If you answered $9.5 million ($6,810/acre), then you must be Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. According to the following article from the NY Times, the Feds, already projected to run a $1.6 trillon deficit this fiscal year, are printing up $9.5 million to purchase the 1,395 acres as the site for the Flight 93 memorial.
If you wondering what the market rate is for acreage in Sommerset County, Pennsylvania, I point you to this sample-- a nice 405 acre parcel near Confluence, PA, for the grand bargain of $1.5 million, or $3,700/acre. Granted, the sample land is not as close to the cosmopolitan city of Shanksville, and likely never was reported to have had a 757 nosedive into it, but still, it's basically listed at half-off the government rate. Don't worry too much though as Larry Hoover, the yokel quoted below, noted that despite the inconvenience of haggling for nearly eight years to only get double the market rate, he has settled with his conscience that he's getting a "fair deal" on his 5 acres. Moreover, if you were worried that the Fed's broke the Treasury with their generosity, you should also know that the FIRST phase of the memorial is slated to cost a mere $58 million. No word yet on if the money appropriated for this fiasco was a line item inserted by John Murtha (with a concomitant kickback from the appraiser, of course), whether Haliburton received a no-bid contract to construct the memorial, or if Blackwater/Xe will provide security for the project...
Path Cleared for Memorial to Flight 93
By SEAN D. HAMILL
Work will begin this fall on a memorial to those killed aboard United Airlines Flight 93 on Sept. 11, 2001, now that agreements have been reached to buy the last key pieces of land in Pennsylvania, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar said Monday.
The federal government will pay about $9.5 million to the owners of nine parcels near Shanksville, in rural southwestern Pennsylvania, totaling 1,395 acres, including the site where the plane crashed and one right-of-way, Mr. Salazar said.
“Thanks to the collaborative efforts of the landowners, the Families of Flight 93 and the employees of the National Park Service, we have reached this important milestone,” he said.
Flight 93 was traveling from Newark to San Francisco when it was diverted by hijackers, who crashed the plane as passengers tried to wrest control of the cockpit. All 33 passengers and seven crew members died.
The announcement ends years of bargaining with landowners.
Negotiations intensified at the end of last year when, with some parcels still in limbo, the Families of Flight 93, a nonprofit group that has been helping with the purchases, asked the Bush administration to get something done before it left office.
This summer, with time running short to get the first $58 million phase of the memorial completed in time for the 10th anniversary of the crash, the Interior Department set a deadline for the remaining landowners and threatened to take the land through condemnation.
That prompted Senator Arlen Specter to intercede and bring in Mr. Salazar to talk to the landowners himself, which got negotiations moving.
“It really took all the elements to align these stars,” said Patrick White, a lawyer and member of the Families of Flight 93, who helped with negotiations.
Larry Hoover, whose family owned two parcels, totaling five acres, would not say how much his family would receive for the land that held his summer home and a year-round home for his son.
“It was an honorable figure for both sides,” he said. “Did we get everything we wanted? Probably not. But it was fair.”
Originally published at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/us/01penn.html?ref=us
Monday, August 31, 2009
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Because I Can
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/08/foreclosure-rescue-mirage#comment-194653
Too Bad
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on August 26, 2009 - 5:34am.
It's difficult to feel sorry for the individual homeowners who don't get the government to magically erase their problems. My husband and I bought a $50,000 fixer-upper in Vermont in 2003, and put our own money into it to basically renovate everything. We knew that the payment was low enough that we could continue to afford it even if only one of us was working, which was what happened when I decided to stay home with our kids. And because the payment was low, we managed to continue to save money to float us by when my husband was recently laid-off for three months.
People signed onto loans that they should have known that they could not afford. It doesn't take a PhD in math to figure out what would happen if the rate changed or a person lost a few months of income. This isn't saying that the government is also to blame for its lax rules. But people should take some kind of personal responsibility.
But as I sit here in my modest home reading about people losing their "dream homes," I really don't feel sorry at all for them. Maybe I don't have my "dream home" yet, but I still have my home. They thought they deserved a great McMansion right off the bat and now they are paying the price. They should have known better. Now taxpayers like me who did know better are supposed to bail them out. No Thanks.
recommend this (1) reply
Heartless and Smug
Submitted by I'm Just Sayin' (not verified) on August 26, 2009 - 6:47am.
O.K., "Too Bad" we get it. You don't care about millions of families dispossessed from their homes; desperately struggling folks and their children literally forced out onto the streets to fend for themselves. Neighborhoods filled with abandoned homes that these same families could have continued to occupy as renters, if someone in D.C. or even say, Vermont, cared a little more about regular folks than about bankers. That doesn't bother you. We get it.
