
9:32 am

Copyleft

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?

SaveOurRepublic

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).

http://www.seeloosechange.com

Skodaman

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

HA HA HA! THIS IS EXCELLENT! TRUMP TRUMPS GAY BUTT SEX MARRIAGE AND SHOVES IT RIGHT DOWN THEIR PIE HOLES!

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.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22413.html

Copyleft

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.

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

Copyleft

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)

hihihi

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?

Hugh

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

Marie

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