Erectile Dysfunction

Property owners in rural southwestern Pennsylvania knew things would change in the aftermath of United Flight 93’s crash on Sept. 11, 2001, which killed 40 passengers and crew and four terrorist hijackers. Plans were soon in the works for a memorial to honor the victims.

Property owners say they realized that and were willing to cooperate and help make it happen. —

Got this?  Your government, hell-bent to build a memorial to victims of anti-American terrorism, plans to confiscate property of private citizens, some of whom were prepared to donate it anyway.

The seven property owners own about 500 acres still needed for what will ultimately be a $58 million, 2,200-acre permanent memorial and national park at the crash site near Shanksville, about 60 miles southeast of Pittsburgh.  [Randall] Musser served on the committee that helped establish the park’s boundaries, and said landowners were promised in 2002 that eminent domain would not be used.

Imagine that.  The American government lied to them.  Can such things be?

flight93-1The horrendous incident of terrorism and the fatal heroism that brought it to a fiery end need no retelling here; all of us remember and remain appalled and infuriated.  Furthermore, those responsible still roam the earth unpunished.  So the irony here is thicker than a Pennsylvania Dutch girl’s ankles: this act of property seizure (in the name of the Greater Good, of course) becomes the second terrorist act on Pennsyltucky soil in a decade.  Not counting Sen. Rick Santorum’s election, of course.

Once more we see how deluded and out-of-touch people empowered to govern us really are; how in their insulated bubble of political correctness, ideology, and obsequious obedience to a system that coddles them, this kind of reasoning makes perfect sense.  Like the clue-free clods who combated terrorism by spending taxpayers’ money to change “French Fries” to “Freedom Fries” in the Congressional cafetiera, in their world symbolism triumphs over reality.  But in this case, property owners, some of whom have life savings invested, and have resided here for 70 years, pick up the tab.

If these petty bureaucrats prevail, the only appropriate monument would be a shaft.  Let’s roll.

This entry was posted in NIMBY. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Erectile Dysfunction

  1. Ms Calabaza says:

    Kelo v. State of New London:
    On June 23, 2005, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, ruled in favor of the City of New London. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion; he was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Justice Kennedy penned a concurring opinion setting out more detailed standards for judicial review of economic development takings than that found in Stevens’ majority opinion. In so doing, he contributed to the Court’s trend of turning minimum scrutiny—the idea that government policy need only bear a rational relation to a legitimate government purpose—into a fact-based test. ~Wikipedia

    Squatty, I’ve been agreeing with you a great deal lately . . . creepy.

  2. alesh says:

    Wait a second… they were planning on donating the land, and now with eminent domain they’re going to be paid for it. So what’s the problem?

  3. "Esq" a lawyer says:

    That New London case triggered off prophylactic laws nation-wide, as communities reacted in horror to the fear that power handed over to petty government would create economic dictatorships, with (e.g.) city councils grabbing choice properties and redistributing them as political favors.

  4. Ted End says:

    ‘Esq” — this is crazy. What does seizing private property have to do with laws about rubbers? What kind of law school did you go to, anyway?

  5. Flaming Yon says:

    As I read the article, not everybody was prepared to donate their land. It does seem like most were ready to sell. I suppose they probably could have been prevailed upon to sell at a fair price — one never knows — but now it looks as though the government said, Why bother? We’ll do it the easy way. Take it and pay them what we feel like. We’re the government and we can do what we want.

    It’s wrong in principle and it’s a bad deal for the landowners. And you’re right Squathole that it’s cruelly ironic, considering the backstory.

    Other than that it’s just ducky.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s