... if a horrible tragedy occurs on your land, watch out for eminent domain:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/29/flight.dispute/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

I can see the desire for a memorial, especially at the actual crash site. But why the hell do they need 2000+ acres for a memorial? Hell, they can fit the vietnam memorial in 2 acres. Even Arlington Cemetery is only about 600.

5/30/2009 6:50:22 PM

Quote :

"White says the negotiations with landowners has been challenging and supports the governments use of eminent domain"

USA #1

I <3 my Freedums and demoncracies

I don't understand why they need 2000 acres nor why it has to be EXACTLY where the plane crashed.



[Edited on May 30, 2009 at 8:14 PM. Reason : j]

5/30/2009 8:10:05 PM

Indeed, if landowners would like to keep their land, then they should scale down their plans for the memorial. That is a huge use of land and, while it would probably be an amazing memorial, it might be a bit of a waste using all that land.

Eminent domain for a memorial doesn't make sense. I doubt that the people who fought and died without even knowing what the motives of their attackers were would be super appreciative in the afterlife knowing that the government abused its powers to make sure there would be a gigantic memorial park/garden constructed in their honor.

5/30/2009 8:16:05 PM

I'm pretty sure that using eminent domain in this manner is not within the spirit for which it was created.

5/30/2009 11:00:09 PM

I bet there is a land speculator behind this somewhere, waiting for 2000 acres to vanish into the memorial and drive up regional land values, making his land speculations worth many millions, especially if he borrowed the money.

Or, better yet, the speculator owns 1000 of that 2000 acres and only the government is willing to pay ten times the market price for his land. Regretfully, for his land to be included in the memorial, they need to eminent domain all the land owners between his land and the memorial.

5/31/2009 1:06:48 AM

^

His name is Patrick White



This douche thinks that the gov't has the right to your land.

I honestly can not believe the gov't thinks the best way to honor those who died from the terrorist of 9/11 is seize a private citizens land to create some drastic memorial

[Edited on May 31, 2009 at 3:09 AM. Reason : l]

5/31/2009 3:08:07 AM

How big is the Pearl Harbor Memorial? How many people died there? How much more important is Pearl Harbor than this?

Crazy shit. 2000 acres for a memorial for something that is, relatively, insignificant in the grand scheme of things? You could make a memorial that did the job on 20 acres. I just really can't imagine what you are going to do with 2000 acres.

5/31/2009 8:45:32 AM

Jack Nicklaus designed memorial golf course.

5/31/2009 9:13:31 AM

^^10.50 acres, its also partly in the middle of the harbor, you're talking probably 5 acres on land. Also it was built on what was already federal land.

2200 acres for a memorial is rediculous

5/31/2009 9:45:28 AM

For sense of scale:

J. C. Raulston Arboretum: 8 acres
Vet School: 182 acres
Fairgrounds: 344 acres
Lake Johnson Park (lake and land): 450 acres
Main Campus: 600 acres
Harris Lake Park: 680 acres
Lake Wheeler Park (lake and land): 800 acres
Centennial Campus: 1,334 acres (somebody donate 3 acres)
RDU airport: 4,929 acres
Umstead: 5,579 acres

5/31/2009 9:56:43 AM

Ridiculous.

The design is stupid also. 100 years from now, who the hell will want to go there.
Ought to be using this money elsewhere creating something vibrant.

[Edited on May 31, 2009 at 10:25 AM. Reason : sp]

5/31/2009 10:24:47 AM

I never really cared for terms like 'Field of Honor' and 'Sacred Ground' when used in reference to national events.

5/31/2009 3:11:02 PM

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/pa/20090606_U_S__gives_Flight_93_site_landowners_one_week_to_sell.html

Quote :

"The federal government issued an ultimatum yesterday to people who own land designated for the Flight 93 memorial in Western Pennsylvania: They have one week to reach an agreement on the sale of their land or the government will initiate proceedings to seize it. ... The decision by the National Park Service last month to pursue eminent domain touched off fierce criticism in an area where local residents have been deeply involved in efforts to plan the park and establish and staff the temporary memorial at the crash site. Two local members of the Flight 93 Federal Advisory Commission were so angry about the government's seizure plans that they resigned. Tim Lambert, who owns 163 acres immediately adjacent to the crash site, said he was heartened that Salazar met with the landowners. "Never at any point before did the National Park Service sit down with landowners," said Lambert, who wants to donate six acres to the park. "I am optimistic that if both sides sit down we could reach agreement within days." But others, like Pat Svonavec, whose family owns 275 acres at the site, does not believe the timetable allows for thorough negotiations. ... Last week, the Park Service acquired about 950 acres for the park from a coal company, the single largest acquisition. One way or another, landowners will receive fair market value for their properties, Salazar said. Complicating the appraisal process is the abundance of natural resources above and below the land: timber, coal, and natural gas."

