Darn heavy-handed .gov taking land in Shanksville, PA

nitesite

Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2002
Messages
440
Reaction score
134
Location
Morgan County Alabama -
The US Park Service announced today that it is going to take 500-acres from property owners in order to build a 2,200-acre memorial for victims of Flight 93.

I've been seething mad over the Kelo vs New London decision.

Now this story leaves me angry all over again.

Government to condemn land for Flight 93 memorial

By DAN NEPHIN, Associated Press Writer

PITTSBURGH – The government will begin taking land from seven property owners so that the Flight 93 memorial can be built in time for the 10th anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks, the National Park Service said.

In a statement obtained by The Associated Press, the park service said it had teamed up with a group representing the victims' families to work with landowners since before 2005 to acquire the land.

"But with few exceptions, these negotiations have been unsuccessful," said the statement.

Landowners dispute that negotiations have taken place and say they are disappointed at the turn of events.

The seven property owners own about 500 acres still needed for what will ultimately be a $58 million, 2,200-acre permanent memorial and national park at the crash site near Shanksville, about 60 miles southeast of Pittsburgh.

"We always prefer to get that land from a willing seller. And sometimes you can just not come to an agreement on certain things," park service spokesman Phil Sheridan said.

"Basically, at this point, we have not been able to acquire all the land we need," he said.

Even with willing sellers, Sheridan said title questions, liens and other claims can arise that would have to be worked out and could delay the project.

"We had a group of people who took some very heroic actions. It's just fitting and right that we get this done in time for the 10th anniversary," he said.

The next step will be for the U.S. Justice Department to file a complaint in federal court. A court would have to decide the matter and would set a value on the land.

Two owners account for about 420 acres the park service plans to condemn, including Svonavec Inc. — which owns 275 acres, including the impact site where 40 passengers and crew died. About 150 acres are owned by a family that operates a scrap yard.

Most of rest of the land to be condemned are small parcels, two of which include cabins.

Tony Kordell said the park service visited him late Friday afternoon and made him an offer for his 150 acres. He declined to give the price, but said his attorney requested the appraisal used to determine the value on Monday.

He's not gotten that appraisal, he said Thursday. On Wednesday, he was told the park service would condemn the land.

The property Kordell owns includes the scrap yard, which must be relocated and he said cost to move the business also hasn't been determined. The property includes where the visitor center, parking lot and park walkways will be placed, he said.

"We've been working with (the park service) all along. We've given them rights to come on the property" to do planning, he said.

"All it's going to do is cost a huge amount of money for attorneys," he said.


Randall Musser owns about 62 acres that the park service wants to acquire.

"They apologized about the way it's come together, but what's sad is they had all these years to put this together and they haven't," he said.
Musser served on the committee that helped establish the park's boundaries and said landowners were promised in 2002 that eminent domain would not be used.

"It's absolutely a surprise. I'm shocked by it. I'm disappointed by it," said Tim Lambert, who owns nearly 164 acres that his grandfather bought in the 1930s. The park service plans to condemn two parcels totaling about five acres — land, he said, he had always intended to donate for the memorial.

"To the best of my knowledge and my lawyer, absolutely no negotiations have taken place with the park service where we've sat down and discussed this," Lambert said.

Lambert said he had mainly dealt with the Families of Flight 93 and said he's provided the group all the information it's asked for, including an appraisal.

While he knew that condemnation was a possibility, he thought it was an unlikely scenario and that the park service and family group had wanted to acquire the larger parcels before dealing with owners of smaller properties.
"I was never told that May was the drop-deadline," he said.

Patrick White, the vice president of Flight 93 Families, welcomed the park service's action and had planned to ask for it at an upcoming meeting with Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar.

"We appreciate the timely nature of this decision, which will keep us on the timetable for the tenth year dedication of the permanent memorial," he said in a statement.

Sheriden said condemnation is rarely used. The last time the park service used it, he said, was to acquire a tower at the Gettysburg battlefield in 2000. The tower was demolished to return the battlefield to the way it looked in 1863.

In February, government officials and representatives of the 33 passengers and seven crew members killed when the plane crashed on Sept. 11, 2001, pledged to dedicate a memorial on the site by the 10th anniversary. Officials said then that more than 80 percent of the needed land had been secured.

