The Flight 93 National Memorial now under development in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, won’t be ready for dedication on the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks if land acquisition efforts remain stalled. Deeply concerned about the delays, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has put the negotiators on notice that he’ll order seizure of the land if willing seller agreements are not reached by June 12.
This ultimatum amounts to a “stay of execution,” or if you prefer, a “temporary reversal of an earlier decision.” The Secretary had announced last month that a decision to seize the land had already been made. Now a window of opportunity for a willing seller transfer of ownership has been re-opened, but it will last only until the end of this week.
Secretary Salazar’s threat to use the federal government’s eminent domain authority to acquire key parcels of land for the planned 2,200-acre Memorial is certainly understandable in light of the pressure cooker atmosphere pervading this project. The National Park Service knows it will face a firestorm of criticism and lose valuable political capital if the agency cannot have the Memorial ready (Phase I completed) for its September 11, 2011 dedication. There is barely enough time to meet this hard deadline, so land acquisition has to be completed quickly. The clock is tick, tick, ticking…..
The big holdup right now is the acquisition of seven parcels of privately-owned land totaling about 500 acres. These key parcels, the largest of which is 275 acres, adjoin land already acquired for the Memorial.
In a letter sent last week to Dan Wenk, Acting Director of the National Park Service, Secretary Salazar ordered the NPS to have representatives available in Somerset County from today through Thursday (June 9 through June 11) to meet with the landowners involved and attempt to reach a negotiated settlement. On Friday, June 12, Acting Director Wenk must report the status of the negotiations to Secretary Salazar’s office. Condemnation proceedings are to be initiated if a “willing seller” agreement has not been worked out.
Condemnation is not confiscation. If the federal government seizes the required land parcels, the landowners must be paid fair market value for their property.
Secretary Salazar has made it clear that eminent domain proceedings should be avoided if at all possible, and has accordingly urged the negotiating parties to reach a settlement in their collective interest. We will know soon enough if the Secretary’s ultimatum has the desired effect. Meanwhile, the landowners – people that Secretary Salazar has praised as “good neighbors” and incidental "victims of 9/11" -- have claimed that the government has not treated them fairly, and that there is simply not enough time to work out willing seller agreements before the end of the week.
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
Hope the market prices will be adjusted to today's level and the (owners) suffer from the plunge of real estate prices. Had they sold two years ago, they would have gotten away far better.
If people do NOT want to sell their land they should not HAVE to sell it. The memorial is a wonderful thing but people should not have to give up their freedom of owning land. It is not a matter of life or death to the nation.
There was another plane that crashed into the pentagon. Has the government converted this area from its former use, and made it public access. Civilians and government employees died there. How about starting by moving out all the files and people on that side of the pentegon so it will be used as a memorial. They won't have to worry about buying it, they already own it.
This land in PA. is privately owned and wanted for a memorial. The relatives of those on the plane need a final place to remember the bravery, They probably do not want any more lives changed by this incident. When the land is taken at "fair market value", it more than likely will not be what they are taxing it at.
Just who decided that something has to be done by the 10th anniversary? What's wrong with the Temporary Memorial?
The Pentagon made a memorial and had the dedication last year. That site is open to the public and is very nice.
Persoanlly if landowners do not want to sell then have the memorial site smaller and do without.
A large memorial is not a "have to have" nor a necessity to society and private property should not be seized just to build one. If the owners do not wish to sell, they should not be made to. Frankly, I find this entire situation to be heavy-handed and unnecessary on the part of the Interior Secretary.
The land acquisition process for the Flight 93 Memorial is an emotionally charged issue with powerful arguments on both sides. Whether and how the federal government should use its eminent domain authority in the broader context of establishing and expanding NPS units is something that we'll want to explore in greater depth here at Traveler . Watch for a feature article on this topic in the near future.
This is exactly what the state of Virginia did for Shenandoah and it has created hard feelings since the 1930's. Didn't we learn our lesson then? I am someone who had my home taken through "condemnation" and it is just as bad as having it simply taken. How can we, a supposedly civilized democratic nation simply take someone's home away simply to build a memorial?