Comments on: Honoring freedom and sacrifice

By: Vote For David

Vote For David — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 03:54:06 +0000

… which does not make it right to steal somebody’s land to turn into a park. Especially a park to honor our enemies like this one is designed to do. Doing something bad twice doesn’t make it better.

By: Standard Mischief

Standard Mischief — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 12:07:02 +0000

Oh that�s right, since Kelo there is no such thing as private property rights. My bad.

Seizing land for National Parks has a long tradition. Numerous families were forcefully moved, for instance, when FDR wanted to turn his favorite fishing area into Shenandoah Park for the express purpose of honoring his legacy.

By: Robert

Robert — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 06:35:19 +0000

Has anyone seen the proposed design? It’s horrible. Ugly, uninspired and way too big, it’d end up being an eyesore. It quite literally looks like something out of a combloc nation (which would actually be appropriate if they seized the land in order to build it).

Personally, I think they should simply construct an obelisk about 93 feet high* and have the name of the victims carved around the base. Simple, effective, and takes up a minimum amount of space – maybe an acre total if you include a visitor’s building.

*For comparison, the Washington Monument is 555 feet high.

By: chris

chris — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 05:10:01 +0000

most of the proposed memorials are rather flattering to Islam including a crescent shaped field that points to Mecca. Also a series of paving stones, one for each victim, the problem is, they included the terrorists in the number of victims…

so if those plans are still on and being touted by the owner of the land… then seize away…

By: Mikee

Mikee — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 01:08:45 +0000

The memorial could be about 1 acre (200 feet x 200 feet)in size and still encompass most of the crash site.

There are memorials all over this country consisting of a granite slab, a brass plaque with many names, and a word or two about the war involved or the location of the deaths. Aggrandized memorials are a bane. Mark the location, but leave out the silly stuff like a circle of trees and an artistic interpretation. Anyone reading the names of the passengers and crew on a slab, with a note that on that site was won the first victory in the War against Islamic Terrorists on September 11th, 2001, understands the facts and can learn the details elsewhere.

By: farm.dad

farm.dad — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 19:27:07 +0000

I note that the folks who want a memorial are dealing with a ” company ” not a farmer . Now my family farm has some land in a sub s corperation which i suppose would be a company , but i have to ask here is the current landowner the same landowner as when the crash happened ? If so ok , it does seem to me they want the whole place ( and maby more )for a ” memorial ” , but if they are dealing with a set of investors who bought the land ” on spec ” due to its possible use i will go against everyone and say YES seize it , and pay the company an average of what similar land has sold for in the county involved . I firmly belive that the landowner at the time of the 9/11 crash has property rights , i also belive a memorial site is approprate . The property prices quoted ( in comments) tho are just insane for farmland . Again if this is somones family farm passed down , well make them as happy as you can to get the least memorial you can settle for on such hallowed ground . If its a company formed for a ” spec ” sale well screw them . For myself i want to see the place happen , but not at the expense of the fella or family who just happened to own the property where the flight impacted .

By: rightwingprof

rightwingprof — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 18:12:35 +0000

Ever since I’ve been there (it’s only 90 miles from here), particularly since all of the controversy over the design, I’ve been saying forget the “official” memorial, and leave it like it is. The Flight 93 Memorial is one of the most powerful places I’ve been. Any “designed” memorial would be far inferior, and ruin what is there.

Neither group in the controversy is interested in my proposal. This nonsense lends weight to it.

Leave it alone. Ditch plans to build anything, and shut up about the design.

By: Vote For David

Vote For David — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:27:42 +0000

Not smoking liberty that’s for sure. How does a memorial trump private property rights?

Oh that’s right, since Kelo there is no such thing as private property rights. My bad.

By: Justin Buist

Justin Buist — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:20:48 +0000

They’re looking at 2200 acres here, which would cost $22 million at 10k/acre which is BFE Montana pricing, or most likely $66 million at 30k an acre.

55 acres per victim? WTF are these people smoking?

By: N.U.G.U.N.

N.U.G.U.N. — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:46:23 +0000

I imagine that with a little internet marketing they could raise enough money to buy the land.