Once again, I have to question why a memorial can't be built in less than 2000 acres? Hell just the area they got from the coal company should be more than sufficient.

It's also worth noting that if someone doesn't want to sell, then there is no "fair market value" for their property, because there is no market for their property.

6/7/2009 2:04:07 PM

Quote :

"The amount of land needed for the memorial is just over 2,200 acres, about 1,400 of which is near the crash site, where there will be a visitor center. The other 800 acres would create a buffer around the site to protect the rural setting."

Rofl, we want to disturb the land, and in doing so we want to preserve it. This is like blowing up the village to save the village.

You really have to wonder what is going on behind the scenes here. I guess if the National Park service is in on it, they just can't think small. I suppose they'll probably have parking quite a long ways from the spot, have picnic tables and wooded paths on the way there, and then not too much around the spot other than the memorial. I can envision where they are coming from, but using eminent domain on this, especially when we'll have a massive memorial in NYC anyway is just brain dead stupid.

Quote :

""No one has ever questioned that there is a public purpose to these lands'" White says. "Their purpose became public the minute that those private citizens' lives and remains became part of those lands.""

What kinda horseshit is this? If that were the case, we need to erect a memorial at the location of every car crash site everywhere in the country and divert the roads around them until we're all walking on foot everywhere we go. The deaths of those on that flight are no more tragic than the groom and best man getting plowed by a drunk on the way to a wedding. WHERE IS THE PUBLIC MEMORIAL FOR THAT GUY? Based on what Flight 93 is getting, these guys should get 110acres of space around where they died. Make it happen.

[Edited on June 7, 2009 at 2:22 PM. Reason : .]

6/7/2009 2:18:22 PM

I can't believe this is not getting more national attention in sympathy of the land owners. I guess since its "9/11" than its ok for the gov't to seize ones land for the interest of National Interests.
I guess we are free to pursue happiness and enjoy the liberty to own private property until the gov't finds a good reason to take it.

I know of a few other countries that have no problem seizing an individuals private property for the so called "good" of the state. What do we call those countries again.......



oh fucking yeah Communist!


USA! USA! USA!



[Edited on June 7, 2009 at 5:16 PM. Reason : l]

6/7/2009 5:13:38 PM

I had a coworker who loved to hunt. He told me a story about another hunter that took a picture of some bird he had never seen before on his land. When he sent the picture to some agency to see what it was, it was some endangered bird. He said they came in and declared it some santurary for the bird and would not let him use his own land, or a great portion of it. Not even for hunting..despite the fact he was not hunting birds anyway. Im not sure if he was full of it or not, but it wouldnt surprise me if it was true. He said the guy says he wishes he would have kept his damn mouth shut.

6/7/2009 5:19:13 PM

Sounds like bullshit to me.

6/7/2009 5:23:15 PM

It might be, but it doesnt look like it is.

"The primary problem is that the ESA effectively penalizes owners of land upon which endangered species depend. The presence of a listed species can freeze the use of private land, barring everything from timber cutting and ditch digging to plowing a field or building a home. In Riverside County, Calif., the ESA even prevented private landowners from clearing firebreaks on their own land lest they disturb the habitat of the Stephens' kangaroo rat. In the ensuing fires, several homes burned, as did much of the rat habitat the law was supposed to protect.

In the simplest terms, the ESA turns ownership of endangered species habitat from an asset into a liability. As Sam Hamilton, former Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) administrator for Texas, noted: "The incentives are wrong here. If I have a rare metal on my property, its value goes up. But if a rare bird occupies the land, its value disappears." Faced with the risk of stringent land-use restrictions and declining property values, landowners respond accordingly: they avoid the creation -- and sometimes actively destroy -- endangered species habitat on their own land. Throughout North Carolina, timber owners are dramatically shortening their cutting rotations and cutting trees at a much younger age -- at significant economic cost -- so as to avoid regulatory proscriptions that could force them to lose their investments altogether,"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB107283504618484600.html

[Edited on June 7, 2009 at 5:33 PM. Reason : sorry forgot the link.]

6/7/2009 5:32:24 PM

Thats awesome, you used an editorial about the law as some sort of verification to the 3rd hand story you had told to you.

In all likelihood, what went on was one hunter was talking to the other hunter about this law and then the version you got was this actually happened to the first hunter.

The more you post stuff like this, the more I feel like you just concoct this stuff in your head. Like the pennies on the dollar hair loss meds being picked up by medicaid for one guy in thousands.