United Flight 93 was traveling from Newark, N.J., to San Francisco when it was diverted by hijackers with the likely goal of crashing it into the White House or Capitol. The official 9/11 Commission report said the hijackers crashed the plane as passengers tried to wrest control of the cockpit.

___
On the Net: Flight 93 National Memorial: http://www.nps.gov/flni
 
Register to hide this ad
I suppose a memorial of some kind is appropriate, but 2200 acres! The entire Arlington National Cemetery is only 624 acres. This is just more of the over reaction to the 9/11 tragedy brought on by politicians trying to curry favor with the public. Families of 9/11 victims were given millions each while families of military KIA's are given insurance benefits, a flag and a pat on the head.
 
This is nothing new. Over here in the 1960s, the government confiscated land on both sides of the Delaware river for the Tocks Island Dam project, a project which never came to fruition for multiple reasons, among which was the cost of the Viet Nam war. Whole towns were abandoned. Now it's the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area.
 
2200 acres?! What the hell are they building, an airport? We all know if the govt. wants some land they WILL get it, whether they buy it or steal it, it will be theirs.
 
PRECISELY!!! Who gives a rip about a memorial. Those that are in favor of it - fine. How about 20 acres instead of 2200! ....
This is just another of the annointed one's socialist bullshit tricks......gearing up for his re-election campaign, using the hysteria of 911 to fan the fires.
 
You're darned right its not right for the gumm'nt to steal citizens' property ... but they do it every April 15th, every year. What makes this feel more eggregious, is the lump-sum-edness of it, rather than the peanutbutter spread-edness way the IRS thugs do it.

Its still a travesty, and our founding fathers must make another turn like a spit in their graves, every time it happens.
 
Barb,

Also in the 60's the government used eminent domain to acquire/confiscate/steal land in Kentucky, an area of land over twenty miles in length lying between the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers. After several years of management/mismanagement by TVA the land is now managed/mismanaged by the Forest Service.

Now know as Land Between the Lakes because both rivers were dammed for power generation with a claim of flood control.

Bekeart


This is nothing new. Over here in the 1960s, the government confiscated land on both sides of the Delaware river for the Tocks Island Dam project, a project which never came to fruition for multiple reasons, among which was the cost of the Viet Nam war. Whole towns were abandoned. Now it's the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area.
 
I admit that I knew very little about the US Government's use of eminent domain (other than for dam projects and highways and airports and such) until the 2005 Kelo decision. That ruling angered me just as much as the despicable relocation treatment inflicted upon Native Americans in the 1800s and early 1900s.

So I started paying more attention to incidents of the over-reaching power of the US Government and the abuse of the Fifth Amendment.

Kelo was eye-opening for me. Then, in 2005/2006 the case of Riviera Beach, FL further infuriated me. Thousands of people were displaced in order for a boat marina and upscale housing to move in.

Wells vs. City of Riviera Beach

http://www.ij.org/index.php?op...ew&id=964&Itemid=165

What happened there got some national attention, but Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes were blowing the loudest warning trumpets. When you read the comments of the land developer who wanted to build the proposed yachting complex, it gets pretty frightening. Mind you, this is not the .gov expressing its opinion, but this individual was being backed by the Florida Legislature.

Here are some archived excerpts from the Hannity/Colmes Show

http://www.foxnews.com/printer...,3566,177978,00.html

A Developer Defends the Rivera Beach Project in Florida

Wednesday, December 07, 2005

This is a partial transcript from "Hannity & Colmes," December 6, 2005, that has been edited for clarity.

ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: Over the course of the past several nights, we've been telling you the story of the people of Riviera Beach, Florida. Because of eminent domain, as many as 6,000 people could lose their homes to make room for a new marina and more expensive housing.

Now, we've heard from homeowners who oppose the plan, the mayor who supports it. Tomorrow Sean will visit Riviera Beach, Florida, and he'll host the show live from one of the homes that could be destroyed.

Now this is a story that should concern all Americans, because if it could happen to them, it can happen to you.

And joining us now is one of the developers involved with this plan, James Webb.

