Relatives of those who perished on board Flight 93 when that aircraft crashed during the 9/11 terrorist attacks are now asking that the federal government seize land from a private owner in order to move forward on work for a memorial to the victims. The land in question is owned by Mike Svonavec of Svonavec Inc. in Somerset, Pennsylvannia. The letter from the families of the victims was sent after negotiations between Svonavec and the National Park Service recently bogged down, putting in jeopardy plans to hold a 10th anniversary dedication ceremony for the proposed 2,200 acre, $58 million memorial.

Building a memorial to the victims of Flight 93 is a worthy cause. Their heroism amidst vicious tragedy quickly became an inspiration to all Americans in the dark days that followed the terrorist attacks. But, should the memorial be built at the expense of private property rights? The right to own property, the product of a person's labor, is one of the fundamental building blocks of a free society. The heroes of Flight 93 fought to save their lives, and the lives of others onboard from terrorists who, the Bush administration has repeatedly told us, attacked becaused they hated our freedoms. While their motivation for the attack may not have really been as simple as that, nevertheless, using government to undermine property rights in order to pave the way for a monument to these heroes seems at the very least ironic and, perhaps, just a bit inappropriate.

It is also likely unnecessary. Though Svonavec has already rejected $250,000 from the Park Service and $750,000 from Families of Flight 93, the advocacy group pressing Bush to seize the land, he claims that he is willing to negotiate. The Flight 93 group is convinced that there is little to gain from further talks with the land owner and have accused Svonavec of seeking $10 million for the land while questioning his desire to negotiate in good faith. For his part, Svonavec faults the Park Service for not doing enough to close the deal. “All we’ve ever asked is that an independent appraisal be done on the property, and then let’s sit down and work it out,” said Svonavec. “I’ve jumped through hoops. I’d do anything I can to get it done. But when they’re hiding appraisals, what can you do.” Park Service officials rejected a second appraisal claiming that it did not meet federal standards. A third appraisal is expected to be completed by Jan. 5.

Nevertheless, action in the Senate has made seizure of the land a possibility. A subsequent amendment to the original memorial legislation by Sens. Robert P. Casey Jr. (D-Pa) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa) opened the door to a federal land grab through a declaration of eminent domain, and there is mounting pressure to make the seizure a reality. "I do not believe there are any other possibilities," John J. Reynolds, chairman of the Flight 93 Advisory Commission, said according to the Washington Post. "It would seem the president would want to get this done, but so far, nothing is getting done."

Park Service Deputy Director Dan Wenk still believes that the project can be finished by the tenth anniversary date if Svonavec accepts an offer following what would be a third appraisal. “What we are shooting for is to have this resolved in the early spring of 2009 so that we can begin to implement phase one of the plans for the construction of the memorial,” said Wenk.�

The Bush administration has yet to respond to the Families of Flight 93 December 9, 2008 request for action. One thing is certain, however: the seizure of privately owned land would represent a gross abuse of power. Let us hope that there is a better ending in store for both the landowner and for those who rightfully wish to remember the heroic efforts of Flight 93 passengers.�

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (7)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

GaryRLewis said:

Nope The government has absolutely no right to seize Mr. Svonavec's land, no exceptions. If you deviate even a fraction away from the principles inherent in the Constitution (which is clearly obvious all around us, to those who can see it) you are simply opening the flood gates to further deviation. Now if the two parties can reach some type of agreement then that would be perfectly fine, and I hope that they do.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 02, 2009
Votes: +7

Alec Rawls said:

Not all the families are for the land confiscation, or for the crescent memorial itself The Flight 93 families are divided on this. In particular, the Burnett family has supported the Svonavec's against the memorial Project's thuggish behavior. Mr. Burnett has also protested the memorial design. He does not want the Park Service planting a giant Islamic shaped crescent atop his son's grave. Video of Mr. Burnett's plea for help in stopping this atrocity here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4z1QN6m_QI

report abuse vote down vote up

January 03, 2009 | url
Votes: +4

Bob Heiney said:

	Flight 93 Memorial Few citizens of the US will dispute the need for a memorial to the passengers and crew who lost their lives on Flight 93. However, is it necessary to spend $58,000,000 on it? And is it necessary to utilize so much land in the process? Once again, it's easy to spend other people's money. That's our government at work.
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 05, 2009 | url
Votes: +2

Peter Steele said:

RE: Karl Marx's dictum "Abolition of Private Property as a plank - emininent domain In my book I explained as Dad explained the planks of the socialist/communist Communist Manifesto. Karl Marx's dictum "Abolition of Private Property" is like the eminent domain of today's America. My late father exposed the dangerous fallacies of Norman Thomas Socialism and Karl Marx's Communism and gave the history of the American Communist Party and the American Socialist Party. This book will be published by a reputable conservative publisher like Regnery and it is 100% true and honest as Jack McManus read the manuscript. Peter F. Steele

report abuse vote down vote up

January 06, 2009
Votes: -1

DaveB said:

Truth first First lets complete a true investigation of 911. I live in Cleveland and on 911 there was a news report that confirmed that the hijacked plan landed safely at Hopkins Airport and passengers were being let off on the runway. No subsequent news about that. The pictures of the Flight 93 crash site had no wreckage, no luggage, no plane. See You tube. You ask what about the passengers? First we need to see what happened. If the CIA was behind this. It is easy to have 35 paid CIA agents on that plane. Their budget is larger than General Motors. Think how many undercover employees they must have. I am for helping honest victims, after honest investigation. If the CIA had nothing to do with it, we can all have a good laugh and bless our freedom. God Bless JBS.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 06, 2009
Votes: -1

Charles_Byrd said:

	Memorial? Yes! Land grab? No I am all for a memorial to the heroes of Flight 93, but if the families cannot buy the land, they should look for alternatives.
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 07, 2009
Votes: +1

ehutch said:

	... seizure of that property would be permanently tainting any memorial erected. also, 58 million sure seems excessive for a remembrance.
	report abuse vote down vote up

February 04, 2009
Votes: +0