Pennsylvania 9/11 Memeorial Woes

[DrinkMore]

I read this story ....

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/...ute/index.html

and I think it's complete BS. I was there watching this tragedy happening and unfolding on tv. To this day I get chills watching any video about it. However, I think what the parks and government agencies are doing here is flat out wrong. These people OWN their land. It's theirs. It does NOT belong to anyone else but them and they should NOT be forced to sell it or give it away. That is the most screwed up thing I have ever heard.

I feel just as bad as the next person about all this and let me say this - if I had family that died on that plane, I would be devastated. However, I would not need a memorial. There is one being built in New York already. Why do we need yet another memorial? Please excuse me, I am not trying to be rude or anything but I don't see the point.

A 2,200 acre memorial with a visitors center? Because there are going to be SWARMS of people coming there? What's wrong with a simple plaque and an obelisk rising from the ground a certain height? Why do we need walkways, walls, a visitors center? Jeesh. More money down the drain. I just don't get it. Grief or not - why take land from these people when it does not belong to anyone else for something that is going to disrupt their lives, cost money to build and maintain?

I would like to see this same thing done at the Pentagon. Yeah right. That will go over well won't it? What a crock.

Sorry to anyone that lost someone in this tragedy but 8 years later - no memorial - honestly - why bother at this point? More waste. Honor your loved one in other ways. Leave these poor people alone. Imagine all the memorials we would need for all the tragedies that have happened. The US would be nothing but a memorial.

[toef]

Eminent domain has been around for a long time (read: forever, in American history), so this guy can't really complain.

I'd rather have the government set up a memorial than have a guy potentially own the land and try profiting from it. I'm not saying he has any plans to, but who knows what he might do in the future (including selling it to some billionaire, who would then build September 11th-land Theme Park on the site).

On the other hand, that seems like a huge amount of land for a memorial (over 2,000 acres).

[DrinkMore]

Originally Posted by toefer

Eminent domain has been around for a long time (read: forever, in American history), so this guy can't really complain.

I'd rather have the government set up a memorial than have a guy potentially own the land and try profiting from it. I'm not saying he has any plans to, but who knows what he might do in the future (including selling it to some billionaire, who would then build September 11th-land Theme Park on the site).

On the other hand, that seems like a huge amount of land for a memorial (over 2,000 acres).

Well, I am sure they could come to an agreement that he can't do anything to profit from something like that. I don't think anyone in their right might (that has decency) would do that. At least not this guy. I also think that strong arming someone to do something is BS.

The amount of land needed is excessive and a waste.

[toef]

Originally Posted by DrinkMore

Well, I am sure they could come to an agreement that he can't do anything to profit from something like that. I don't think anyone in their right might (that has decency) would do that. At least not this guy. I also think that strong arming someone to do something is BS.

The amount of land needed is excessive and a waste.

On second thought, I realized why they are asking for all the land.

Look at what happened to Disneyland when it was created, and Walt didn't think of buying up all the surrounding land. Porn shops and other unsightly things started popping up everywhere.

So I'm sure the government has learned from Disneyworld to take up more space than they actually need, that way they at least create some buffer room between the memorial and any sleazy shops that open up.

Sure the current owners might not have any plans, but who knows who will end up inheriting the land, and what they will do with it 10, 20, 50 years from now.

[DrinkMore]

Originally Posted by toefer

On second thought, I realized why they are asking for all the land.

Look at what happened to Disneyland when it was created, and Walt didn't think of buying up all the surrounding land. Porn shops and other unsightly things started popping up everywhere.

So I'm sure the government has learned from Disneyworld to take up more space than they actually need, that way they at least create some buffer room between the memorial and any sleazy shops that open up.

Sure the current owners might not have any plans, but who knows who will end up inheriting the land, and what they will do with it 10, 20, 50 years from now.

It does not matter what they do with it. The land BELONGS to the owner. Not anyone else but them and they should NOT be forced to sell it. For any reason. Period.

[cartman781]

Originally Posted by DrinkMore

It does not matter what they do with it. The land BELONGS to the owner. Not anyone else but them and they should NOT be forced to sell it. For any reason. Period.

I agree. I have always thought of eminent domain as complete BS

[Rob71]

Originally Posted by cartman781

I agree. I have always thought of eminent domain as complete BS

Lately it has been. Forcing landowners off their property so that developers can build and increase tax revenues was not what Eminent Domain was meant to be.
I wonder what kind of money the town is going to get by having a park/ monument in it's limits? Will this rural community now get a few restaurants and a hotel or two? Cynical I know.

Reminds me of a saying:

Never trust the government... Just ask an Indian.

What would be so bad about a small monument/memorial with enough parking to handle a few hundred vehicles? After the initial opening, it will never have that many people at one time again. If it does, then talk to the landowners about getting some more land.

[PH3AR]

thats wrong!

