View Full Version : 9/11 Families To Sue To Stop New WTC

May 30th, 2003, 08:49 AM
By Katia Hetter
Staff Writer

May 30, 2003, 12:10 AM EDT

A group of Sept. 11 victims' families wants the newest World Trade Center site plans to be declared "illegal, null and void," a danger to lower Manhattan and future rescue workers, according to the draft of a lawsuit against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and others.

Although the Port Authority has enjoyed immunity from local fire and building safety codes, the lawsuit asks that the agency be ordered to follow those regulations in the redevelopment of Ground Zero. The suit they plan to file Monday claims the agency's role as a commercial landlord isn't protected under the two-state agency's immunity from local codes.

"A government agency that operates a commercial office building should be held to the same standards as the private sector," said attorney Thomas Shanahan, lead attorney on the lawsuit. "There is no reason for immunity to be attached to a commercial landlord. The Port should have no problem with that because they say they meet or exceed the code already."

The lawsuit, to be filed by the Skyscraper Safety Campaign families group, Councilman Alan Gerson (D-Lower Manhattan) and Councilwoman Helen Sears (D-Jackson Heights), doesn't ask for any money beyond legal fees. "If you build in the city of New York, you should be in compliance with the building regulations," Sears said. "When you don't have to do it, there's something wrong."

But the lawsuit does seek to require that the redevelopment plans be approved by the New York and New Jersey state legislatures and the New York City Council, and includes other Port Authority commercial buildings such as 111 8th Ave., in the court order.

A Port Authority spokesman declined to comment on the proposed lawsuit, which is also being filed against the Lower Manhattan Development Corp., trade center leaseholder Silverstein Properties, trade center retail leaseholder Westfield Group, Marriott Hotel Services, trade center architecture firm Studio Daniel Libeskind and Brookfield Properties.

"The Port Authority's policy is that we do not comment on pending litigation," said Port Authority spokesman Greg Trevor, who had not yet seen the complaint. He said the Port Authority is committed to meeting or exceeding all city building and fire codes under existing agreement with the city.

The agency can't prove it is meeting or exceeding local code requirements, says Skyscraper Safety Campaign chairwoman Sally Regenhard, who lost her firefighter son, Christian, in the attacks.

"There is no documentation of inspections, the Port Authority doesn't allow the FDNY in [to inspect], so the codes are not enforced even if they do follow them voluntarily," Regenhard said. "That building was a death trap. If we allow the Port Authority to build again with the same immunity to building and fire codes, who's to say they won't build another death trap?"


NY is such a nasty, litigious, selfish, combative place sometimes.

May 30th, 2003, 09:51 AM
The victims families do have a point in this lawsuit. *The PA should have to constuct its builidngs according to the city's fire and building safety codes. *I would have thought that the city would have made some changes, because of the weakness in the WTC's fire resistant insulation. *

May 30th, 2003, 09:55 AM
Yeah, Im sure their really going to go against the books...

May 30th, 2003, 11:44 AM
The issue is not whether or not the PA will follow the codes. *It is really about 1) getting some lawyers paid, and 2) introducing a new level of bureaucracy over the project plans. *For both of these reasons, I am vehemently against the lawsuit.

May 30th, 2003, 12:27 PM
These people are zealots. It's clear that they want nothing less than a 16-acre memorial, and now some of them are carrying out their long-term threat to try to hijack the site! :angry: No wonder the politicians and developers involved were so cowardly; they were rightfully fearful of this, it turns out. Need I say more?

May 30th, 2003, 12:35 PM
The PA should have to constuct its builidngs according to the city's fire and building safety codes.

Evan is right.

May 30th, 2003, 01:36 PM
Evan is right, but what makes these family members think the PA isn't going to? Silverstein's planned 7 WTC is already going beyond the city's own fire and safety codes. *I'm sure they are all aware of this.

I agree with agglomeration. *This group will stop at nothing to try and stop the rebuilding. *Once this attempt fails (and it will), they'll be on to the next plan.

(Edited by NYguy at 1:37 pm on May 30, 2003)

May 30th, 2003, 03:19 PM
I also agree with Evan. Stating what this group ultimately wants is speculation. The PA stating they will meet or exheed NYC building codes is ambigous.

I see no problem with having what the PA intends to do codified.

May 30th, 2003, 03:26 PM
IMO, the group that is actually bringing the lawsuit has an agenda against any and all tall buildings thinly veiled as a safety issue. They place particular emphasis on the safety of firefighters as being a prime force behind how buildings should be built.

These people are not mega-memorialist but rather would just like to see a bunch of 20 story "safe" buildings that wouldn't endanger any firefighter's life.

It is a typical reaction people have to loss. One way of healing is to push for laws that would eliminate the possibility of such a death ever happening again.


In the end run, we all better hope they do not win or it will basically be legally impossible for any building in the city to be built taller than how ever many floors the court decides is allowable so as not to endanger any firefighters. As you can imagine, that isn't likely to be very tall.

Finally, I simply cannot imagine what the low-income housing advocates that are the city council and who recently hosted (and paid for) a trip to NY by Robert Mugabe would envision a new WTC. A bunch of small time city councilmen and state legislators sounds like the worst possible choice to be put in the drivers seat on the site.

(Edited by JMGarcia at 3:27 pm on May 30, 2003)

May 30th, 2003, 05:42 PM
I'm sure this lawsuit will start turning people against Osama Bin Iken and the other NIMBY's by showing them for what they are, hopefully helping our case, but their determination to destroy Lower Manhattan with a depressing 16-acre memorial all the way down to bedrock has to be taken seriously.

And the fact that some of them are calling for all future buildings to be limited to 20 floors becuase of the fear of losing firemen is absolutely revolting.:angry: Sally Blowhard is the very worst of them it turns out. We ought to to remain vigilant; we haven't seen the last of these mega-memorialists turned skyscraper haters.

