May come down to government's use of eminent domain law. Tensions heated on both sides.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/29/flight.dispute/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/29/flight.dispute/index.html
Land dispute over UA93 memorial site
- Thread starter MikeD
- Start date
Agree.
My personal feelings on the issue is that just as the crew/pax of UA93 didn't obviously ask to get hijacked that day, these people in Pennsylvania didn't ask to have a plane come down in their back yard either. Just because these people happened to be the landowners of the one place in the continental USA that 93 happened to come down, that doesn't make it right for them to have their land taken. Though this is the greatest tragedy in the history of the USA; IMHO calling it a "public interest issue" in an attempt to invoke eminent domain is making a mockery of those who died in that accident, and lending their names to someone else's political agenda (Congress mandating that a memorial be built.......don't they have something better to do or more important issues to tackle with my tax dollars?).
The owners of that land should be the sole determinants of what happens to that land, IMO. Even the families of UA93 that are pushing this "in the name of their loved ones who perished" should be ashamed of themselves.
TUCKnTRUCK
That guy
After flying over Pa and seeing how much space there is, I am more upset that the govt. and land owners can't work something out. Whether it's cash or compensitory property of similar size and value, this on should be pretty easy to work out.
ZeroPapaGolf
Well-Known Member
Seems like a memorial could serve it's purpose anywhere. Perhaps even a better purpose if it were put somewhere visible rather than out in the middle of farmland.
contactground.9
Banned
Thousands and thousands of Vietnam veterans get a wall...
40 unlucky air-travelers get 2200 acres and a visitor's center?
what a waste, yes it was a tragedy, yes it was sad, Give em a plaque with the WTC memorial and move on please.
40 unlucky air-travelers get 2200 acres and a visitor's center?
what a waste, yes it was a tragedy, yes it was sad, Give em a plaque with the WTC memorial and move on please.
CAP_Flyer
Well-Known Member
Very well said. When I took courses at the Emergency Management Institute where the Fallen Firefighter Memorial is, I would look at the plaques with all the names of the fallen out of both respect and curiousity about how many we had lost in a given year. The names of the fire-fighters killed on 9/11 are on a plaque that occupies about 6 square feet, along with all the other fire-fighters that died in the line of duty in 2001. A fitting tribute and memorial does NOT require 2200 acres. I sympathize with the families of UA93, but at the same time, I wonder if they would be so gung-ho about the government using emminent domain had it been THEIR land that was being taken/bought.
Now, I would probably alter my opinion a little bit if the plans were to build a 9/11 museum of sorts that honored ALL who lost their lives that day as well as honoring those who responded. That includes fire-fighters, police officers, paramedics, FEMA personnel, local and state emergency management personnel, etc. I think that would be a much better use of 2200 acres than to put up a memorial solely for UA93.
On the other hand...if that 2200 acres is required to become National Park land so that there's another layer of felony for people to collecting UA93 debris, like the red and blue wires found all over the place, I'd actually be all for that. Last thing in the world I want to see is UA93 debris showing up on ebay...
You contradicted your entire previous argument with this paragraph....maybe not intentionally, but nonetheless. Using eminent domain in order to protect a bunch of wires and bits of metal in order to "protect" them from ending up on Ebay? That's about as useful as creating the TSA in order create an "illusion" of security for the "public's good".
There's already people profitting off of 9/11 in any number of self-serving ways. Protecting some wire bundles and aluminium pieces isn't going to change a thing.
Whether you intended or not, your quoted paragraph above makes the government's case for eminent domain.....all in the name of "protection of sacred artifacts".
And that's no more of a right excuse than any other.
CAP_Flyer
Well-Known Member
Nah, not so much contradicted as much as just trying to see what people are thinking about why they need the land, what they're going to do with it, etc.
*rereads the paragraph* Maybe saying "I'd be all for that" is a bit hasty, as it wasn't going so far as to support emminent domain in this situation. But I could see what making some of that area National Park land would do too.
Besides...it's 3am. I can hardly be held responsible for any faulty logic or contradictions I may have in deep conversations this early in the morning.
Besides...it's 3am. I can hardly be held responsible for any faulty logic or contradictions I may have in deep conversations this early in the morning.
LOL.....and me the midnight shift worker with nothing to do.
CAP_Flyer
Well-Known Member
LOL.....and me the midnight shift worker with nothing to do.
JC and Netflix are survival tools for me on the weekend overnight shifts holding down a chair at DPA.