Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 22:25:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Louis Epstein Subject: WTC Rebuilding #299:Pataki Plots Groundbreaking, Times Prints Column Urging Worse Plans News today has carried reports that Pataki wants to break ground for the "Freedom Tower" on the Fourth of July. This is RIDICULOUS...but no worse than we should expect from a man obsessed with making sure no one has time to undo his mistakes. The comment period on the Final GEIS has almost three weeks to run. The "Final General Project Plan" hasn't even been released. Regulatory approval processes for the buildings can't start until the comment period and documents are finished. The engineering plans for the structure are far from completion. And they want to start building it already! A "ceremonial groundbreaking" can be a cheap photo op for something that never winds up being completed...but it's part of their effort to discourage pressure for something better. An "Article 78" lawsuit is one avenue that's been suggested for throwing monkey wrenches into their plans...comments on this idea are welcome. This unseemly stampede needs to be shown up for the garbage that it is,NOT have the desired effect of making us give up. Cecil Shepherd has sent me the below anti-rebuilding Op-Ed from the New York Times. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- This argument against rebuilding needs to be refuted. Mary Clark's e-mail address is either mclark@wcl.american.edu or mlclark@wcl.american.edu. \----------------------------------------------------------/ A Fresh Start at Ground Zero May 5, 2004 By MARY L. CLARK WASHINGTON The latest jury decision against Larry Silverstein, the lease-holder of the World Trade Center, makes one thing clear: the current plans to rebuild the site are simply never going to happen. On Monday a federal jury found that the two planes flying into the towers on 9/11 constituted a single terrorist attack, not two separate attacks, and thus Mr. Silverstein's largest insurer is liable for only one payout. In the long run, this means that even if he wins every one of his remaining legal battles, Mr. Silverstein is unlikely to collect more than $4.5 billion from his insurers - a far cry from the estimated $8 billion to $10 billion needed to rebuild the lost office space within the original towers. Six weeks before the attacks, Mr. Silverstein entered into a lease with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to take over all 10 million square feet of office space at the center for $3.2 billion over 99 years. The lease obliged him to rebuild all the existing office space at his own expense if the towers were ever destroyed. This runs contrary to the presumption under New York law that landlords are liable for rebuilding. But not only is the clause enforceable, it reflects good public policy for a special case like this: a long-term commercial lease of an entire property where there is equality of bargaining power between the parties. After all, obligating the lease-holder to rebuild creates an excellent incentive for him to monitor and maintain the buildings. He is on the site daily; he has access to and control over the entire premises; and he is in the best position to invest in upkeep, including security and fire safety. Equally important, the lease-holder is the principal beneficiary of any rebuilding - he gets a new building - whereas the landlord's interest resurfaces only many decades later. However, in the case of the World Trade Center, rigid adherence to this sensible provision has led to decisions that have not been in the best interests of New Yorkers. Most obvious has been the commitment by state officials to help Mr. Silverstein re-create all of the original office space. This led to the plan to build five massive towers on or close to the original parcel. But rebuilding the full 10 million square feet is out of step with the demand for commercial real estate in New York's post-9/11 economy. It would most likely produce a glut of office and retail space, further depressing rents. And, as proposed, the towers are much taller than most New Yorkers would be comfortable living with or working in. Finally, rebuilding in this way runs counter to what many people who live and work downtown have called for - namely, more street-level activity, à la Jane Jacobs's "Death and Life of Great American Cities." So, is there any way to reduce the World Trade Center office space, given Mr. Silverstein's rights and responsibilities? In fact, the Port Authority has two options. One is to renegotiate the lease so that Mr. Silverstein rebuilds on a smaller scale and pays a smaller monthly rent, much less than the $10 million a month that he has continued to pay since 9/11. A second option would be for the Port Authority to condemn part of Mr. Silverstein's "leasehold interest" and pay him off - by law the agency has the power to compel him to sell back part of the lease in return for "just compensation." (Alternatively, Mr. Silverstein could force the same action in reverse, bringing an "inverse condemnation action" against the Port Authority on the ground that it has made so many competing commitments since 9/11 that he is no longer able to use his leased space.) Any of these approaches would be a win-win-win situation for Mr. Silverstein, the Port Authority and the people of New York. Most important, the Port Authority would have more freedom in deciding other uses of the site - for a memorial, open space, an expanded transit hub, one or more cultural institutions, and a reopened Greenwich Street. It has been two and a half years since the attacks - isn't it time to compromise and start rebuilding? Mary L. Clark teaches property law at American University Washington College of Law. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/05/opinion/05CLAR.html?ex=1084767176&ei=1&en=6bdf83aeb04671d7 Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company ---------- End forwarded message ---------- I encourage responses to letters@nytimes.com that say she's got exactly the wrong idea on how plans should be modified. It is FEWER,TALLER BUILDINGS that are the "win-win-win" for city and country.We have REGULARLY run out of "YES I'd Work on the 110th Floor!" stickers when canvassing for signatures. As ever,the Times will only print letters from people who give their postal address and phone number,and they want letters to be under 150 words. As far as writing to Mary Clark...I think women among you might be the most effective,as she has written of the school where she teaches as "The first law school established by women for women". EVERYONE,however,should send Final-GEIS comments and encourage friends to do the same.We'll come out with a basic-points comment that people can sign and fax and distribute it to the list,though individually written comments will in my view be more effective. My own written commentaries will be distributed when ready,as ever. If nothing else we must make the arrogance with which they have disregarded us infamous in history...and that takes pressure from us in great numbers!! Keep your eyes on the prize in the skies. -=-=- The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again, at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.