Mr. Webb, what right do you or does anybody else have to take peoples' homes away or small businesses away and go in there and develop — not hospitals or schools — but yacht clubs and more expensive housing?

JAMES WEBB, DEVELOPER: Well, quite on the contrary, our interest is not to take any jobs away or to take any homes. I was brought into the project with the massive (ph) developer to create affordable housing and opportunity for economic empowerment.

COLMES: What are you building? Are you building — what kind of housing are you building?

WEBB: We're building single family homes, and we're also rehabbing existing homes for residents that might not otherwise be able to afford it.

COLMES: But aren't people being displaced and thrown out of their homes and businesses in order for this redevelopment to take place?

WEBB: I think that this project is probably one of the most misunderstood development projects in the country. With the facts that I've seen, we're looking at approximately about 347 homesteaders that could lose their homes and another 1,000 people that are renters that may actually be displaced.

COLMES: What right — what right does the government have, again, other than for building hospitals or schools or things in the public interest — I don't care whether it's 6,000, as have been reported, or 347. Whatever the number is, what right does the government have or a developer to come in and displace people?

WEBB: I agree with you 100 percent. Eminent domain, I'm not a proponent of eminent domain.

COLMES: But you're participating...

WEBB: And I'm not a proponent, as well, of regentrification or any of the other tactics that have been used historically that have taken property from African-Americans.

My participation is to make sure that, not only as I told the development team when they interviewed me to bring me into the project, that of the 380 businesses in this zone now, my interest is to make sure that they double that number by the time this development finishes.

SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: Mr. Webb, you have yet to deal with this question. I want a direct answer to my question. I want to know up or down, yes or know, is it true to do what you want in this redevelopment will people who have lived in some homes for decades, will they lose their homes to make way for your projects, yes or no?

WEBB: The direct answer to that question, is No. 1, I'm not the massive developer (ph). I'm the developer of affordable housing.

HANNITY: This is a yes or no question, Sir. I'm asking, to do this development, will people lose their private residences and businesses? Will they be kicked out after the government pushes them out and gives them a check, yes or no?

WEBB: The government has that authority.

HANNITY: I didn't ask you if they have the authority. In this instance...

WEBB: You have to...

HANNITY: Sir, you've got to help me out here. Our audience needs to know...

WEBB: OK. All right.

HANNITY: ... for this project to be completed to build the yacht club, to build the condos, to build the development, will people be kicked out of their homes after they get a check from the government? Will they be forced out. Yes or no?

WEBB: Does it have to be a yes or no answer?

HANNITY: Yes, sir.

WEBB: I would say no the way that the question is phrased.

HANNITY: Sir, the fact is, the answer is yes. The answer is yes. I've talked to these homeowners. They're going to be thrown out of their homes. The government says, you must — some people have been there decades. They're going to be forced out so the government — not for roads, bridges or schools, but they're going to be forced out so the government can give it to a developer to build condos and a big yacht marina. Isn't that true? Tell me where I'm wrong.

WEBB: Well, you're wrong, because there's more than going on in Riviera Beach than just yacht development. You're talking about a community that's a blighted community. Let's talk about...

HANNITY: I don't care if it's blighted.

WEBB: ... the realty of the domain.

HANNITY: What you view as blighted is somebody's castle.

WEBB: Eminent — eminent domain is possible because of blight. Where does blight come from? Because of a lack of capitalization in these communities. This community is no different than any other community...

HANNITY: You did not answer my question. I'm looking...

WEBB: ... in America that's an African-American low-income community.

HANNITY: Sir...

WEBB: The blight itself is the root of the problem.

HANNITY: James — James, I can tell you're a smart man, Sir. You've got to answer my question here, because I'm looking at the neighborhood and maybe it's not West Palm Beach, which is right adjacent. Maybe it's not wealthy mansions, but these are the homes of people, hard working, law abiding — hang on a second — tax paying citizens.

Let me ask you, to do your development, I will ask you one more time, to do this development, will you be forcing people out of their homes? Look in that camera and tell us the truth, yes or no? The answer is yes, isn't it?

WEBB: I will not force anyone out, because I don't have the authority.

HANNITY: But the government will. The government is forcing them out to make way for your development, isn't that true?

