Flight 93 And Property Rights
My latest Examiner article concerning the memorial for Flight 93 and the use of condemnation proceedings to force the land owners in the area to give up their land for a 2,200 acre park.
~McQ
2200 acres – a memorial to them or to us?
And those parks don’t maintain themselves.
Should there be a memorial? Sure, and I’ll bet under the circumstance even the most hardened property owner might be inclined to donate some of his property for that cause.
But 2200 acres?
It is reclaimed mining land, not exactly the kind of place you would normally go to for a picnic.
It isn’t like the kelo decision if the money is taken for a public park. It is like Kelo if the money is taken and sold to private developers.
er, instead of money I meant land, Need coffee
Especially when there is such strong resistance, due to the fact that the design for the memorial includes features that seem designed to honor the muslim suicide attackers rather than the passengers.
I agree, this is meant to honor the poor Muslims who died at the hands of the evil Jews who “really orchestrated” 9/11.
In case someone lacks information on the debate:
http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/05/09/flight-93-memorial-blogburst-saudi-authorities-contradict-us-park-service-mihrabs-do-not-have-to-point/
You can use that link to link to further info, if needed.
The WWII memorial in Wash. DC is 7.4 acres. With all due respect to those airplane passengers, building a 2200 acre monument to a fraction of a percent of those who died in WWII is sheer lunatic grandiosity. How big a memorial did Audie Murphy get?
Pingback: Flight 93 And Property Rights | QandO | Property | Properties