May 30th, 2003, 05:51 PM

May 30th, 2003, 06:32 PM
Quote: from Agglomeration on 12:27 pm on May 30, 2003
These people are zealots. It's clear that they want nothing less than a 16-acre memorial, and now some of them are carrying out their long-term threat to try to hijack the site! :angry: No wonder the politicians and developers involved were so cowardly; they were rightfully fearful of this, it turns out. Need I say more?

I think your right. Man you just got to hate that. I don't mean to offend the family members of the victems, but they are sort of overreacting. First it was asking for more memorial space and the presevation of the footprints of the old WTC. Now this lawsuit, although if the construction companies weren't going to comply with the fire and building safety laws then they really have a point. *

May 30th, 2003, 09:59 PM
I wish more of you guys had made it to that Pelli/Pederson presentation by the Skyscraper Museum.

Putting aside whatever the motivations of this group are, I wish the new WTC was built to significantly stronger standards Pederson was describing when he was talking about Union Square HK and SWFC. I don't have time to get into it right now, but here are some references to the most important idea he presented, refuge floors.

Here is an excerpt from an interview I found with him online.

PEDERSEN: Les is correct; there's nothing that can be done about airplanes colliding into buildings. Even if we knew how, it would be too expensive. That said, there are things you can do about safety, and, again, Asia is the place to look, because they understand the importance of high density. There, tall buildings are divided every 10 or 15 floors with refuge floors where people can retreat to in case of a fire or an emergency and have access to fresh air.

Another interesting excerpt from a professor at HK's city university:

He believes that an essential feature of fire escape lifts is that they should only stop at refuge floors. Refuge floors are location points where people are required to gather in the event of a fire and since 1996, super high-rise buildings have been required by law to provide refuge floors at 15 to 20 storey intervals under the Hong Kong Code of Practice on Means of Escape in Case of Fire. By reducing the number of stops, the elevators can travel between refuge floors and the ground much faster because certain time-delay factors have been removed: acceleration and deceleration between stops, transfer time of passengers into/ out of lifts, and opening/ closing doors. A reduction in the number of stops will reduce the round trip time to an average of 40 seconds. The round trip time is the time needed for the lift moving at, for example, 10 metres per second to travel to a specified refuge floor, collect evacuees and return to the ground floor. Since trips to the top floors will take longer than trips to the lower floors, an average time of 40 seconds is a feasible target. This means that if each lift carries 20 people, approximately 900 people can be evacuated in 30 minutes. Theoretically, with four lifts in operation at each corner of the building, about 3,600 people escape in half an hour.

I don't see any reason why these extra steps should not be taken.

May 31st, 2003, 03:31 AM
since 1996, super high-rise buildings have been required by law to provide refuge floors at 15 to 20 storey intervals under the Hong Kong Code of Practice on Means of Escape in Case of Fire.

HK ahead of NY ?!

James Kovata
May 31st, 2003, 05:02 AM
It'll be interesting to see if a court even grants standing to sue in this case. *How are these people impacted by the rebuilding? *Unless there's some cognizable injury, I just can't see this lawsuit holding up.

May 31st, 2003, 05:13 AM
(A quote from Sally Regenhard)

"That building was a death trap. If we allow the Port Authority to build again with the same immunity to building and fire codes, who's to say they won't build another death trap?"

Those buildings were well AHEAD of their time when they were built. They had one more staircase than needed for building codes at the time they were built, their staircases were wider than those required by building codes at the time, AND they had at the time they were built, the most advanced fireproofing system in the world!

Does Sally Regenhard and her cronies really expect a pair of towers that was built in the 60's and 70's to be up to current fire and building codes? She's clueless, insane, and has no knowledge of skyscraper construction if that's the case.

They also need to know that efforts were UNDER WAY at the time of their demise to bring them up to CURRENT standards, via adding sprinklers, and removing the asbestos. One World Trade's asbestos abatement had nearly been finished, and Two World Trade needed the top 30 floors done.

These people need to get a clue. They need to get a life.

(Edited by StevenRosenow at 5:14 am on May 31, 2003)

May 31st, 2003, 07:51 AM
Quote: from James Kovata on 5:02 am on May 31, 2003
It'll be interesting to see if a court even grants standing to sue in this case. *How are these people impacted by the rebuilding? *Unless there's some cognizable injury, I just can't see this lawsuit holding up.

According to the article, the suit will not ask for compensatory or punitive damages damages beyond court costs.

The issue is not whether or not the PA built to or above code, but whether it should be law, and subject to inspections. The upgrading of fire retardant insulation on the structural steel from 0.5 to 1.5 inches was underway in the late 90s, but the impetus was the 1993 bombing.

7 WTC is being built above code (wider staircases, core steel protected by concrete from street to roof), but if this is desireable, it should be the code. The PA should be held to the same scrutiny as any city developer.

HK ahead of NYC is disturbing, considering the 1911 Triangle fire.

May 31st, 2003, 07:59 PM
I agree with some of the posts but I also understand the concerns of Renengard and her crew- admittedly they are a bit.... wacko.

No matter how lauditory and progressive the design of the WTC was, there were nonetheless serious difficiencies. I have seen Leslie Robertson on television saying that.. " to [his] knowledge no one calculated the effects of fire on the floor trusses. Yet the towers were designed to remaining standing if struck by a plane. Those two statements are incongruous. But I digress a little.

In light of what has happened, I think that we cannot design buildings, especially high profile ones, at the minimum of what is required by code. Maybe the problem has been the codes themselves. HK's is considered one of the most progressive.

One final note: if we can have systems that stop planes from colliding into each other or into mountains ( manual anti-collision syatems), then we can do the same in respect to buildings.