6/7/2009 5:38:45 PM

I said I didnt know if it was true or not...the story that was told to me. However, I posted some factual examples of how the govt is restricting use of personal property because of an endangered animal which makes the fact if it happened to my friends friend fucking irrelevant to the POINT.

Now apparently, i need to draw the connections for you with a fucking crayon. Maybe the owners of the site can make that an option to further assist you and comply with the ADA.



"The Fish and Wildlife Service announced in May 1997 that it expected to soon have 18 million acres of private land locked up under so-called habititat conservation plans restricting owners' use. In addition, more than 10 million other acres of private and public land have come under either temporary or quasi-permanent control of federal environmental dictates as a result of the Endangered Species Act. The total amount of land that has been affected by the ESA is equivalent to cordoning off the entire states of Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Connecticut."

I havent found any info of how much they have now.


[Edited on June 7, 2009 at 5:44 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on June 7, 2009 at 5:47 PM. Reason : .]

6/7/2009 5:43:36 PM

Funny how in 30 years of the law, when you look around on google you see maybe 3-5 of the same cases being cited over and over by all sorts of different blogs and media outlets:

The fire rats, the 18 million acres (how much of this is national park anyway?), and the warbler.

Again, as always, you guys get your panties in a twist on the idea that something could happen the way the law is written, even though you are probably more likely to die in a car accident before any of it comes to pass. In most cases, you'll even stoop to citing things from other countries to prove a point.

Look, there are more pressing things to worry about than some of this shit you get all hot and bothered over.

6/7/2009 6:45:49 PM

^ Not really, because the little cases that occur or might occur, eventually set precedents for the bullshit that is the original topic of this thread. You're deluding yourself if you don't think that things like the ESA giving the government power to declare your land off limits and stupid shit like the Kello case giving the government the authority to take your land if they think they can get more taxes from a different owner don't encourage, support and establish precedence for shit like this.

6/7/2009 7:19:56 PM

Quote :

""The Fish and Wildlife Service announced in May 1997 that it expected to soon have 18 million acres of private land locked up under so-called habititat conservation plans restricting owners' use. In addition, more than 10 million other acres of private and public land have come under either temporary or quasi-permanent control of federal environmental dictates as a result of the Endangered Species Act. The total amount of land that has been affected by the ESA is equivalent to cordoning off the entire states of Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Connecticut." "

How is this any different than any of the hunting and fishing guidelines everyone in the country has to follow, or the DENR regulations and permitting that everyone has to follow their particular state guidelines for?

6/7/2009 7:21:31 PM

Quote :

"^ Not really, because the little cases that occur or might occur, eventually set precedents for the bullshit that is the original topic of this thread. You're deluding yourself if you don't think that things like the ESA giving the government power to declare your land off limits and stupid shit like the Kello case giving the government the authority to take your land if they think they can get more taxes from a different owner don't encourage, support and establish precedence for shit like this."

No, I don't think it sets a precedence at all regarding this memorial. Eminent domain is the over ruling law that says the state can take the shit under various conditions. The ESA really has no bearing here at all, it was only brought up as more tin hat fear the overbearing government type shit. It's related, but we weren't discussing ESA.

6/7/2009 7:35:01 PM

Right, it's related in that it further contributes to the idea that the government can dictate the use of or take your land for reasons other than strict public good.

6/7/2009 8:28:48 PM

Taking land for a monument: Stupid*
Taking land in order to help ensure the survival of a species from some redneck with a gun: Excellent

*to the scale we are talking about here.

6/7/2009 9:10:07 PM

Quote :

"Centennial Campus: 1,334 acres (somebody donate 3 acres)"

i lol'd

6/7/2009 10:04:27 PM

I actually believe eyedrb about this. Lets not get distracted though with petty arguments about eco-hippy shit when the focus should be on the gov't seizing the land of otherwise everyday citizens who happened to be living on the crashsite of where the terrorist hijacked plane of a 9/11 plane crashed. The gov't nudged by some douchenozzle created this huge memorial site based on an arbitrary number and our trying to black mail american citizens out of their liberty to own their property.

6/7/2009 10:33:47 PM

Quote :

"Taking land for a monument: Stupid* Taking land in order to help ensure the survival of a species from some redneck with a gun: Excellent "

This assumes that the species is worth saving. It's not like the human race has a good track record when it comes to interfering with the populations of species.

6/7/2009 10:33:55 PM

I could almost justify taking land to save some endangered bird or something more than building a monument of arbitrary size acres just honor some dead people. Don't get me wrong I sympathize for the families that lost loved ones in 9/11 but gov't seizing someones land b.c a bunch of towel heads just happened to lose control of the airplane (got shot down, citizens took over control, whatever you believe) at a particular chunk of land does not justify forcing people off their rightful property. The passengers that perished in Flight 93 or 9/11 in general can be honored in some other way.

