Now this I don't agree with, AT ALL ...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090507/ap_on_re_us/us_flight93_memorial

There has to be some sort of negotiations that can take place here, much like what happens when land is bought for infrastructure purposes, freeways, bridges, etc.

Yeah, our SCOTUS ruled in favor of eminent domain large corporations and government. It's even possible to take the land, if the tax revenue proposal from the developer is better than that known revenue from whoever currently holds the land.

I don't agree with this either.

Maybe the property owners (there's seven of them total) see that the value will skyrocket, and are trying to sweeten the pot. I don't know ... just ain't right though.

Well, right to confiscate land is one of the rights our governments have. I'm sure you can find thousands of examples over the years of land confiscated by the government for various purposes. (E.g. how much land was confiscated to built the interstate highway system?)

Not to say it's right or wrong, just that this is really nothing new.

I realize that Andrew, I would like to see how much land the feds took and how much they gave reimbursement for in constructing the interstate highway system ...

Reading the article, it seems like the feds are now racing to get something done, and failed to do some negotiating with the property owners on the land in a timely fashion, so now they're just going to take it in order to get a memorial up before Sept. 11th, 2011.

I DO see the importance of a memorial ... just not liking how it's all coming about.

Welcome to the wonderful world of Liberalism.

Oh sure, blame the current establishment which has been on the job for 100 days when it was Duhbyah & Company who have dragged their feet on this and left it unresolved. I don't agree with the condemning of the land and the supposed lying about failed negotiations but point your right finger, index or bird whichever floats your boat, at the real blame for this not getting taken care of, "W". I guess it just was not important enough to take care of during his time in office.

Darktemper, I didn't mention the current administration. It was the liberals on the Supreme Court several years ago that ruled that this could be done. Souter was the swing vote. It was a terrible decision, and I believe unconstitutional.

As time moves along, you're going to discover that a liberal supreme court is not going to make you very comfortable. An activist liberal supreme court will rewrite law and the people of the US will have no power to make their choices.

Liberal = Government knows best!

OK, but this comment still stands:

I guess it just was not important enough to take care of during his time in office.

Fair enough response. But what do you think he should have done. It was the Supreme Court who made the ruling. The President could do nothing. Or, am I misunderstanding your question?

"As time moves along, you're going to discover that a liberal supreme court is not going to make you very comfortable. An activist liberal supreme court will rewrite law and the people of the US will have no power to make their choices."

Well, keep in mind that liberal Souter was a George H.W. Bush appointee. Maybe Obama's pick will turn up to be more conservative?! It's been known to happen.

If it was important enough, and it should have been, Bush should have resolved this and moved forward with the project instead of letting it waffle around and go un-resolved. What kind of statement is this making anyway???? Steal the land from it's owners so that we can honor those who perished! There is just something wrong with that. Just pay the people fair market value, move whatever needs moving, and make it happen. George should have done this a long time ago instead of leaving it until the last minute and now things are happening that shouldn't because of deadlines.

"Well, keep in mind that liberal Souter was a George H.W. Bush appointee. Maybe Obama's pick will turn up to be more conservative?! It's been known to happen."

We should be so lucky.

Yes, Darktemper, it should have been handled a long time ago. Both Hannity and Colmes were all over it with Colmes being just as vocal against it as Hannity. They did remotes from sites that were being seized. Nothing happened.

The issue is no longer what Bush didn't do. He's gone. The land continues to be stolen. It's now time for the current administration to step in and right a wrong that Bush didn't handle.

I agree Deane, though I don't see it as a "conservative vs. liberal" slant, BOTH sides are wrong here.

It would be best, IMHO, if the project honestly was delayed a little bit so the right thing can be done, the landowners properly compensated, and it's erected properly.

There's a sad precedence for memorials being built later than they should ... for example, it is absolutely egregious how it took so damn long for the World War II memorial to finally be built and dedicated.

Deane_johnson: Welcome to the wonderful world of Liberalism.

Right on time, Deane.

Liberalism has nothing to do with this.

However, we can thank liberalism for things like women having the ability to vote, blacks being able to go to white schools, etc.

"Liberalism has nothing to do with this."

I call Bullshit. The liberals on the court voted for it, the conservative against it.

There's no bottom to your spin is there.

Lack of deninitive action from the last regime seems to be the root cause and reason the court has to get involved at all. Had they just gone in with a reasonable and legitimate purchase offer in the first place this would not be an issue.

Darktemper, you're focused on one episode, and perhaps that's appropriate since that's the subject of this thread. However, it's been going on all over the country with all kinds of jurisdictions taking what ever they want. I know you'd like to blame each one of them on Bush, but that's going to be hard for even you to do since most all of them have not been Federal.

If the conservatives would live up to their "strict constructionist" rhetoric, they would have voted yes. Eminent domain has been around since before the US was formed.

I'm not looking at those other issues but if I did I would point blame at those deserving of it. "W" fumbled the ball on this particular issue and now someone has to pull the ol' quarterback sneak in order to score.

That's it.

I've said my peace, carry on.

" Eminent domain has been around since before the US was formed."

Of course it has, but the court decision opened it up to a whole era of taking property for most any purpose, where before it was for the greater good of the public. That was for roads, hospitals, schools and other universally needed entities. Now it can be for memorials like Flight 93, shopping centers, golf courses, hotels, you name it. It can be for private enterprise. You're just not up to date on this.

What blows me away are the numbers:

---

quote:

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

---

Alfredo, you are so right. This was a terrible tragedy and the folks on board were heroes in their conduct, but do we need a national park? Do we need to spend $58 Million on this. Wow.

Deane, I'm up to date. Eminent domain is what it is, they can take your shit any time for any reason.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a fan of it, nor do I think the memorial is a good reason for it, but liberalism is certainly not the culprit here. You just need a boogy man to blame.

Flight 93 Memorial

June 24, 2005

"The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that local governments may force property owners to sell out and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new project's success is not guaranteed."
"The 5 to 4 ruling provided the strong affirmation that state and local governments had sought for their increasing use of eminent domain for urban revitalization, especially in the Northeast, where many city centers have decayed and the suburban land supply is dwindling."

"Stevens was joined in the majority by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

Kennedy's vote was something of a surprise because he had expressed strong sympathy for property-rights claims in past cases. But in a brief concurring opinion he explained that the New London plan showed no sign of improper favoritism toward any one private developer.

O'Connor was joined in her dissent by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. They wrote that the majority had tilted in favor of those with "disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."


Sort of looks to me like the liberals are for the grabbing of private property and the conservatives are against it. Look at the vote line-up.

Sounds to me like the conservatives are trying to legislate from the bench by changing the spirit of the law based on one example.

Wait, I need to get my Dramamine.

You sure do, you're trying to have it both ways.

Liberal = Government knows best!

Neo-CON = F the American people!