WEBB: They have — they have the power and the authority to do that.

HANNITY: And they're going to use it here, aren't they?

WEBB: In some ways, they may as a last resort.

HANNITY: <span class="ev_code_RED">So how do you — how — what right do you have, sir, or anybody, government entity, to force taxpayers, American citizens out of their homes to give it to another American citizen because they're going to build a nicer house? Is that fair? Do you believe that's fair? Whatever happened to our rights to private property? Do you think that's fair?</span>

WEBB: <span class="ev_code_RED">If they live — if they live in the nicer house that's being built, I think it's fair. And I think that if this program is explained to them correctly...</span>

HANNITY: No, they're being thrown out! They're not going to get that property. They're done; they're out. They're going to get the money and say, "Sorry, we paid you."

WEBB: No, they're not. They're not done.

HANNITY: Oh, yes, they are.

WEBB: They're not done. They're not out. No, they're not. And the whole premise behind eminent domain is blight. We have to cure blight at the source. And...

HANNITY: You don't like what their house looks like, but that's their castle.

WEBB: ... I'm not.

COLMES: The premise should be hospitals, schools, things in the public interest.

WEBB: I've — I've rehabbed 500 of those properties over the last four years.

COLMES: You're kicking people out of their houses...

WEBB: I love the way their houses look. Part of what we're doing is rehabbing existing homes.

COLMES: You're throwing people out of their houses to build nicer houses.

WEBB: No, you've got the wrong guy. I'm not the guy throwing anyone out of their homes.

HANNITY: Yes, but you're a big part of this project.

COLMES: You're developing homes replacing other homes that people are being tossed out of.

WEBB: For the affordable housing portion, of course. That's what the...

COLMES: We will continue this tomorrow night. Thank you for being with us.

HANNITY: I'll be down. I'm going to be down there.

COLMES: Sean will be there for a special edition of "Hannity & Colmes," hosting from Riviera Beach, Florida. We'll take you to the homes that people could lose and you'll see why they're fighting so hard to keep what is rightfully theirs.

Watch "Hannity & Colmes" weeknights at 9 p.m. ET!

Content and Programming Copyright 2005 FOX News Network, L.L.C. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2005 eMediaMillWorks, Inc. (f/k/a Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.), which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material except for the user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon FOX News Network, L.L.C.'s and eMediaMillWorks, Inc.'s copyrights or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.
 
I've been to that crash site several times already and found it to be a great tribute to those who were involved.
Just a little more preservation is all that is really needed.
It figures that when the government gets involved, everything goes to poop.

They could have screwed up the "Last Supper" if they were there.
 
What the US Government does in land aquisition does sometimes seem unfair to the affected owners. On the other hand if they hadn't done so this country would be condos, theme parks, suburbia, malls from one end to the other. Just look at the terrible work done by the condo and hotel developers along the Florida coast. On the panhandle from Mobile to Tallahassee there are only 20 or so miles of natural coast left out of 300 and these are mostly military bases and small parks. The rest is just garbaged up development. I for one favor Federal land acquisition to stop development where ever possible.
 
No matter the way you slice it, eminent domain is WRONG!

Even for roads or bridges, the owner MUST be compensated with fair market value, even if it is a lot or could imperil the project - the cost of doing business.
 
This one hits close to home.

Not the project opened, the eminent domain part.

I'm too old to be homeless. I don't want a mortgage. I bought the house I live in so I could retire and spend the rest of my life where I am.

But a few years ago the state gave the city a grant to buy land for a firehouse. They had to use it by the end of 2008 or lose it. They got an extension until the end of this year. They don't have the money to build, but they want the land. And guess who's corner lots are right in the middle of what they want to take.

Of course the city hasn't bothered to talk to me. They hired a private real estate agent to attempt to negotiate the purchase (plausible deniability). They're saying they won't use eminent domain to take my home. Of course I don't trust them. The real estate guy hasn't made any offers. Either to me or my neighbors.

Why they'd want to take prime property with a view is beyond me. And why they'd want to site a firehouse in the middle of a residential area seems dumb. Every night I hear them screaming past the house on an empty road, siren going full blast, doing nothing but making sure everyone is awake since they are.

