PDA

View Full Version : Flight 93 memorial land in dispute



IraGlacialis
06-06-2007, 12:11 AM
http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/nws/p/ap_small.gif (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/ap/brand/SIG=br2v03;_ylt=ArhcFXYaC9IK2mEi0qAdWiJH2ocA/*http://www.ap.org)
Flight 93 memorial land in dispute
By DANIEL LOVERING, Associated Press Writer

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20070605/capt.c4a03c6c146347c59bee76102240ec95.flight_93_memorial_cash_box_pasom101.jpg?x=380&y=252&sig=gN5fjMctidj831fQo2VVZw--
People walk Tuesday, June 5, 2007, near an aluminum donation box placed on the Flight 93 temporary memorial site in Stonycreek Township, Pa. The owner of a key piece of land for the planned Flight 93 memorial in Somerset County has placed a cash donation box at the site, angering the relatives of victims. Organizers worry the move to raise money to cover security costs at the site could upset plans for the memorial. (AP Photo/Daily American, Bob Leverknight)

PITTSBURGH - A man who owns property at the site where Flight 93 crashed has demanded millions for his portion of land where a memorial is planned, and has installed a donation box to help pay for security. The actions by Mike Svonavec have angered victims' families, who believe he is overcharging and disagree with the need for a donation box.
"That land has been paid for with 40 lives ... the donation box is an insult to that cost," said Patrick White, vice president for Families of Flight 93.
Svonavec wants $10 million for his 273-acre property in Somerset County, far more than the per-acre amount paid for nearby land, White said Tuesday. He said Svonavec told him about his asking price last July, and that he has rejected three offers from the group — the latest for more than $500,000.
"I think Svonavec believes his land, because it has the blood of my cousin and 39 other people, it's worth more," he said.
Svonavec said he wants fair market value for the parcel and he would accept no money for the exact site where 40 passengers and crew members died when the hijacked United Airlines flight crashed on Sept. 11, 2001. He declined to comment on the $10 million figure.
The donation box, installed near a temporary memorial on the land, would help cover security costs. Security has been handled by a firm at a cost of about $10,000 per month since federal funding ran out in February. The site has also incurred other costs, he said.
"I just can't afford it," Svonavec said. "I need some help."
Memorial planners have purchased 60 of the 1,300 acres needed for a permanent memorial and national park. Svonavec owns the second-largest parcel of land in the area after PBS Coals Inc., which owns 864 acres.
White said he is negotiating with PBS Coals, and the remaining parcels are in various stages of being acquired.
Svonavec said he is working with advisers, including Randall Bell, a California-based real estate appraiser who specializes in properties where disasters have occurred. Svonavec said he is waiting for a completed appraisal.
He said he had asked to deal exclusively with the National Park Service, which also is working on the memorial, rather than the group. He said he rejected an earlier Park Service offer because "it just wasn't acceptable."
The Park Service is preparing another appraisal. Joanne Hanley, the Park Service superintendent of the site, declined to comment.
Flight 93 was en route from Newark, N.J., to San Francisco when it was hijacked and crashed in a field near Shanksville as passengers rushed the cockpit, according to the 9/11 Commission.
The $58 million memorial was established by an act of Congress in 2002. Construction tentatively has been scheduled to start in late 2008 or early 2009, and a ribbon-cutting ceremony has been planned for the 10-year anniversary of the attacks.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070606/ap_on_re_us/flight93_memorial_cash_box;_ylt=At3RIPMSbmNjd7rrE.vRxKas0NUE

GETSOME
06-06-2007, 06:36 AM
<p>58 Million For A Memorial ,jeezesss ???</p>

ltrowley
06-06-2007, 07:06 AM
You can sympathise with the man wanting comepensation for his land, but overcharging? Exploitation.

Durandal
06-06-2007, 09:00 AM
"That land has been paid for with 40 lives ... the donation box is an insult to that cost," said Patrick White

What an ass hat.

After that comment I wouldn't sell and drive people off it with a freaking shotgun.

This is a free society.

IF the owner wants to charge 36, 630.00 USD per acre that is his ƒucking right. God knows we pay more per acre for less important reasons.

If people don't like it, to ƒucking bad.

GromGrad
06-06-2007, 10:02 AM
I don't see what is so wrong about this, 273 acres for 10 million? Doesn't sound too bad if you live in nyc ;)

Happy
06-07-2007, 04:30 AM
it seems reasonable if the government is going to blow 58 million dollars on this, that he get his fair share. a nice memorial seems fine, but 1300 acres and 58 million seems a little over the top.

Durandal
06-07-2007, 07:59 AM
Well the National Park Service has spoken about the strong box. They own the land after all so I guess fair is fair.

If I were Svonavec I would spend some money on a fence rather than 10K on a security.


Trash Bag Covers Flight 93 Donation Box
The Associated Press
Thursday, June 7, 2007; 5:51 AM


SHANKSVILLE, Pa. -- The National Park Service has covered a cash donation box at the site where Flight 93 crashed that had angered victims' families.

Mike Svonavec, who owns property on land where a memorial is planned, had installed the donation box to cover security costs. Security has been handled by a private company at a monthly cost of about $10,000 since federal funding ran out in February, and Svonavec said the site has also incurred other costs.