But for the rest of us folks (even those of us who regularly make our mortgage payments) we DO give a damn, even about folks who make mistakes, or more often than not were misled by unscrupulous mortgage brokers. And maybe you should too since you're so concerned about your tax money being wasted. Chew on this-- if these default rates aren't significantly reduced in the near future, you can kiss the possibility of a meaningful economic recovery goodbye, in which case, get ready to have a lot more of your precious tax dollars wasted on attempting to keep insolvent zombie banks in business. If they can't make a market for those CDOs then they will not become solvent anytime soon and we will continue to bail them out over and over again. Maybe you need to rethink the situation as you sit there in the warmth of your modest Vermont home. Cause if we don't stop these defaults soon it will be "too bad" for all of us! I'm just sayin'.
recommend this (2) reply
Jesus Christ in a birchbark canoe
Submitted by RW Twain (not verified) on August 27, 2009 - 12:20am.
tagged as: solution
"Maybe you need to rethink the situation as you sit there in the warmth of your modest Vermont home."
Perhaps you should stop and think about the situation altogether.
You assert that it is a justifiable power of government to save individuals, or to tax the whole for the benefit of the few, either wealthy or impoverished. You place full blame on mortgage brokers for sins they could not commit alone, while pushing for intervention on stop-gapping CDS defaults as the panacea for saving the economy. Given that tripe, you launched a salvo against the Vermont poster for smugness?
The VT poster was simply enunciating a view that success and overall happiness in life are dependent upon personal responsibility in a person's actions. That poster did not overpay for the house, and apparently made the commitment to labor sweat equity in to the "modest Vermont home" to provide for her own comfort. Repairs weren't likely financed on credit cards or a cash out HELOC, but spent from dollars that the poster would rather not have taxed for the benefit of those who failed to exercise the type of financial responsibility required in adulthood.
You seemingly argue for tax dollars to be used for the ongoing support of the disendomiciled and flipperquesters, but not for corporate welfare. I agree on the latter point, but am repulsed by the former. I'll pay taxes for the convenience of the roads, rails and post, willingly endure expenditure of my earned, but lost wealth for police, fire, schools and the like (perhaps even universal health care), but I will never condone the taking of my wealth for use in unjustified wars, bureaucratic inefficiency, fraudulent public spending or welfare for individuals who failed to comprehend the long-term consequences of their instant, exhibited avarice. Calculating that as a total, I unwillingly endure 75% of all current federal spending and perhaps 15% of state spending.
A recovery won't be obtained from rewarding those you have failed. Support for those who are justifiably downtrodden underlies the eventual recovery of the US economy, but it should not be drawn entirely on the backs of citizen taxpayers. We can't have a recovery of the economy until the majority of us, masters and slaves, Congresspeople and lobbyists, aging, hippie liberal douches and pissed off, redneck conservatives, rediscover the enlightenment that is personal responsibility and morally upright behavior.
Until that time, it's simply pissing in the wind.
For reaction, see http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/08/foreclosure-rescue-mirage#comment-194653
Too Bad
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on August 26, 2009 - 5:34am.
It's difficult to feel sorry for the individual homeowners who don't get the government to magically erase their problems. My husband and I bought a $50,000 fixer-upper in Vermont in 2003, and put our own money into it to basically renovate everything. We knew that the payment was low enough that we could continue to afford it even if only one of us was working, which was what happened when I decided to stay home with our kids. And because the payment was low, we managed to continue to save money to float us by when my husband was recently laid-off for three months.
People signed onto loans that they should have known that they could not afford. It doesn't take a PhD in math to figure out what would happen if the rate changed or a person lost a few months of income. This isn't saying that the government is also to blame for its lax rules. But people should take some kind of personal responsibility.
But as I sit here in my modest home reading about people losing their "dream homes," I really don't feel sorry at all for them. Maybe I don't have my "dream home" yet, but I still have my home. They thought they deserved a great McMansion right off the bat and now they are paying the price. They should have known better. Now taxpayers like me who did know better are supposed to bail them out. No Thanks.
recommend this (1) reply
Heartless and Smug
Submitted by I'm Just Sayin' (not verified) on August 26, 2009 - 6:47am.
O.K., "Too Bad" we get it. You don't care about millions of families dispossessed from their homes; desperately struggling folks and their children literally forced out onto the streets to fend for themselves. Neighborhoods filled with abandoned homes that these same families could have continued to occupy as renters, if someone in D.C. or even say, Vermont, cared a little more about regular folks than about bankers. That doesn't bother you. We get it.