[toef]

Originally Posted by DrinkMore

It does not matter what they do with it. The land BELONGS to the owner. Not anyone else but them and they should NOT be forced to sell it. For any reason. Period.

We all live by the Constitution, and a justified reason iss set out in there pretty well.

Plus I'd rather have the government take the land now, so at least we know nothing crazy will ever be done with it (unless you consider the memorial crazy).

And it's not like the government can just get away with whatever they want. If the land owner doesn't agree to sell the land, then it will go to a hearing, and the government has to plead its case as to why it needs the land.

In the case of a 9/11 memorial, I don't think too many people are going to be siding with the land owner in the hearing.

Of the 2,200 acres, the eminent domain applies to just 500 of them that (I think) 7 owners are holding out over. The actual memorial takes up 400 acres (which still seems pretty big) and the rest is a buffer zone, to prevent any businesses from setting up shops right next to the memorial. And from something I read, it seems that half of the land will still be owned privately, and is just part of an agreement with the government about what can/can't be done with or on it.

[DrinkMore]

Originally Posted by toefer

We all live by the Constitution, and a justified reason iss set out in there pretty well.

Plus I'd rather have the government take the land now, so at least we know nothing crazy will ever be done with it (unless you consider the memorial crazy).

And it's not like the government can just get away with whatever they want. If the land owner doesn't agree to sell the land, then it will go to a hearing, and the government has to plead its case as to why it needs the land.

In the case of a 9/11 memorial, I don't think too many people are going to be siding with the land owner in the hearing.

Of the 2,200 acres, the eminent domain applies to just 500 of them that (I think) 7 owners are holding out over. The actual memorial takes up 400 acres (which still seems pretty big) and the rest is a buffer zone, to prevent any businesses from setting up shops right next to the memorial. And from something I read, it seems that half of the land will still be owned privately, and is just part of an agreement with the government about what can/can't be done with or on it.

That's the point your missing. The government does not NEED anything. Why is there going to even be a hearing to decide such? IT'S NOT THEIR LAND. PERIOD. If the people do not want to give it up, it's their choice. Not anyone else's. You can not force someone to give up something that is theirs, they own and have worked for their whole lives.

Not sure why I would even ask you this question because I am pretty sure of the answer you will give - BUT - let's say the government decides to seize your house to build something else. You would just let them take it without question and no issues right?

The strong arm of the government has gotten TOO strong. It needs to be brought back under control.

[toef]

Originally Posted by DrinkMore

That's the point your missing. The government does not NEED anything. Why is there going to even be a hearing to decide such? IT'S NOT THEIR LAND. PERIOD. If the people do not want to give it up, it's their choice. Not anyone else's. You can not force someone to give up something that is theirs, they own and have worked for their whole lives.

Not sure why I would even ask you this question because I am pretty sure of the answer you will give - BUT - let's say the government decides to seize your house to build something else. You would just let them take it without question and no issues right?

The strong arm of the government has gotten TOO strong. It needs to be brought back under control.

No, I think you're paranoid about the government. Read up on how eminent domain works, and you'll realize it's not as simple as the government saying "hey, we need this, thanks!". If the people put up a fight, the government has to present their case. In some cases they've been rejected.

If the government needed my house for some greater cause, then I'd consider it. If I felt it wasn't a legitimate reason, I'd put up a fight.

But you're comparing the government taking my house to them taking acres out of the hundreds of acres I own, which I probably don't even look at every day.

Now, if my backyard happened to be a crash site from 9/11, I'd have no problem giving it up.

And there are two sides to every story. One side is the side you presented, which makes the government out to be bad guys, and the people with the land in question are claiming that the government won't even negotiate with them.

The other side of the story is that they were asking for a lot of money for the land, and that's why the government isn't bothering to negotiate.

From your posts, you're acting like the government is taking peoples land so they can build vacation homes for government officials. In most cases of eminent domain, nobody would question why the land was taken or needed.

So I have no problem with them taking land in this case. The only weird thing is it seems like a lot of land.

[Jwilly019]

My family had a development coming through behind our property and it was mentioned that Eminent Domain could be used to take our land. We did some research and found that in order to take effect, the government has to prove that some public good (usually monetary gain) would come from it. I can't see how this memorial qualifies (perhaps they'll charge to visit the memorial).

[toef]

Originally Posted by Jwilly019

My family had a development coming through behind our property and it was mentioned that Eminent Domain could be used to take our land. We did some research and found that in order to take effect, the government has to prove that some public good (usually monetary gain) would come from it. I can't see how this memorial qualifies (perhaps they'll charge to visit the memorial).

The public domain doesn't have to be a monetary gain, just something that benefits the public. It's actually the monetary gain reasoning that's given eminent domain a bad rap, because theoretically a government can claim doing something will increase tax revenues, which is good for the public, and then it'd be acceptable to take the land.

There are plenty of other examples of a thing being "good" that actually make the government no money (or even cost them money); that would include things like a public memorial (a free sort of monument or building that people can come and mourn at or in), or something fairly common like a fire station.