May 31st, 2003, 08:17 PM
I agree that the buildings should be built to highest code and the NY codes are behind the times. Typical NY bureaucracy. Bah!

But, by seeking to declare the current plans as Null and Void before they have even been designed and anybody has seen the specifications show their true colors and they're not pretty IMO.

May 31st, 2003, 09:26 PM
There is a vague contradiction in the first two paragraphs of the article that bothered me. It states that the group wants the plans declared "illegal, null, and void"...according to the draft; but in the 2nd paragraph it states what the suit "asks", with no mention of those three words.

I found this article on the Gotham Gazette website:

Lawsuit Seeks to Subject World Trade Center Redevelopment to City Fire and Building Laws

By Andy Humm

The Skyscraper Safety Campaign, founded by family members of firefighters who died at the World Trade Center catastrophe, is about to file a lawsuit in New York State Supreme Court to require the Port Authority, Lower Manhattan Development Corporation and other developers of the Trade Center site to be legally bound by city fire and building codes.

The Port Authority, a bi-state agency, is not legally required to obey New York City laws and ordinances, but has a policy of "voluntarily" meeting local codes.

Gotham Gazette has obtained a draft copy of the suit, which has been joined by several city and regional elected officials including New York City Councilmembers Alan Gerson, who represents downtown, Christine Quinn (D-3rd district in Manhattan), Helen Sears (D-25th district in Queens), and Congressman Christopher Shays of Connecticut. The Skyscraper Safety Campaign co-chairs Sally Regenhard and Monica Gabrielle and several members have signed on as individuals as well as supporters of the group. Also part of the suit are the Tribeca Community Association, Gateway Plaza Tenants Association, and the Bleecker Area Residents Association, all downtown organizations.

The goal of the lawsuit, according to complainants, is not to oppose reconstruction of the World Trade Center site, but to assure that the safest possible building is built at Ground Zero, and see that it is built according to city standards.

Regenhard has said that she feels her son, a probationary fire fighter, died because the World Trade Center towers were built below code. Questions have been raised about the experimental truss design in such a tall building, the quality of the fireproofing around the metal superstructure, and the fact that fire stairs were consolidated rather than spread out. Better design might not have saved the building from collapsing, but may have given occupants more time and opportunity to escape unharmed.

After Councilmember Gerson wrote a letter to the Port Authority saying he was concerned that the destroyed World Trade Center "may not have conformed" with city codes, the Port Authority replied, "Even though state and federal agencies are normally exempted from local laws and ordinances, the Port Authority, as a matter of long-standing policy, voluntarily meets or exceeds local fire and building codes."

The suit seeks to require compliance with these codes rather than make it a voluntary option. Leaving it up to the Port Authority to "voluntarily" meet city fire codes, the draft suit says, "will subject future tenants, visitors, tourists, and emergency personnel of the City of New York to harm including death in the event of future acts of God, terrorist attack, or other emergency situations." The complainants say that it is also a danger to the health and well being of people in the neighborhood and surrounding region.

The core of the argument in the suit is that the Port Authority, in operating the World Trade Center, has moved beyond its charter functions of improving the ports of New York and New Jersey into proprietary functions as a commercial landlord. Petitioners want a declaratory judgment that the respondents are engaged in "a proprietary rather than a governmental function" and that the redevelopment of the site "be declared illegal, null and void if constructed and/or operated in violation of the New York City Building and Fire Codes."

The suit does not just address the rebuilding of the World Trade Center, but cites the Port Authority for "illegal storage of thousands of gallons of diesel fuel at 111 Eighth Avenue." Councilmember Gerson has called for New York City buildings to stop storing diesel fuel tanks, saying they are a hazard. The thousands of gallons of burning fuel from tanks at 7 World Trade Center may have contributed to the building's collapse on September 11, 2001.

The other respondents named in the suit are Westfield WTC LLC, Westfield WTC Holding LLC, Studio Daniel Libeskind, the architects of the redevelopment, Silverstein Properties, Brookfield Financial Properties, and Marriott Hotel Services.

Gerald McKelvey of Howard Rubenstein Associates, speaking for Silverstein Properties, said, "We have no comment on a proceeding that has not yet been filed." A call seeking comment from the Port Authority was not returned.

TLOZ Link5
May 31st, 2003, 09:27 PM
Safety is not an issue that should be passed on, even if it's the family members trying to make an alleged ploy to stop construction. *I'd read about refuge floors--along with other new standards in skyscraper safety--in the March 2003 issue of Popular Science, and I truly hope that they become part of NYC zoning laws along with safety demands that might be of concern to the families. *That way, we can shut up both them and any other groups indoctrinated with "high-rise deathtrap" propaganda. *It's not easy to do, but sometimes you need to make concessions.

June 1st, 2003, 05:57 AM
No matter how lauditory and progressive the design of the WTC was, there were nonetheless serious difficiencies. I have seen Leslie Robertson on television saying that.. " to [his] knowledge no one calculated the effects of fire on the floor trusses. Yet the towers were designed to remaining standing if struck by a plane. Those two statements are incongruous. But I digress a little.

They were indeed designed to withstand the impact of a jet liner. But that's the whole thing. That fact helped Sally Regenhard, et al., to come to the false conclusion that it meant that they could've withstood the intensity of the incident on September 11th 2001.

In that aspect of the design, the theory was that the impact woiuld be from a jet lost in fog, coming in at a low speed for a landing. In "World Trade Center: An Obituary" that aired on The History Channel a month after the attacks, host Harry Smith said it so eloquently.. Physicists and engineers agree that no building, certainly no building that anyone would want to work or live in, could withstand the intense heat generated by the burning jet fuel from a fully loaded Boeing 767 used as a Weapon of Mass Destruction. Like the rest of us, the people who designed the World Trade Center could never have imagined such a thing."

