Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US Govt To Take Land For Flight 93 Memorial.  
User currently offlineFxramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 7359 posts, RR: 85
Posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2250 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

What do you think about the government taking land for this memorial? What about in general when they want to take land to build something?



article



17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineRFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 1, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2237 times:

Long discussed on this forum with typical splits.

Some say the land owners should give up the land with no compensation for the honor of being part of the memorial.

Some say the land owners have the right to keep their land.

Most say the land owners should receive fair market value for their land, including lost future income.

The memorial commission and NPS offers to buy the various parcels was under $1,000 per acre, which is well below extremely cheap for land in that area.

Emminent domain hearings will give the land owners a much better price, but probably still only a percentage of what a normal sale is in that area.


User currently offlineFxramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 7359 posts, RR: 85
Reply 2, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2233 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 1):
Most say the land owners should receive fair market value for their land, including lost future income.

I hope someone isn't trying to cash in on the memory of lost heros.  no 


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7719 posts, RR: 21
Reply 3, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2227 times:



Quoting Fxramper (Reply 2):
I hope someone isn't trying to cash in on the memory of lost heros. no

Indeed that would be bad, as it would also be similarly bad for the memory of lost heroes to be used against someone to take their land at an unreasonably low price, simply because they suffered the misfortune of a plane being brough down on it.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets87 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2220 times:



Quoting RussianJet (Reply 3):
Indeed that would be bad, as it would also be similarly bad for the memory of lost heroes to be used against someone to take their land at an unreasonably low price, simply because they suffered the misfortune of a plane being brough down on it.

 checkmark 

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 1):
Most say the land owners should receive fair market value for their land, including lost future income.

That's the boat I fall in to. If they receive fair market value for the land and the money for lost future income, then there's no net change in their finances if UA 93 had crashed on someone else's land. Ultimately, that should be the goal.


User currently offlineRFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 5, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2220 times:



Quoting Fxramper (Reply 2):
I hope someone isn't trying to cash in on the memory of lost heros.

Someone on the last thread did some research about the area.

Land suitable for cabins and such sells for $5,000 to $10,000 per acre depending upon road and utility access. That's with no buildings.

The land where the plane actually crashed is a recovering gravel mining site. The NPS offer was under $1,000 per acre for the entire parcel - $250,000, including timber valued at about $4 million. The former land owner would still be responsible for EPA testing and certification - to cost about $400,000 - from his $250,000 payment.

Small parcel land holders were selling for about the value the land was carried on the tax rolls. Large parcel land holders were being offered 20-30% of the value of their land based on tax rolls.

The NPS wants 2,200 acres for a 3 acre memorial. Parking, support and creating a natural zone around the site.


User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 4059 posts, RR: 30
Reply 6, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2206 times:



Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 4):
That's the boat I fall in to. If they receive fair market value for the land and the money for lost future income,

Why should they get fair market value AND future income? Doesn't the fair market value already incorporate the value of the future income that the new buyer would get? Sort of seems like me selling you my car but getting to keep using it for free.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8289 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2182 times:



Quoting Fxramper (Reply 2):
I hope someone isn't trying to cash in on the memory of lost heros.

How so as long as they approach the transaction with the government in good faith? As Russian and others stated, they didn't ask for a plane to come down on their property.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets87 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2178 times:



Quoting Pyrex (Reply 6):
Why should they get fair market value AND future income? Doesn't the fair market value already incorporate the value of the future income that the new buyer would get?

It may. I'm not a real-estate agent.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21864 posts, RR: 55
Reply 9, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2068 times:



Quoting RussianJet (Reply 3):
it would also be similarly bad for the memory of lost heroes to be used against someone to take their land at an unreasonably low price, simply because they suffered the misfortune of a plane being brough down on it.

 checkmark  That land is valuable, and it was not the owner's decision to have the crash on it. If the government wants it, they're going to have to pay the fair value for it. The Constitution says so.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11569 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2065 times:

I don't see that plot of ground as hallowed ground. I don't understand why we need to make that a national monument. A national monument to what? In part, to some terrorists.


Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2049 times:



Quoting D L X (Reply 10):
I don't see that plot of ground as hallowed ground. I don't understand why we need to make that a national monument. A national monument to what? In part, to some terrorists.

A tough question. Are we going to honor what we think MIGHT have happened onboard that aircraft. We don't really know, do we? We simply have a theory that the passengers onboard forced the terrorists to crash that plane short of their objective.

A monument to their sacrifice, and general 9/11 theme is fine, but I don't see where it has to be run by the government, to be honest. If the people in Pennsylvania want to build it, that's fine.

But I can also understand where many want to honor those who died that day. It was, after all, a national tragedy, was it not.