The bad side of eminent domain is if the government can keep getting away with the "increased tax revenue as a type of public good" excuse, which so far the Supreme Court seems to support. Under this idea, it's possible that a guy who just owns a bunch of land, and who likes to just ride around on his horse across all his property, could end up having the land taken away because the government found someone that can make more use of the land, generate some sort of revenue from it, and then the government taxes it.

That use of eminent domain is bad, but I don't know if anything that ridiculous has happened. On the other hand you have the government wishing to make a 9/11 memorial, which seems like a pretty innocent request.

[DrinkMore]

Really doesn't matter. They should not have to give up their land, no matter how small, for any reason. Good or bad.

[spam.curitiba]

I am waiting for someone to blame it on Bush....

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by DrinkMore

Really doesn't matter. They should not have to give up their land, no matter how small, for any reason. Good or bad.

I disagree.

You're taking a rather illogical stance of 'this shouldn't happen under ANY circumstances' which makes no sense.

You're not really on your land now, it's the governments land, they're just letting you own it. Otherwise I would have declared my condo 'Loganland' and started charging everyone who enters it taxes and tarrifs.

Logan

[cartman781]

Originally Posted by toefer

The public domain doesn't have to be a monetary gain, just something that benefits the public. It's actually the monetary gain reasoning that's given eminent domain a bad rap, because theoretically a government can claim doing something will increase tax revenues, which is good for the public, and then it'd be acceptable to take the land.

There are plenty of other examples of a thing being "good" that actually make the government no money (or even cost them money); that would include things like a public memorial (a free sort of monument or building that people can come and mourn at or in), or something fairly common like a fire station.

The bad side of public domain is if the government can keep getting away with the "increased tax revenue as a type of public good" excuse, which so far the Supreme Court seems to support. Under this idea, it's possible that a guy who just owns a bunch of land, and who likes to just ride around on his horse across all his property, could end up having the land taken away because the government found someone that can make more use of the land, generate some sort of revenue from it, and then the government taxes it.

That use of eminent domain is bad, but I don't know if anything that ridiculous has happened. On the other hand you have the government wishing to make a 9/11 memorial, which seems like a pretty innocent request.

In my town a couple years ago, dozens of people were forced to sell ther homes by eminent domain to build a grocery store. There were already 3 major chain grocery stores within 5 minutes of the site. Now the store that was given this land has shut its doors.

[DrinkMore]

Originally Posted by jadedeath

I disagree.

You're taking a rather illogical stance of 'this shouldn't happen under ANY circumstances' which makes no sense.

You're not really on your land now, it's the governments land, they're just letting you own it. Otherwise I would have declared my condo 'Loganland' and started charging everyone who enters it taxes and tarrifs.

Logan

Your confusing OWNING your land with doing what you want ON your land. There is a difference. The government doesn't own the land. They just happen to make the laws that govern you.

Again, the land belongs to the owner and they should not have to give it up for any reason in this regard.

[Jwilly019]

Originally Posted by toefer

The public domain doesn't have to be a monetary gain, just something that benefits the public. It's actually the monetary gain reasoning that's given eminent domain a bad rap, because theoretically a government can claim doing something will increase tax revenues, which is good for the public, and then it'd be acceptable to take the land.

There are plenty of other examples of a thing being "good" that actually make the government no money (or even cost them money); that would include things like a public memorial (a free sort of monument or building that people can come and mourn at or in), or something fairly common like a fire station.

The bad side of public domain is if the government can keep getting away with the "increased tax revenue as a type of public good" excuse, which so far the Supreme Court seems to support. Under this idea, it's possible that a guy who just owns a bunch of land, and who likes to just ride around on his horse across all his property, could end up having the land taken away because the government found someone that can make more use of the land, generate some sort of revenue from it, and then the government taxes it.

That use of eminent domain is bad, but I don't know if anything that ridiculous has happened. On the other hand you have the government wishing to make a 9/11 memorial, which seems like a pretty innocent request.

That's why I said "usually."

I didn't read the original story, but from what I've gathered from various posts, if the government simply wants to set restrictions on what the current owners can do with that property, that's fine in my book. After all, that's what zoning ordinances and the like are for. If they want to acquire it so they can have a "buffer zone," that's wrong.

Like someone already said, it's been 8 years. I understand that it was a tragic event and for those who lost love ones I'm sure it's still on their minds constantly. But let's be honest, who is going to make a trip to rural PA to see this after the first few months it's open? I think a small memorial is adequate.

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by DrinkMore

Your confusing OWNING your land with doing what you want ON your land. There is a difference. The government doesn't own the land. They just happen to make the laws that govern you.

Again, the land belongs to the owner and they should not have to give it up for any reason in this regard.

If you think the Government doesn't own your land, then put your land up for sale on EBay and tell every state but yours that it's up for sale to that state, see what happens.

Logan