Let's also not forget the fire that raged in One World Trade Center in 1975, just two years after the completion of the Twin Towers. The fire started in the first office floor immediately above the lobby, and spread all the way up to the 19th floor. It did indeed damage the trusses (and some were inevitably replaced as a result), but the towers remained standing.

In addition, it is now the belief that it wasn't solely the trusses. Now, the emphasis is on the exterior "curtain wall" that formed the facades. Outwardly, the exterior supported nearly all of the vertical loads. The jetliners on September 11th punctured not one, but three large holes in the "curtain wall." Those holes, one each side, (in addition to the raging fires coming out from the remaining side) severely compromised the towers' ability to support their own weight. And in the case of two World Trade, the jetliner also took out a portion of the core, which is why engineers now believe that the damaged core in Two World Trade led to the collapse of the tower first rather than than One World Trade.

Deficiencies or not, the Twin Towers were still "smart" buildings.

The arguments of Sally Regenhard, et al. are baseless.

(Edited by StevenRosenow at 6:01 am on June 1, 2003)

June 1st, 2003, 06:52 AM
The fire started in the first office floor immediately above the lobby, and spread all the way up to the 19th floor.

I didn't know that.
Were there casualties ?

June 1st, 2003, 07:21 AM
Nope, because it started around midnight in February 1975. A janitor-turned-arsonist started the blaze on the 11th floor.

June 1st, 2003, 08:03 AM
Information on the ongoing WTC investigation by the
National Institute of Standards and Technology

June 2nd, 2003, 01:44 PM
ZippyTheChimp wrote:
> I see no problem with having what the PA intends to do codified.

Agreed completely. I'm not crazy about proliferating bureaucracy, but government (or even quasi public/private) entities should not be exempt from the laws they impose on others.

tugrul wrote:
> I wish more of you guys had made it to that Pelli/Pederson presentation...
> Putting aside whatever the motivations of this group are...

I'm not concerned as to their agenda, and I was also at the presentation and corroborate this point.

Fabb wrote:
> HK ahead of NY ?!

I remember reading in the 90s that one of Asia's economic advantages in skyscrapers construction, besides cheap labor costs, was that American skyscrapers cost more money because they had to comply with much stricter construction codes. From things I've read recently, including attendance at this Pelli & Peterson lecture, in one generation Asia has really jumped into the lead in that regard. Of course it is still mostly American firms that are doing the work over there, and it is this abundance of work that has surely driven the legal codes (They aren't building the tallest buildings here today, so there is nothing driving the codes). They (Pelli, Peterson, et al) should be bringing that expertise back home.

TLOZ Link5
June 2nd, 2003, 04:02 PM
Does "should be" mean "ought to be" or "probably will be," chris?

June 2nd, 2003, 04:13 PM
I mean the former.

June 4th, 2003, 01:35 AM
Please, no more lawsuits. We shall commence building the new and improved World Trade Center on September 11, 2003. We should rebuild it as it was, but taller and have much better fire safety and other safety features.

June 4th, 2003, 10:47 PM
New York Newsday

WTC Safety Lawsuit Delayed
* *
By Katia Hetter
Staff Writer

June 2, 2003, 11:00 PM EDT

The Skyscraper Safety Campaign's lawsuit to require the city's building and fire codes be applied to the new World Trade Center site has been delayed -- for now.

The group, made up of victims' families who want the city codes to apply to the Port Authority property, had planned to file suit yesterday.

John Whitehead, chairman of the Lower Manhattan Development Corp., read Newsday's Friday report about the lawsuit, and asked for a meeting with the Port Authority and the campaign, the campaign's lawyer said.

"My clients had been trying to get a meeting for months, and he called on Friday," said lawyer Tom Shanahan. "The request was made that we not file this lawsuit and we agree to have a meeting ... that this is something that can be worked out without resorting to long-term expensive litigation."

The plaintiffs, which include campaign co-founder Sally Regenhard, Councilman Alan Gerson (D-Lower Manhattan)and Councilwoman Helen Sears (D-Jackson Heights), agreed to meet on Thursday, delaying the filing of their lawsuit until next Monday, said Shanahan.

If the Port Authority doesn't agree to "the legal jurisdiction of city of New York for purposes of building and fire codes allow for inspection at any time of any of their premises that are commercial in nature," Shanahan said his clients told him to file the lawsuit on Monday.

The LMDC and Port Authority issued a joint statement in response: "The LMDC and Port Authority are committed to ensuring the rebuilding effort upholds both excellence of design and high safety standards. We will be meeting with the Skyscraper Safety Campaign later this week."

A Port Authority official said that one charge made in a draft of the lawsuit -- that the Port Authority properties don't allow city Fire Department inspections -- isn't true.

The Port Authority did a partial survey of some the agency's facilities yesterday, and determined there had been recent Fire Department inspections at Port Authority Bus Terminal, John F. Kennedy International Airport and ventilation areas at the Holland and Lincoln tunnels, according to an agency official.

The Port Authority official responsible for those inspection records was killed in the Sept. 11 attacks, and the records were destroyed that day, said one Port Authority official.

