So, in an inevitable move, there are plans for a memorial at the site of the Flight 93 crash. And a rush to get it done before the 10th anniversary of the 9-11 plane crash.
Can anyone tell me how the memory of these people is served by taking the land from the owners to build the memorial? It's an irony that the people on Flight 93 died trying to protect others, but the land owners find themselves entirely without protection as the park service makes a land grab.
Would you want to remembered in a way that trampled the rights of others? If we see their struggle to get the plane back as a fight for freedom, how hypocritical is it to take land from people to honor them. And just to be clear, it's taking the land no matter what you pay for it if the owners are forced to sell it.
There's no greater public good served here by taking this land. No necessity met by a change of ownership.
If the people who owned the land wanted to build a memorial, if they approached and said they wanted to donate, even if they approached saying the wanted to sell it because it just didn't seem right to use the land for anything else, that's one thing. But to tell them they have to sell up, no choice about it, nope. Eminent domain run amuck.
At least it's not another case of a developer stealing land with the government's help for a strip mall. Gaaa.