6/7/2009 11:46:25 PM

Quote :

"This assumes that the species is worth saving."

Wait, wait, wait wait, WHAT?!?!?! [/Clark Howard] Surely you jest, sir. How can a species NOT be worth saving? And even so who the fuck are we, as yet another species on the planet, to make that call? I can imagine people advocating for the eradication of certain viruses and the like but even those can not be completely wiped out by humans.

6/8/2009 11:19:20 AM

As a hypothetical exercise, it is entirely possible to have a species that is not worth saving. And don't pretend it is not our right to decide, because since life began on this planet species have been deciding to drive each other to extinction, either through hunting, competition for food/space, habitat alteration, adverse impact, etc.

Now, the question is, how do we decide? The easiest way to save a species is to throw money at it, so since you believe all species are worth saving, then your budget is going to get thin. However, since I believe only most species are worth the effort required to save them, then you can leave the saving of these species to my resources and dedicate yourself to saving the species that did not make it on my list.

Or we can have the government decide, and Congress will decide which species to save and how, even if it upsets your attempts to save species that are not politically favored.

[Edited on June 8, 2009 at 11:31 AM. Reason : .,.]

6/8/2009 11:29:59 AM

Quote :

"However, since I believe only most species are worth the effort required to save them,"

And you find this position morally justifiable?
Now, let's be clear here. If a species is failing due to natural causes independent of human influence then that's just nature providing balance but to say that species X isn't worth saving so you can put up a Wal-Mart is utterly reprehensible.

6/8/2009 11:38:01 AM

No, your position is morally reprehensible. Just because a species is being driven to extinction by natural forces does not make it justifiable to allow it. If a species can be saved with minimal effort, such as by exterminating the competing species from some habitat, then I'd put my money towards that.

However, if it would require the evacuation of Texas to save one species of ant from extinction, then I say fuck that. Life is filled with tradeoffs, and sometimes it is nature that must give way.

And as it would take a miniscule amount of resources for environmentalists to outbid Walmart for a single plot of land, to save an entire species for goodness sakes, then I would donate my resources towards that. Hell, I bet walmart would happily donate the friggin' land just for the publicity. But the problem is, walmart building that store will not make any species go extinct. And no one believes it would, otherwise the land would have been locked up in a private reserve long before walmart made a bid for it. As such, to act as if it would is a lie, demanding a token gesture that helps no one but wastes society's scarce resources.

6/8/2009 11:49:22 AM

If the invasive species is not native to that region (e.g. kudzu) then of course it isn't a natural process and should be altered to prevent possible extinctions.
Continuing with my example, it isn't so much just one Wal-Mart store per se it is the amalgam of expansion that does run the long term risk of causing extinctions.

6/8/2009 11:56:52 AM

It must take one bizarre set of genetics to not take your rightful place at the throne of species on this planet. I'm all for conservation, but when you start talking about "amalgam of expansion" without addressing the fact that the population of the world is in fact growing, then you know you're out in far far far left field.

6/8/2009 12:00:08 PM

Use whatever definition of natural you choose to use. I stand by my position: a natural process that is going to render a species extinct and can be stopped with a reasonable amount of human effort, should be stopped. Species have value, we should act accordingly. I do not care why they are dying out, be it bulldozers or advancing glaciers, and I do not understand why you do.

So, try to explain why you feel mother nature is justified in all her actions, no matter how destructive. But mankind is unjustified in all his actions, no matter how small the damage.

In an attempt to understand, would you object to me saving species whose fate had nothing to do with human activity?

6/8/2009 12:08:31 PM

I think it can be judged on a case by case basis. Not letting a man put a house on 15 acres that some douchebag scientist just happens to find a rare frog in. Bullshit imho especially if they work out some agreement where the landowner just doesn't drain or dump his motor oil (which would be illegal anyways) in the pond on the land.

On the other hand not allowing 20 acres of wooded area to be mowed down to build another Walmart that is nesting site of some nearly extinct raptor holds a little more weight imho. Especially if they can offer the fair market value (with inflation) of before the land was deemed a "bird of prey refuge."

A distinction can easily be attained between a species that is either very localized or on the "outs" anyway due to inadaptibility that humans just kinda nudge to extinction a few centuries early versus an animal who is nearly extinct not due to natural selection but b.c of human invasive development. The later of course biasing higher order predators and animals that likely have a more important role in the environment than some random offshoot rat species.

[Edited on June 8, 2009 at 12:44 PM. Reason : L]

6/8/2009 12:40:27 PM