June 25th, 2003, 12:43 PM
The griefmongers are already planning their next move. If this plan goes through, say farewell to Twin Towers :angry: and farewell even to Libeskind's Freedom Tower! :sad:



June 25, 2003 -- It's bad enough that the World Trade Center site is slated to be transformed - courtesy of self-promoting architect Daniel Libeskind and his patron, Gov. Pataki - into what amounts to a mausoleum. *
Now groups representing families of the 9/11 victims are descending on Washington for a last-ditch effort literally to turn the bulk of Ground Zero into a fallow "memorial." *

Their idea? Congress should appropriate billions to buy nine of the WTC site's 16 acres from the Port Authority and turn them into a national park. *

The groups went to Capitol Hill this week, where they reportedly were to meet with several legislators, including Hillary Rodham Clinton and New Jersey's two senators, Jon Corzine and Frank Lautenberg. *

Corzine, for one, promised through a spokesman to lend an attentive ear. *

We can well understand the families' distaste for Libeskind's bizarre vision. But leaving the site empty is just wrong. *

The cost would be prohibitive - and it would mean restarting the entire Lower Manhattan reconstruction project design - a process that already has dragged on for far too long. *

But just having this proposal on the table for consideration is dangerous. *

Who knows what might happen? With all due respect, too many of the victims' families have long believed that they have a proprietary claim to Ground Zero. *

The Twin Towers were attacked because of what they represented, not because of who happened to be inside. *

And the proper response to that attack is to redevelop the site with an appropriate memorial. *

Libeskind's proposal would turn Ground Zero into a virtual permanent graveyard. Leaving the ground empty would do that literally. *

June 25th, 2003, 01:52 PM
Maybe it's OK.
There's room for real super-tall buildings elsewhere in Manhattan.

NyC MaNiAc
June 25th, 2003, 03:39 PM
Are you kidding, Fabb?

I respect your opinion if not, but if you are and I continue, I'm going to make myself look really stupid...Oh well. :)

The age of the Supertall in America is over. (Ask JM...I respect his opinion over almost anyone else's and he says it's done, so as far as I'm concerned...It's done.)

This is our chance to get a supertall built, and even if we don't agree with whats getting built, we can't let nothing get built.

June 25th, 2003, 04:12 PM
Quote: from NyC MaNiAc on 3:39 pm on June 25, 2003

The age of the Supertall in America is over.

This time, you must be kidding.

About what I said : no, I wasn't kidding, but I wasn't entirely honest. My secret hope is that if things linger forever, the whole plan will be abandonned and something really better will be developed instead.
Then, I secretely thank those who contribute to slow down the process.

June 25th, 2003, 05:00 PM
I think, secretly, we share the same agenda!

Ernest Burden III
June 25th, 2003, 05:52 PM
The griefmongers are already planning their next move.

I think griefmongers is an unfortunate choice of a word. *The surviving relatives have been put into a place that few if any have ever been put in, and no-one is sure how to treate them. *We all lose loved ones from time to time, but their loss is everyone's loss, too. *So that gives them a certain power of respect for their feelings as to the site of their loss. *But how far to take that? *If I lose a relative on the Saw Mill, I do not get to dictate how the road is handled in the future. *And yet they have unprecidented voice in the WTC site.

I can tell you from person experience that there were family groups lobbying the competitors for the towers heavily, by phone and by email. *That in itself was a bit weird.

But even if the survivors are over-reaching in their attempts to control the re-building process, I think it is unkind to call them 'griefmongers'.

June 25th, 2003, 06:13 PM
Perhaps meddlesome is more appropriate, but they are just trying to do something with their grief. *Understandably needing a noble activity to dedicate to the memory of their lost loved ones... they are fighting bureaucracy.

June 25th, 2003, 06:16 PM
If my choice of words was a little too harsh then I apologize. That said, my description of what they're trying to do to Lower Manhattan is real and very disturbing. Their fury at what's happening on these 16 acres their open fear and hatred of any tall buildings on site, and their uncompromising demand for a mega-memorial is clearly one reason why the LMDC, Silverstein, and Libeskind acted too cowardly to listen too much to the public and currently have no interest in putting up any building 70 floors or over.

(Edited by Agglomeration at 6:17 pm on June 25, 2003)

September 3rd, 2003, 06:22 AM
September 3, 2003

9/11 Relatives Plan Protest at Ground Zero Work Site


When trucks carrying construction materials try to enter the work site at ground zero today, Beverly Eckert and 14 other people who lost family members in the Sept. 11 attack plan to block the road to protest plans to redevelop the site.

Ms. Eckert isn't a radical, schooled in the practice of civil disobedience, but is a grieving widow convinced that the memory of her husband, and the thousands of others who died on Sept. 11, is being betrayed by state and local officials overseeing redevelopment of Lower Manhattan.

Ms. Eckert's decision to risk arrest may mark a high point in her own personal grief, but it also reflects the intense passions that still swirl around the redevelopment effort two years after the attack.

"It's sad that we have to do something so extreme in order to hopefully get a response and commitment out of the governors of New York and New Jersey that they will protect and preserve this ground," said Ms. Eckert, 52, who said she had been speaking on the telephone with her husband, Sean Rooney, 50, when the south tower collapsed and the line went dead.

But there is no consensus, even within specific groups, as some victims' relatives acknowledge the need for development at the site.

"How can you turn 16 acres into a grave site?" asked Nikki Stern, a member of the family advisory council working with the government agency overseeing the redevelopment. Her husband, James E. Potorti, 52, died that day. "How do you restore transportation to downtown without disturbing an area in which a body part was found? The only way you do it is to agree to come to some sort of representation that will give the greatest number of people some peace. I don't know what that is. People are struggling."

The redevelopment plan has inched forward and work has begun. A new commuter train station is already taking shape and the tracks have been laid. Public officials have agreed that the architect Daniel Libeskind's winning design will remain largely intact, and judges are reviewing 5,200 entries for the design of a memorial. This is the kind of balance that the business community says is appropriate.

"Clearly the site has many functions, of which a memorial is an important one but not the only one," said Carl Weisbrod, president of the Downtown Alliance, representing Lower Manhattan businesses. "We want to see these functions complement each other and to use this sight as something that will be essential for the revitalization of an area that was devastated."

But Ms. Eckert and her partners say the only reality that matters is that ground zero is a grave site, and, as such, needs to be preserved. They want the nine and a half acres that include and surround the footprints of the two towers preserved as part of a memorial, and they want the memorial to begin 70 feet below street level, at the bedrock on which the towers rested. Current plans set aside four and a half acres for the memorial site and raise the floor by 40 feet for what developers call aesthetic and engineering reasons.