But for the rest of us folks (even those of us who regularly make our mortgage payments) we DO give a damn, even about folks who make mistakes, or more often than not were misled by unscrupulous mortgage brokers. And maybe you should too since you're so concerned about your tax money being wasted. Chew on this-- if these default rates aren't significantly reduced in the near future, you can kiss the possibility of a meaningful economic recovery goodbye, in which case, get ready to have a lot more of your precious tax dollars wasted on attempting to keep insolvent zombie banks in business. If they can't make a market for those CDOs then they will not become solvent anytime soon and we will continue to bail them out over and over again. Maybe you need to rethink the situation as you sit there in the warmth of your modest Vermont home. Cause if we don't stop these defaults soon it will be "too bad" for all of us! I'm just sayin'.
recommend this (2) reply
Jesus Christ in a birchbark canoe
Submitted by RW Twain (not verified) on August 27, 2009 - 12:20am.
tagged as: solution
"Maybe you need to rethink the situation as you sit there in the warmth of your modest Vermont home."
Perhaps you should stop and think about the situation altogether.
You assert that it is a justifiable power of government to save individuals, or to tax the whole for the benefit of the few, either wealthy or impoverished. You place full blame on mortgage brokers for sins they could not commit alone, while pushing for intervention on stop-gapping CDS defaults as the panacea for saving the economy. Given that tripe, you launched a salvo against the Vermont poster for smugness?
The VT poster was simply enunciating a view that success and overall happiness in life are dependent upon personal responsibility in a person's actions. That poster did not overpay for the house, and apparently made the commitment to labor sweat equity in to the "modest Vermont home" to provide for her own comfort. Repairs weren't likely financed on credit cards or a cash out HELOC, but spent from dollars that the poster would rather not have taxed for the benefit of those who failed to exercise the type of financial responsibility required in adulthood.
You seemingly argue for tax dollars to be used for the ongoing support of the disendomiciled and flipperquesters, but not for corporate welfare. I agree on the latter point, but am repulsed by the former. I'll pay taxes for the convenience of the roads, rails and post, willingly endure expenditure of my earned, but lost wealth for police, fire, schools and the like (perhaps even universal health care), but I will never condone the taking of my wealth for use in unjustified wars, bureaucratic inefficiency, fraudulent public spending or welfare for individuals who failed to comprehend the long-term consequences of their instant, exhibited avarice. Calculating that as a total, I unwillingly endure 75% of all current federal spending and perhaps 15% of state spending.
A recovery won't be obtained from rewarding those you have failed. Support for those who are justifiably downtrodden underlies the eventual recovery of the US economy, but it should not be drawn entirely on the backs of citizen taxpayers. We can't have a recovery of the economy until the majority of us, masters and slaves, Congresspeople and lobbyists, aging, hippie liberal douches and pissed off, redneck conservatives, rediscover the enlightenment that is personal responsibility and morally upright behavior.
Until that time, it's simply pissing in the wind.
For reaction, see http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/08/foreclosure-rescue-mirage#comment-194653
Monday, August 17, 2009
American Mission Creep Increasing in Kurd-Arab Dispute
US commander in Iraq wants troops in disputed land
By KIM GAMEL, Associated Press Writer
Mon Aug 17, 10:19 am ET
BAGHDAD – The top U.S. commander in Iraq said Monday that he wants to deploy American soldiers to disputed territories in northern Iraq following a recent spike in bombings there.
The move would be a departure from the security pact that called for Americans to pull back from populated areas on June 30.
The U.S. soldiers would partner with Iraqi government and Kurdish troops to secure the largely unguarded villages along the faultline of land disputed between Arabs and Kurds, Gen. Ray Odierno said.
He stressed that no final decision has been made but said Iraqi and Kurdish leaders were receptive to the idea.
"I think they just all feel more comfortable if we're there," he told reporters Monday at a briefing at Camp Victory, the U.S. military headquarters on Baghdad's western outskirts.
The U.S. deployment would be a temporary "confidence-building" measure, he said, adding he had discussed the idea with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki earlier Monday in a meeting.
Odierno said it would not affect the overall withdrawal timeline that calls for U.S. combat forces to leave the country by the end of August 2010, with a full withdrawal by the end of 2011.
Iraq's government, meanwhile, approved a draft law paving the way for a referendum on the security pact that lays out the U.S. withdrawal timeline to be held simultaneously with national parliamentary elections on Jan. 16, spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said in a statement. The measure still needs to be approved by Iraq's parliament, which is in recess until next month.
Iraqi lawmakers agreed to the security pact last November, after months of bitter negotiations. But it included the caveat that the deal should go before voters in a referendum to be held by July 30. The government said earlier this year that it wanted the referendum to be held on the same day as the national elections to save time and money.
Opponents had argued the Americans should leave immediately after the Dec. 31 expiration of a U.N. mandate for foreign forces.
The inclusion of the referendum met a demand by the main Sunni bloc in parliament and raised the possibility that the deal could be rejected if anti-U.S. anger and demands for an immediate withdrawal grow.
Odierno's announcement reflects heightened U.S. concern over an increase in violence since American troops pulled back from urban areas, particularly in northern Iraq. Some 160 people have been killed in bombings near the northern city of Mosul and in Baghdad since Aug. 7, when the recent spike began.