A black plastic trash bag was placed over the donation box on Wednesday.

"The bottom line is we feel the National Park Service can't effectively carry out our mission without exercising the exclusive use and control of the site as provided for in our agreement with the property owners," Flight 93 Memorial Superintendent Joanne Hanley said.

"I don't understand what their basis is," Svonavec said of the decision to cover the box. "I've cooperated with everyone. Obviously, they are exercising the power the National Park Service feels it has."

Victims' families did not like the box, calling it an insult to the 40 passengers and crew members who died when the hijacked United Airlines flight crashed on Sept. 11, 2001.

Relatives also were angry because they said Svonavec had sought $10 million for his 273-acre property in Somerset County, though Svonavec denied the figure was that high and said he was not negotiating with the Families of Flight 93.

He said he had discussed the property with the National Park Service, "but the NPS hasn't made an offer and I haven't asked."

Memorial planners have purchased 60 of the 1,300 acres needed for a memorial and national park. Svonavec owns the second-largest parcel of land in the area after PBS Coals Inc., which owns 864 acres.

This, by the way, is what they want the memorial to look like:

https://www.communicationsmgr.com/projects/Flight93_bulibmgr/docs/Finalist%204%20--%2044-827.jpg

Jagr
06-07-2007, 06:46 PM
36,000 and acre is about 1/3rd the going rate around here for middle of the road suburban open land.

500,000 for a 273 acre parcel? Sign me up, I'll take it right now.

Bottom line is, while something signifigant happened to land on this guys property, he shouldn't be forced out of his land because of it.

Midav
06-07-2007, 07:58 PM
You can sympathise with the man wanting comepensation for his land, but overcharging? Exploitation.

I agree!

Svonavec wants $10 million for his 273-acre property in Somerset County, far more than the per-acre amount paid for nearby land

Midav
06-07-2007, 08:01 PM
36,000 and acre is about 1/3rd the going rate around here for middle of the road suburban open land.

500,000 for a 273 acre parcel? Sign me up, I'll take it right now.

Bottom line is, while something signifigant happened to land on this guys property, he shouldn't be forced out of his land because of it.

No one is forcing him out. Rather, from what I have read, he is taking advantage of the situation.

MonkeyLibFront
06-07-2007, 09:59 PM
But he has been having to pay for security of the site. If the guy wanted to charge 15 moon pieces its his right to as the owner.

Calanen
06-07-2007, 10:47 PM
The Federal government should just resume the land, and then he gets fair market value whether he likes it or not. End of the argument.

noname
06-08-2007, 12:24 AM
The Federal government should just resume the land, and then he gets fair market value whether he likes it or not. End of the argument.

Geez I hope you are just kidding. Imminent domain seizures are so wrong for many reasons. This dudes asking price is a bit high, he will see that soon enough and come down to something more reasonable.p-)

~center~
06-08-2007, 01:55 AM
^^^ Agreed, imminent domain is used most of the time in a negative way.

The facts are this, the guys an @sshat (opinion really... lol) AND it's his friggin land! If he wants to charge 1 billion dollars to spit on it, that's his business. It sucks but it's his property.

Aside form that,

RIP to the fallen

Durandal
06-08-2007, 07:55 AM
I agree!

Svonavec wants $10 million for his 273-acre property in Somerset County, far more than the per-acre amount paid for nearby land

People do NOT want other nearby land though. They want HIS land.

This is an EXTREMELY simply supply and demand example.

If we are using surrounding parcel values as an example then use those surrounding parcels...not his.

If you HAVE to use his land then its OBVIOUSLY worth more than par value...a lot more.

Herrmannek
06-08-2007, 08:04 AM
His business partners should stand high moral grounds and quit making business with him, he should be denied service in local shops or if illegal service should be deliberately slow... etc :) After a week or two he would give the field for free :) I can understand his greediness, but that doesn't mean people should agree with it....

Durandal
06-08-2007, 08:16 AM
His business partners should stand high moral grounds and quit making business with him, he should be denied service in local shops or if illegal service should be deliberately slow... etc :) After a week or two he would give the field for free :) I can understand his greediness, but that doesn't mean people should agree with it....

Cool Herrmannek. I want your stuff. All if it.

You will mail it to me and pay for the shipping.

Why? Because I want it, you do not need it, I need it more, and what ever price you ask for the stuff I'll simply ignore.

If you do not give it to me, I'll suggest everyone around you take the moral high road and treat you like crap in hopes that will do what you have been asked.

Herrmannek
06-08-2007, 08:25 AM
Cool Herrmannek. I want your stuff. All if it.

You will mail it to me and pay for the shipping.

Why? Because I want it, you do not need it, I need it more, and what ever price you ask for the stuff I'll simply ignore.

If you do not give it to me, I'll suggest everyone around you take the moral high road and treat you like crap in hopes that will do what you have been asked.

I'm sure it would work, just find a thing people would like to stand for and ostracize me :). Anyway ostracism is legal way to show someone he made bad decision... its clean, its effective and its self regulating, if it starts to go to far, most of the people would bail out... In other words guy would sell his ground for whats it worth and some little bonus... You don't make business of your life on patriotic deeds, maybe except if you are arms dealer :)

Herrmannek
06-08-2007, 08:38 AM
double post thingy