The feelings about the plans are raw, but they may not be enough to stop them from proceeding.

"Millions of people around the globe voiced their opinions about the future of the World Trade Center site, and this design best reflects the consensus that emerged, providing a vast, respectful setting for a memorial while reaffirming life in the aftermath of tragedy," said Matthew Higgins, chief operating officer of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, the agency charged with overseeing the construction project.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

September 3rd, 2003, 07:42 AM
Exactly what construction is being protested?


(Edited by ZippyTheChimp at 7:51 am on Sep. 3, 2003)

September 3rd, 2003, 10:07 AM
I think they're a little late.

September 3rd, 2003, 12:34 PM
Nice graphic Zippy!

IMHO There are several camps opposed to the WTC Memorial as planned by the LMDC. *There are many special interests, I'm sure, but these five come to mind:

1. *The Megamemorialists - These people want nothing less than to level everything on Manhattan Island below Vessey St. so a truly glorious and gigantic awe inspiring memorial to 9/11 can be constructed. *

This group's vision is just way too grandiose and unrealistic; I believe the scale of the memorial site defined by the LMDC as the boundaries of the "bathtub" (and the magnificent new construction planned for the periphery of the site) are an appropriate size to honor the memory of 9/11.

2. *The Negamemorialists - This faction wants to preserve the pit as is and build no memorials whatsoever on the World Trade Center site. *They wish to allow the "bathtub" to speak for itself with no additional memorial accoutrements.

This minority viewpoint just isn't acceptable. *A vast majority of people want a memorial to 9/11 built on the site and that is what's going to happen - get over it! *

3. *The Sacred Grounders - This group's agenda is with any and all infrastructure which is unrelated to the WTC Memorial itself, but is a necessary addition to the memorial site. *They are especially upset with the temporary PATH subway station being built in the "bathtub" and are vehemently opposed to any permanent infrastructure which is planned for the site which is not directly related to the memorial itself. *Their view is that the entire pit is "sacred ground", from bedrock to infinity, and that all non-memorial related elements constitute a sacrilege!

This faction fails to take a logical and pragmatic view of the issues. *Life goes on. *The attack occurred in one of the most densely built places in the world and it just isn't feasible to ignore this fact. *Care will be taken to minimize the impact of all non-memorial related constructions on the memorial site and that is really the most logical approach to the problem. *It just isn't practical to utilize the space solely for memorial considerations.

4. *The I-want-it-replaced-just-like-it-was faction - This group wishes to rebuild the World Trade Center Towers exactly as they were before 9/11.

Unfortunately, this desire just isn't going to be fulfilled. *People who still hold to this outdated position must move on with their lives; the WTC is not going to reconstructed as it was, and that is the reality of the situation.

5. *The Flat Earthers - This group wants the entire "bathtub" site filled in and brought up to ground level to ease the flow of pedestrian traffic through the area.

The prevailing view is that the open pit is a major identifying attribute of the memorial site and pedestrian issues will have to take a back seat to the prevailing desire of preserving the open pit feature of the site. *Bridges and ramps will be utilized to ease congestion and guide the flow of pedestrian traffic through and around the "bathtub" site.


Instead of labeling them "Griefmongers", maybe it would be more politically correct to call them "Fam-a-Nazis".* * * *

September 3rd, 2003, 12:54 PM
I copied that image from a dbhstockton post.

So this group will be protesting the temporary PATH station. (??)

Actually, except for aesthetics, the structure within the pit is permanent. The temporary part is the street connection.

September 3rd, 2003, 06:33 PM
The factions try to imitate Martin Luther King, Ghandi ,etc. I'm glad the police wouldn't arrest them.

SEPTEMBER 03RD, 2003 (from NY1.com)

Some relatives of World Trade Center victims rallied at the site Wednesday to protest construction they say will violate the footprints of the twin towers.

NY1's Andrew Siff filed the following story:

They came out in the rain, saying they were ready to be arrested.

But what could have been a tense showdown between police and family members of those killed in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, never happened.

The group of about a dozen protestors had planned to block trucks from entering the site as an act of civil disobedience. But the demonstration was made public ahead of time, and a heavy contingent of police officers locked the gate to the entrance and directed family members behind barricades.

"Since the police are not going to take us off to the precinct, we'll just walk and talk to the press," said Beverly Eckert, who lined up in the rain Wednesday morning.

The families were hoping to delay, even if briefly, construction on the PATH station which they insist goes against what Governor George Pataki told them – that nothing would be built on the footprints of the Twin Towers.

"This is hallowed ground,” said Barbara Reiss, whose nephew died 9/11. “It's a cemetery, and we must show respect."

"I think the governor and all the politicians have had their sneakers on and have been running for two years,” said Monica Gabriel, whose husband died on 9/11. “It's time to come to the table, make a commitment, put it in writing, and go forward – it's two years. We're done."

Wednesday afternoon, the governor said the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, which is in charge of rebuilding, has been open and inclusive.

"There were 10 million hits on the LMDC website before the Liebeskind site was selected,” said Pataki. “And as it moves forward, we pledge it will be respectful, with its centerpiece a memorial we can all be proud of."

And an LMDC spokesman told NY1: “No commercial or retail space will be built on the 4 ½ acres designated memorial only.”

"We will continue to work with the families of the heroes of 9/11,” the Port Authority said in a statement. “And with all other participants to ensure that the rebirth of the World Trade Center site is both respectful and inspiring."

There was no comment on why the gate was padlocked, although attorney Norman Siegel, who represents the families, said the tactic prevented the potentially embarrassing video of dramatic arrests.

"The fact that the Port Authority closed the gate prior to the demonstration took the elements of civil disobedience away," said attorney Norman Siegel.