Very tough issue.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11569 posts, RR: 52
Reply 12, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2047 times:



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 11):
But I can also understand where many want to honor those who died that day. It was, after all, a national tragedy, was it not.

Even if so, why put it there? It's in the middle of nowhere, and it's not along the way to anywhere. If you must build a memorial, put it somewhere people will go.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2043 times:



Quoting D L X (Reply 12):
Even if so, why put it there? It's in the middle of nowhere, and it's not along the way to anywhere. If you must build a memorial, put it somewhere people will go.

But it is where the aircraft crashed, and where those lives ended, and where, quite possibly, the passenger may have saved even more lives and even more disaster a few miles further to the east. You just can't put it somewhere that isn't related to the event, can you?

Now, perhaps an overall memorial for the 9/11 victims could be put in Washington D.C., honoring those who died in NYC, DC and PA that day. But other than that, that is the spot.


User currently offlineRFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 14, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2038 times:

As near as I can tell - the families want a public memorial on the site of their loved ones death.

I won't say anymore, except I hope the folks can complete the grieving process and heal. Nnot spend the rest of their lives still locked in pain.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 6):
Why should they get fair market value AND future income? Doesn't the fair market value already incorporate the value of the future income that the new buyer would get?

Future income relates only to a few specific situations.

One of the properties to be condemned is an operating business. A normal sale of a business would be for two to five years income - three on average that I've seen.

That is not part of the fair market value of the land.

One of the properties was a gravel mining pit and includes a lot of timber which would eventually be cut down and sold. The fair market value might include what the timber would be worth today, but not what it would be worth at a normal harvest time. The NPS has specifically tried to deny the timber has any value because the NPS does not intend to cut down and sell the trees.

If any of the homes to be taken and destroyed is used for rental property, the fair market value is still just the home value, not any lost income.

I lived in Japan for several years, there the eminent domain policy required that an equilavent replacement be built before they could take a home or business.

In the US eminent domain and fair market value is normally 40 to 65 % of the cost to replace the land, structures and business lost.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11569 posts, RR: 52
Reply 15, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2030 times:



Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 14):
As near as I can tell - the families want a public memorial on the site of their loved ones death.

They always do.

Hopefully, I'll live a long, love-filled life and die peacefully at an old age surrounded by my family and friends. But should I go out unexpected, like in a car crash, I really don't think I or my family could reasonably request to put a memorial for me on the spot that I died. That's what cemeteries are for.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12339 posts, RR: 18
Reply 16, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2025 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

The US government removing the land from its owners is 100% WRONG. If the owners want to donate some of their land to a memorial then its THEIR right. I certainly hope the land owners would happily donate some of their land, cause if I owned a huge amount of land and a plane crashed there with deaths and people wanted a memorial then I would be happy to donate some of my land.

The only time I believe any government around the world should take land is when the owners refuse to give land for safety improvments like for roading


User currently offlineLowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2020 times:



Quoting 777ER (Reply 16):
The US government removing the land from its owners is 100% WRONG.

The US Constitution provides for this so long as compensation is provided. This has been upheld in Supreme Court rulings for far more frivolous purposes than a memorial. So legally, they are not wrong.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 13):
You just can't put it somewhere that isn't related to the event, can you?

Why not? We do it all the time for other memorials. Washington DC is full of them. Many Revolutionary and Civil War memorials have been located in more convenient locations. If the owners are unwilling to part with the land, and no reasonable accommodation can be reached, an alternate site may be needed. I am all for respecting the dead, but there are (or should be) limits to the cost we extract from the living in order to do so.



Proud OOTSK member
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Pres. Bush Asked To Seize Land For PA 9/11 Site posted Sun Dec 28 2008 06:55:08 by LTBEWR
UK Govt To Bail Out Jaguar Land Rover posted Wed Dec 17 2008 02:32:44 by T1210s
Bolivia To Require Visa For US Visitors posted Wed Sep 12 2007 20:24:27 by MaverickM11
US Govt Wants Visas For Brits Of Pakistani Origin posted Thu May 3 2007 11:47:08 by Emirates029
Good For A Laugh: US Cease To Exist In 2007 posted Fri Apr 1 2005 07:01:24 by JCS17
UK Final Pay To US Govt. 2006 posted Sat Sep 11 2004 02:40:11 by Solnabo
48 Nobel Laureates Urge US-Voters To Go For Kerry posted Tue Jun 22 2004 13:10:03 by Rabenschlag
US Wants To Spend $1billion Looking For Iraq WMD posted Thu Oct 2 2003 14:38:55 by Eg777er
Clinton Signs Deal To Move US Marines To Guam posted Tue Feb 17 2009 07:23:17 by Aaron747
Father Gets To See Son For First Time In 4+ Years posted Wed Feb 11 2009 12:58:16 by JetBlueGuy2006