Times Observer file photos An aerial image of Kinzua before the construction of the Kinzua Dam.

“Now I ask you, are we supposed to go into debt for the rest of our lives just so a few business tycoons can sit on easy street from our great sacrifices not to mention the old people who live here in Kinzua who are living on small pensions or Social Security and will not receive enough for their homes to even build them a one room home?”

One of the joys of writing these stories each week is stumbling into things I never knew to look for.

This week – a pause from writing about presidents – is such an example.

It’s October 1960.

Construction of the Kinzua Dam had started. But just because that project was marching onward after decades of debate did not mean that it was buttoned up.

There were hundreds of people that hung in the balance.

From the Warren Times Mirror’s Oct. 24 editorial: “Recent purchase offers by the real estate representatives of the federal government to Kinzua area property owners have revealed a trend. The last half offers have been rejected and condemnation proceedings are the only recourse.”

The editors recognized that owners “must face the unpleasant prospect of leaving their homes and businesses. There is nothing anyone can do to make up for the personal sacrifice, involving emotional feelings over a home, business or piece of land.”

They cited evidence of similar situations with public projects across the country and said “it is the case” that a small minority couldn’t stand in the way of public improvements.

They cautioned properties against falling prey to a rumor that holding out on the government would result in the government upping its offer.

The response to that editorial is what I stumbled into.

The responses are angry. They’re embittered. But, in many places, they are also logical and make compelling arguments.

The responses outline the degree to which these residents viewed themselves as victims – victims against the government; victims against people in Warren who thought the Dam would be good for the region; Victims of industrials in Pittsburgh who stood to make more money due to the flood control measure.

I’m part of a generation that doesn’t have first hand knowledge of the region before the Dam. It’s just been part of our lives, part of Warren County.

The passion in the editorial responses is what caught my attention. And I thought it would be worth pausing and hearing the words of two unidentified residents of Kinzua, recognizing their struggle, knowing full well that there are members of the community today that still bear those scars first-hand.

The first response was published two days later – Oct. 26, 1960 – and was signed by a “Kinzua Displaced Person.”

“I for one am one of the property owners who refused the price the government offered us for our home not because we demand an outrageous price either, but because it wasn’t enough to make a satisfactory down payment on a home in Warren or surrounding area, where inflation is really apparent,” that individual wrote.

“Now I ask you, are we supposed to go into debt for the rest of our lives just so a few business tycoons can sit on easy street from our great sacrifices not to mention the old people who live here in Kinzua who are living on small pensions or Social Security and will not receive enough for their homes to even build them a one room home?”

Boy, is that a compelling question. You want to stay living where you are. You own the property. But the government is telling you you’re going to have to leave. But they’re not compensating you to make that move without a debt burden? There are some choiceless choices there.

“It just doesn’t seem fair that the people in Kinzua must suffer such worry and loss and at the same time have to endure ridicule and slams that the press and WNAE radio station have been dishing out to us,” the writer continued. “They seem to think that the residents up here are ignorant and without feelings and are not justified in fighting for a fair price for our homes.

“Believe me, were we offered a decent price for our older citizens, we would be more agreeable to this reservoir project but we will not sit back without a fight and let ourselves be walked on, as seems to be the case.”

That writer called on people in Warren to drop real estate prices under a belief that there was some price gouging at play. “I have just stated a few of the facts why the residents in Kinzua are so upset, do we have reason to be?”

The second response, published on Nov. 4, was simply signed “KINZUAN.”

“I personally know of a case on another flood control project where the same appraiser who is employed on this job almost doubled his first appraisal offer before settlement was reached,” that individual wrote. “So perhaps, rather than listen to ‘advice,’ the residents here (are) better to trust their instincts which, at least, can tell them when a price is just.

“If they want their offers accepted, then let them make acceptable offers.”

The author raised concern about the “intense egoism” of some of Warren’s “leaders and commentators.”

“Just why do you think the prices of a few initial purchases at the dam site appeared on your front page? A little unusual isn’t it? Well, its purpose was to lead the public to believe, just as you seem to believe, that property owners here were being well reimbursed,” the writer claimed. “Such tactics prove they know very well what appears right and fair, and the treatment we are entitled to receive.

“Rumors, indeed! It’s sad that some can only comprehend what is brought to their door.

“Most of the homes now being purchased are the only homes of their owners. A large family in a nine room house in good condition, with a plot of ground in the center of town is offered $7,500. To go where? To buy what? Other offers are similar. What those homes may have cost them is immaterial. What is a cold fact, is the price they must pay to replace them.”

The writer asked the rhetorical question: Why should they have to move? The answer is intriguing.

“So that you can remain in your home undisturbed and flood-free and according to the paper, reap benefits unlimited! Your papers are full of your plan to wring every last ounce of advantage from this deal!

“Our homes weren’t flooded. We didn’t have to ask the Government to spend millions to protect us or demand that a treaty be broken or that others give up their homes for us! Our property was worth more than yours in that respect, yet some with a total lack of perception, gratitude, or the good old ‘Do as you would be done by’ attitude think we should meekly accept a pittance and silently steal away.”

The writer sought to make an argument about what it would take any property owner to sell a property they didn’t want to sell.

“You probably would decide you didn’t care to sell at any price,” per the writer. “Then it would be tragic, indeed, if they handed you a meager price and said you must go, regardless, wouldn’t it? Well, the principle applies here, too, and we hope you get it.

“The Seneca Nation and the residents of Kinzua and Corydon should be compensated to the degree of their loss and disruption, and in direct relation to the benefits resulting to others thereby – and according to your own press, those benefits are tremendous!

“We didn’t ask the Government to buy us out; we tried our very best to persuade the Engineers and other Congressman to do otherwise than build this mighty and costly dam, but they and you would have none of it: nothing else was FEASIBLE (caps in original).”

The writer threw some shade at the government’s international image: “In the buying out of homes of the only people on whom this is causing a real hardship and inconvenience no end, with some potentials – aside from sentimental value – lost to them forever, is one mighty poor and inappropriate place for economy to enter the picture. It is too downright cheap to be done by a government that makes itself exemplary before foreign nations. It won’t take a great deal, at the most, to buy out all of Kinzua, Corydon and the Senecas, and pay a price they can accept without bitterness.

“Homes are primary; recreation is secondary.”