U.S. to Condemn Land for Flight 93 Memorial

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.

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.


that was a tragic day, but i dont think that makes it right for the government to come in and steal this land for a memorial when the owners wont sell.

I agree. What the gov’t is doing is horrible.

I totally disagree with this. What a mixed up message. Create a victim to honor victims.

2,200 acres!?!! What in the living daylights are they THINKING! That’s enormous.

I say 25 acres tops. And it won’t often be very full of visitors either.

National Parks are already short on funds to maintain basic services at sites that are unique natural treasures. To spend millions on thousands of acres of boring farmland is beyond nuts, it is utterly stupid and disgusting.

I certainly agree…Why not put this memorial in Arlington with the rest of our fallen heroes?

Only soldiers go to Arlington. Its a military cemetery.

If the govt has made a good faith effort to negotiate an agreement without success, there’s nothing wrong with using eminent domain if there’s a genuine need for the government/public use. Who determines need? Well, the government, of course. Anyway, the system isn’t always perfect, but I don’t have a problem with a memorial of this type. However, I also agree that 3 or 4 square miles seems a bit much.

In theory, it’s not a bad idea to plan ahead for the possibility that more visitors may come than anticipated. So setting aside some land for future bus parking, etc seems sensible - but in the meantime, perhaps they can lease back some of the land to the locals.

How’d Jackie Kennedy sneak in there?

Nothing this government does surprises me any more. What surprises is is that we stand there like bludgeoned oxen and let them do it.

And with the economy being what it is, do we really need to spend $58 million dollars for this?

Oh well. I guess since we won’t do anything to stop our public servants from turning the country into a police state, maybe we can all get good jobs as security at the new memorial park. We can march around the perimeter in our spiffy new Obama Guard uniforms:

yes there is something wrong with it, its called ‘Thou shall not steal’

So are you opposed to eminent domain in every instance?


And is your basis for this legal, moral, or just philosophical?

Well now, perhaps some remedial vocabulary is in order here. STEALING is when you take what does not belong to you, leaving nothing behind in compensation.

Condemnation under eminant domain involves paying the full market value for the property condemned. In some cases, it may be outrageous and unjust. But it demonstrably is not stealing since the land owner is paid full value for the property.

Those who believe that the government should not have eminant domain under any circumstances had better not be complaing about road conditions and traffic. Nor should they ever use the interstate highways which could NEVER have been built without the ability to condemn land for right of ways. They had better not have flush toilet since most treatment plants were built on condemned lands. They cannot travel on airplanes since modern airports were almost all expanded from the pre-WWII days via condemnation to extend runways…

I couldn’t disagree more. The owner did not want to sell. Is this the land of the free and the home of the brave or not? The governments only responsibility should be to protect the constitutional rights of the citizens and nothing else.

In criminal law, theft (also known as stealing or filching) is the illegal taking of another person’s property without that person’s freely-given consent.

Sorry manualman I disagree with you too. Are you saying if the government didn’t provide roads or clean water there would be none? In a free market not only would these things exist but they would be run much more efficiently, something the government is incapable of.

The land is being stolen from the owner. it’s called Eminant domain because it’s the government that’s doing the stealing.


Free market roads! What a laugh. Let me tell you something about it. I’m a civil engineer, I DESIGN the darn things. If local, county, state and federal governments lost the power to condemn right of way tomorrow, you’d never again see roads widened or new arterials built. (Local roads as part of subdivisions, yes, but they only make regional traffic worse).

Every single roadway widening I’ve worked on in my 14 years has required at LEAST the threat of condemnation to acquire the needed ROW for a road widening job. Take away that capability and the “free market” wiseguy from whom you need 15 feet of land to widen the road will demand 25 million bucks for it.

Free markets “Wiseguys” are what made this a great nation. Put it all in the governments hands and I’ll see you on the breadlines like in the U.S.S.R.

The landowner may ask 25 million bucks for the land but the government already takes much more from the tax payers.

The landowner in this case didn’t ask for a plane to come crashing down on his property. He owns the land and it is his right to keep it or sell it for what it’s worth to him.

I’m not arguing that this is a good case of wisely used eminant domain. I’m objecting to the assertion that the government should be stripped of that capability altogether.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.