"I'm still very confident in the overall security here," Odierno said. "Unfortunately they're killing a lot of innocent civilians."
Several top defense officials have identified the split between Iraq's majority Arabs and the Kurdish minority as probably a greater long-term threat to Iraq's stability than the more familiar Sunni-Shiite conflict. Defense Secretary Robert Gates went to the Kurdish self-rule area in the North to make the case that both sides have limited time to resolve their differences before U.S. troops leave in 2011.
At the heart of the dispute is the oil-rich city of Kirkuk and a batch of villages in Ninevah province that the Kurds want to incorporate into their semiautonomous area despite opposition from Arabs and minority Turkomen ethnic group.
Odierno said al-Qaida in Iraq was exploiting the ethnic divisions to stage high-profile bombings in small towns that don't have a police force and other so-called soft targets in order to avoid heavy security concentrated in more central areas and maximize the number of casualties.
"Al-Qaida is trying to take advantage of the seam," he said.
He said the deployment of the U.S.-Iraqi-Kurdish protection forces would start in Ninevah province, which includes the volatile city of Mosul, then extend to Kirkuk.
Odierno discussed the idea with senior Iraqi and Kurdish officials on Sunday and planned another meeting in early September.
"Having met with all these leaders, I think there is room to work this out," he said.
By KIM GAMEL, Associated Press Writer
Mon Aug 17, 10:19 am ET
BAGHDAD – The top U.S. commander in Iraq said Monday that he wants to deploy American soldiers to disputed territories in northern Iraq following a recent spike in bombings there.
The move would be a departure from the security pact that called for Americans to pull back from populated areas on June 30.
The U.S. soldiers would partner with Iraqi government and Kurdish troops to secure the largely unguarded villages along the faultline of land disputed between Arabs and Kurds, Gen. Ray Odierno said.
He stressed that no final decision has been made but said Iraqi and Kurdish leaders were receptive to the idea.
"I think they just all feel more comfortable if we're there," he told reporters Monday at a briefing at Camp Victory, the U.S. military headquarters on Baghdad's western outskirts.
The U.S. deployment would be a temporary "confidence-building" measure, he said, adding he had discussed the idea with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki earlier Monday in a meeting.
Odierno said it would not affect the overall withdrawal timeline that calls for U.S. combat forces to leave the country by the end of August 2010, with a full withdrawal by the end of 2011.
Iraq's government, meanwhile, approved a draft law paving the way for a referendum on the security pact that lays out the U.S. withdrawal timeline to be held simultaneously with national parliamentary elections on Jan. 16, spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said in a statement. The measure still needs to be approved by Iraq's parliament, which is in recess until next month.
Iraqi lawmakers agreed to the security pact last November, after months of bitter negotiations. But it included the caveat that the deal should go before voters in a referendum to be held by July 30. The government said earlier this year that it wanted the referendum to be held on the same day as the national elections to save time and money.
Opponents had argued the Americans should leave immediately after the Dec. 31 expiration of a U.N. mandate for foreign forces.
The inclusion of the referendum met a demand by the main Sunni bloc in parliament and raised the possibility that the deal could be rejected if anti-U.S. anger and demands for an immediate withdrawal grow.
Odierno's announcement reflects heightened U.S. concern over an increase in violence since American troops pulled back from urban areas, particularly in northern Iraq. Some 160 people have been killed in bombings near the northern city of Mosul and in Baghdad since Aug. 7, when the recent spike began.
"I'm still very confident in the overall security here," Odierno said. "Unfortunately they're killing a lot of innocent civilians."
Several top defense officials have identified the split between Iraq's majority Arabs and the Kurdish minority as probably a greater long-term threat to Iraq's stability than the more familiar Sunni-Shiite conflict. Defense Secretary Robert Gates went to the Kurdish self-rule area in the North to make the case that both sides have limited time to resolve their differences before U.S. troops leave in 2011.
At the heart of the dispute is the oil-rich city of Kirkuk and a batch of villages in Ninevah province that the Kurds want to incorporate into their semiautonomous area despite opposition from Arabs and minority Turkomen ethnic group.
Odierno said al-Qaida in Iraq was exploiting the ethnic divisions to stage high-profile bombings in small towns that don't have a police force and other so-called soft targets in order to avoid heavy security concentrated in more central areas and maximize the number of casualties.
"Al-Qaida is trying to take advantage of the seam," he said.
He said the deployment of the U.S.-Iraqi-Kurdish protection forces would start in Ninevah province, which includes the volatile city of Mosul, then extend to Kirkuk.
Odierno discussed the idea with senior Iraqi and Kurdish officials on Sunday and planned another meeting in early September.
"Having met with all these leaders, I think there is room to work this out," he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)