Almost anyone who reads this remembers the brave passengers of flight 93, who, on 9/11, overpowered the hijackers on their flight and caused the airplane to crash in a Pennsylvania field instead of the White House or Capital.
Certainly we would all agree that those brave souls should be memorialized. But do you imagine any of them would want their memorial for selfless sacrifice to come at the price of their fellow American’s property?
Can anyone explain why a memorial to these brave Americans must be 2,200 acres in size and force property owners in the area where the airplane happened to crash to give up their property to satisfy the plans and demands of the government?
Is there a problem with a simple marker commemorating the event and access for the public which would like to pay the passengers tribute?
Land owners have resisted the government’s plans for a $58 million, 2,200 acre park. But as we all know, since the Kelo decision, that’s been a losing battle. And, as the Justice Department begins condemnation proceedings against these landowners, they are left to twist in the wind.
Property rights, it seems, must always take a back seat to government designs. Public need is no longer the standard. Now just about anything can be “justified”.
The park will certainly be built. And it will pay tribute to a group of Americans who surely deserve the honor of a memorial. But one has to wonder at what real cost this memorial comes when considering its impact on further degrading the rights of property owners.
Comments