The lawyer for the families involved in the protest left the door open that on a different day, when the gates are open, they might return for civil disobedience – only this time, not let the police know in advance.

Another group is planning a similar rally at the site next Wednesday, a day before the second anniversary of the September 11 attacks.

September 3rd, 2003, 06:46 PM
I don't get it. What was the point? Usually there's at least a 'valid' reason (to them anyway), but as far as I know there isn't any commercial space being built on the footprints.

September 3rd, 2003, 07:31 PM
I never realized that the PATH was included in the debate.

I suspect that a high number of the protesting family groups live nowhere near lower Manhattan. They don’t regard it as a place where people live, raise children, send them to school. Why would anyone live there? It’s the place you go to earn a living, then get *out as quickly and painlessly as possible.

I also suspect that many resent Manhattan as the cause of this tragedy – a resentment that they can’t express rationally, so it becomes an unresolved internal conflict.

September 3rd, 2003, 07:50 PM
"It’s the place you go to earn a living, then get *out as quickly and painlessly as possible." *. . . ON THE PATH!

Talk about internal conflict.

September 3rd, 2003, 08:35 PM
That is the most ludacris thing I have ever heard. There is nothing illegal about wanting to rebuild the WTC. *No one is suggesting that we sue the government for all of our soliders dieing in Iraq, no one wants to suggest anything about that. People have to realize we lose people in the world everyday and there is no need to want to sue someone for wanting to show some pride in your own country. It is very ridiculous to come up with such an idea. If anything you should want them to rebuild to show that we (Americans) do care about the beauty of our country. The sadest thing about this is that we go to war for stupid reasons that someone else thought, and not looking at the facts of what it is that we know. We rebuild those countries that we tear up, and no one is going to rebuild our country but us, if that is what it takes then let it be, rebuilding is the solution. Don't let terror scare you or make you fear them, it only shows how cowarldy you are because you can't face the rebuilding of something that was a part of our corporate America. We as Americans are stronger than that. Don't let other people in the world see how afarid we are just by not wanting to rebuild something that once paid your bills, and others too. You thought the idea of building them at 1st was everything in the world, and it bought jobs to some, and lots of others things, now that someone has destroyed them and take a few lives, it becomes illegal all of a sudden. I'm going to tell you what's illegal, is the war with Iraq. Lets think about those who die everyday over there. Now face that battle, but you have nothing to say about that. Lets rebuild in the memory of those who lost love ones, it would and will be the only way to make it right, and to serve on the point as Justice.

September 4th, 2003, 01:27 AM

The Battle Over The Bedrock

Jimmy Breslin

September 3, 2003

There was a thin line of protestors, families of World Trade Center victims, standing in the gloom in front of the entrance gates to the site Wednesday, hoping to block any of the trucks and workers from entering. The gates were locked and not used, so it made no difference. Other entrances were open.

I don't know what it's all about to begin with. They are going to rebuild something big like the old Twin Towers high into the sky again and they probably will get knocked down again. Sic Transit Gloria Mundi.

After the first attack, in 1991, Arab conspirators stood in the smoky air all around the place and said that the next time they were not going to miss. The next time, they were not coming by land. The FBI didn't know what they were talking about because nobody on the FBI understood Arabic and they still don't.

The families Wednesday said Lights Out Pataki, the governor, had promised them that nine acres of the site would be set aside as a cemetery.

There were almost 3,000 who died in the attack. But nobody has bought death in this city and thus has exclusive ownership for memorials and the like.

Since the attack, some 140,000 New Yorkers have died, Ellen Borakove of the city medical examiner's office said Wednesday. It happened to be pretty tragic for their loved ones, too.

If we have a memorial for some people, then we should have one for all.

Certainly, we must have a memorial for the 140,000. But their families are reasonable. Nobody who wants a memorial for the 140,000 would allow the 3,000 Trade victims to be squashed. If 3,000 people need nine acres, then the 140,000 require a golf course.

Honoring the total of 143,000 dead would require the footprint of the World Trade Center, then all the space needed for new buildings, and after that, the streets around. A proper memorial means there can be no new World Trade Center buildings. We will have a straight-out cemetery with virtually nowhere for widows to squeeze between the fields of stone.

Wednesday, two of the protestors, Beverly Eckert of Connecticut, a widow, and Barbara Reiss of Manhattan, an aunt, said that Lights Out Pataki was breaking his promise never to build on the place where the people died in the attack. The two women said they wanted their nine acres of dead. Their sign said, "Broken Promises, Broken Hearts."

But they also said — I think it was Beverly Eckert — "Pataki promised us that he would never build on the bedrock."

Somebody else called out, "No to building on the bedrock."

Now several called, "Nothing on the bedrock."

"Sacred bedrock!"

"Holy bedrock."

"Blood was spilled on that bedrock."

When the World Trade Center was first attacked, the engineer in charge of the whole place showed me how there was a foundation and under that a huge metal pan that held out the water from the Hudson River, right across the street and three feet or so higher than the Trade Center foundation.

Under the pan is the bedrock of Manhattan. It is no simple matter to claim the bedrock is exclusively for your dead relatives. It is made of Fordham Gneiss.

I am very good at geology. In the northeast Manhattan Prong there are schists sitting atop the Fordham Gneiss and these schists resemble the Manhattan Schist. This is crystalline rock of uncertain age. It is called 40-ton rock, which can hold up these tall buildings we love so much. But there is no earthly rule against an earthquake of six or above on the Richter scale. You could get such an earthquake when the Manhattan Schist starts to move this little bit and wears against the untidy Cretaceous Queens rock. That would cause one of these rock masses, probably Queens, to start whining.

You then could have an explosion that would put a new face on all of New York.

