Government to condemn land for Flight 93 memorial

I have heard of this for a while that land owners of the crash site were refusing to give up their land so that this memorial could be built. Now they are losing their land so that this memorial could be built for the 10th anniversary. I always knew the government did things like this but I don't ever remember them ever coming out saying publically that "the goverment will be taking land", I always thought they at least tried to pretend they didn't do that stuff. Why the hurry? And why do something this bold? I don't hear of any hurry to make a memorial in New York, but they are in such a hurry to do this? They obviously want the land labeled as "government property" most likely to prevent anyone investigating the site. Thoughts?



Source
news.yahoo.com...

So strange, dedicate a memorial in a place where there were never any bodies found. Or in a place where there was a smoking crater in a gouge that already there before the crash. So very odd indeed. A memorial that almost nobody will ever go to as it is the middle of nowhere.

Condemning land for government use is very common. They do it for roads, bridges, utilities, etc. They normally come to you with an offer first (usually this is the best offer you will get). If you don't take that offer, they make a case for why the land is in the public's best interest, get the commissioners, councilmen or whomever to sign off, then they pay you "fair-market value" according to an appraiser. Normally they are restricted from causing "undue hardship" such as moving an entire family from a long-term home or destroying an entire crop, but taking a small piece of land is fairly easy.

As far as using condemnation for a memorial, I don't see the "Public Good." I think these landowners should have pretty easy time defeating this before it goes through. The problem will be that it seems unpatriotic to vote against the memorial, so the politicians will be afraid to say no.

Hopefully these landowners are well known in their community and will get a lot of support, if not, they are probably going to lose out to politicians saving face and securing votes.

Originally posted by dashen
So strange, dedicate a memorial in a place where there were never any bodies found. Or in a place where there was a smoking crater in a gouge that already there before the crash. So very odd indeed. A memorial that almost nobody will ever go to as it is the middle of nowhere.

Exactly. But yet you don't hear a big rush to build a memorial in NYC where everyone associates 9/11.

reply to post by getreadyalready


I knew it was easy but I didn't think it was common for them to just come out and say it. Maybe they figure no one will give it a second thought because most people would see this as a good thing.

Originally posted by itinerantseeker
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

I knew it was easy but I didn't think it was common for them to just come out and say it. Maybe they figure no one will give it a second thought because most people would see this as a good thing.

I agree, I think it won't be politically correct to oppose this.

I feel for the landowners, and I don't doubt that there is some submersive agenda in getting this land under government control.

It's even less politically correct to notice how the memorial seems to take inspiration from a well known symbol:

"Crescent of Embrace," by Paul Murdoch Architects

How very curious.... don't you think?

reply to post by dashen


Bodies no....what was left of the human beings on board..yes. The crash site of Flight 93 is considered hallowed ground by some, because the passengers on that particular jet were the first to fight, and in doing so, most likely saved a lot more lives on the ground.


Okay...will end this post so I can see what kind of theories get posted now.......

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by dashen

 

Bodies no....what was left of the human beings on board..yes. The crash site of Flight 93 is considered hallowed ground by some, because the passengers on that particular jet were the first to fight, and in doing so, most likely saved a lot more lives on the ground.


Okay...will end this post so I can see what kind of theories get posted now.......

Well, how do you know they fought at all? Did you see the footage of the crash site? No luggage, no body parts, the coroner at the scene also had some very interesting things to say. I just cant figure out how osama was so clever as to make it look like america set itself up.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by dashen

 

Bodies no....what was left of the human beings on board..yes. The crash site of Flight 93 is considered hallowed ground by some, because the passengers on that particular jet were the first to fight, and in doing so, most likely saved a lot more lives on the ground.


Okay...will end this post so I can see what kind of theories get posted now.......

I agree, the conspiracies about this flight not crashing have little weight. There is no way they could have faked those gut-wrenching phone calls, although Rumsfield did say "shot-down" and there was very little wreckage on the ground.

Regardless, the families need a place to mourn, and if the landowner is anything like all the farmers I know, he would have no problem providing private access to those family members. I am sure it is the government and press he is trying to keep out.

reply to post by dashen


Every seen a high speed jet crash ? Not much is recognizable - the
aircraft and contents are smashed into small pieces. Flight 93 hit
at speed of 580 mph. Not much recognizable would be left - just
scattered debris.