In the past the city's approach has been to offer rock bottom prices. Basically they want you to feel honored they're offering you what you paid 15 years earlier. Of course you can't replace the house for what they want to give you. And if you go to court, you get to pay your lawyers fees out of what you get. Meaning you have to get 50% more than offered just to break even!

Thoughts on the subject include if I ever get a terminal disease, maybe the best course of action would be to just visit each of the people who openly vote to take my property. If more people who have property someone wants to take would just shoot the politicians involved, we'd have a much more cautious government.
 
Originally posted by n4zov:
I suppose a memorial of some kind is appropriate, but 2200 acres! The entire Arlington National Cemetery is only 624 acres. This is just more of the over reaction to the 9/11 tragedy brought on by politicians trying to curry favor with the public. Families of 9/11 victims were given millions each while families of military KIA's are given insurance benefits, a flag and a pat on the head.

+ 1000 !!!
 
First, it is utterly disgraceful that some property owners wouldn't sell their property so the memorial could be timely built. It should have been built long ago. (It's similarly a disgrace that the WTC site remains as it is. That's another story...)

I have no sympathy for the Shanksville land owners now affected after their attempts to extort money from the taxpayers.

To possibly explain the acreage, the actual impact site is not near a main road. Allowing proper access will necessiate more property than needed for the memorial, proper. There will be a visitor center, parking, etc. which account for space.

The current site is appalling. It's a mockery of the heroism Flight 93 passengers and crew apparently displayed.

The government will not be taking the land; owners will be compensated. Let it be known there's not much there, of significance, that can't be replaced. The businesses could easily be relocated. There is ample land within a short distance.

I have no dog in this fight but I assure you I was hugely disappointed in the current conditions upon visiting the site last year. That said, I was moved by the respect being paid to the victims/heroes as evidenced by the mementos and notes displayed.

Be safe.
 
Originally posted by The Big D:
First, it is utterly disgraceful that some property owners wouldn't sell their property so the memorial could be timely built. It should have been built long ago. (It's similarly a disgrace that the WTC site remains as it is. That's another story...)

I have no sympathy for the Shanksville land owners now affected after their attempts to extort money from the taxpayers.

To possibly explain the acreage, the actual impact site is not near a main road. Allowing proper access will necessiate more property than needed for the memorial, proper. There will be a visitor center, parking, etc. which account for space.

The current site is appalling. It's a mockery of the heroism Flight 93 passengers and crew apparently displayed.

The government will not be taking the land; owners will be compensated. Let it be known there's not much there, of significance, that can't be replaced. The businesses could easily be relocated. There is ample land within a short distance.

I have no dog in this fight but I assure you I was hugely disappointed in the current conditions upon visiting the site last year. That said, I was moved by the respect being paid to the victims/heroes as evidenced by the mementos and notes displayed.

Be safe.
I don't even know what to say.Where do you get off accusing people, who don't want to give up land that's been in their family for generations in some cases,of extortion.How would you like it if you or a family member busted your ass to buy and work that land only to have someone come take it by force?This is still America,Land of the Free.
 
Originally posted by The Big D:
First, it is utterly disgraceful that some property owners wouldn't sell their property so the memorial could be timely built. It should have been built long ago. (It's similarly a disgrace that the WTC site remains as it is. That's another story...)

I have no sympathy for the Shanksville land owners now affected after their attempts to extort money from the taxpayers.

To possibly explain the acreage, the actual impact site is not near a main road. Allowing proper access will necessiate more property than needed for the memorial, proper. There will be a visitor center, parking, etc. which account for space.

The current site is appalling. It's a mockery of the heroism Flight 93 passengers and crew apparently displayed.

The government will not be taking the land; owners will be compensated. Let it be known there's not much there, of significance, that can't be replaced. The businesses could easily be relocated. There is ample land within a short distance.

I have no dog in this fight but I assure you I was hugely disappointed in the current conditions upon visiting the site last year. That said, I was moved by the respect being paid to the victims/heroes as evidenced by the mementos and notes displayed.

Be safe.

+1000.

And I have no dog in this fight either. Aside from my admiration for the passengers and crew of Flight 93.
 
Back
Top