The memorial to those 143,000 victims would be lost in the great earthquake. Therefore, the only way to give these victims' families their holy bedrock forever is to drill right through the bedrock and on through the rest of the earth — if we can get to the moon, we can do this — and make all 143,000 bereaved families supremely happy by posting their names on the new sacred grounds of Wei Hai Road in Shanghai.

September 4th, 2003, 11:01 AM
Sacré Gneiss!

Props to Jimmy Breslin for getting paid to state the obvious. 8)

September 8th, 2003, 07:29 AM
September 8, 2003


A Time for Renewal


Those we lose never leave us. They live on inside us. This realization is what has made it possible to begin another phase of my life without my husband, Neil Levin, who died in the attacks on the World Trade Center two years ago.

Every survivor deals with loss in a different way. Some have become activists, demanding answers from the commission investigating Sept. 11 or fighting for stricter fire and skyscraper safety codes. Others have focused on what kind of memorial will best honor our loved ones.

For me, the second anniversary of 9/11 is a catalyst to extricate myself from the hurt and negative energy that memories of the attack can still generate. It is a day that I thought would never come.

For the last two years, I have often been treated as a victim — a feeling I had never experienced before. Even when I was helping to raise money for worthy causes, I often felt uncomfortable. Now I am ready to graduate not from grief but from victimhood.

When Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg asked me to serve as liaison for the victims' families, I was honored. I have been a privileged witness to the overwhelming public reaction to 9/11. No one could give enough. No one ever said no. Private citizens, unions and businesses continue to offer money and resources for any cause that might help heal the city's scars and survivors of 9/11. Sometimes a company representative calls and says: "An employee fund has raised half a million dollars. How can you use it?"

We did use it. The architect David Piscuskas volunteered to design a memorial chapel for the human remains. The artist Bryan Hunt designed a sculpture so that each family can have its own memorial made from steel recovered from the twin towers. Children who lost a parent can take art therapy classes. The city can hold a memorial ceremony this year paid for almost entirely by private funds.

My office overflows with generosity from around the world: patchwork quilts, a 500-pound bronze sculpture of firefighters raising the flag, 3,000 tulip bulbs, flags, and original artwork, poems and music. We also serve as a barometer for the sensitivities of the families; would victims be offended by, say, Madame Tussaud's displaying a heroic firefighter in wax? Schools and businesses call from around the country to ask what would be the most respectful way to observe the morning of 9/11.

Then there are the more delicate and wrenching questions, often asked by the survivors themselves. How do I ship ashes interstate? How can I obtain a death certificate for someone who did not hold an American passport? When will I know whether I will ever have something to bury?

I did not, I do not, have all the answers. All I can do is assure everyone who asks that the city is handling the search carefully and respectfully. I can assure the more than 1,000 families who do not have a body to bury that the medical examiner's office is using the most advanced science to identify the remaining victims.

My heart will always be with those who have become my sisters and brothers in grief. But as I prepare to spend my last 9/11 anniversary as the mayor's liaison to the families, I realize there are new ways to serve the city — as an adviser to the mayor and as a board member of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation. There are new ways to serve the memory of my husband, with the State University of New York's creation of the Neil D. Levin Graduate Institute. Now is the time to focus on renewal.

Christy Ferer is the mayor's liaison to the families of victims of the World Trade Center attacks.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

September 11th, 2003, 08:56 PM
As LMDC Searches For Final WTC Memorial Design, Families Fight To Preserve Footprints

As those responsible for choosing the memorial for the World Trade Center site continue to search for the final design, controversy over the footprints of the twin towers continues to build. NY1's Rebecca Spitz explains in the following report.

The people in charge of planning a memorial at the World Trade Center site say it's the most open, all-inclusive process they've ever seen. It is a strategy you might think would make everyone happy.

“Am I happy? You can tell by the tone of my voice I am not happy,” said Lee Ielpi, who lost his son on September 11, 2001. “We've been lied to, we've been placated to, and we've been treated like children by the LMDC."

That's the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, the agency coordinating the search for a memorial design. The LMDC has promised an inspiring tribute, and they've promised the memorial will come before any commercial development.

“This process has involved family members, residents, many stakeholders, and I think the one unique thing about the process is it is open and transparent,” said LMDC Vice President of Memorials Anita Contini.

But some families say since construction on the PATH train is already underway, the LMDC, not to mention Governor George Pataki and the Port Authority, went back on their word.

“The LMDC refuses to tell us what's going to be there,” said Bruce DeCell, who lost his son-in-law in the attacks. “We insist that from bedrock up, in the space that we say is sacred ground, be made for only memorial-related infrastructure and memorial-related components."

But the LMDC says there's nothing commercial about restoring what was a transportation lifeline prior to the attacks.

“The PATH tracks originally ran through the south footprint, and they'll continue to run through the south footprint as they did on the morning of September 11 and on September 10 and before that," said LMDC President Kevin Rampe.

But families, including more than a dozen relatives who tried to block access to the site last week, aren't just upset about the footprints. They also have issues with the decision-making, since the final say is in the hands of a jury handpicked by the LMDC.

Those 13 artists, architects, historians and family members will sift through approximately 5,200 ideas submitted in a worldwide competition.

“It's a lot of work to be a juror,” said Contini. “To be a juror you've got to commit time and you've got to pay a lot of attention and do a lot of homework, and the remarkable thing about these people is they're doing it pro bono."

The jury must also abide by a memorial mission statement, which is another source of debate. It calls for the victims of the September 11 attacks, as well as the six people killed in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, to be listed together, without separate designation for rescue workers. First responders and their families are still fighting for special recognition.

Meanwhile, other relatives are continuing to challenge the LMDC, which is getting everything in place for an aggressive construction timetable.

“The memorial should – must - be done first,” said Ielpi. “If there's room for building afterwards, so be it. If there is no room for building afterwards, so be it."

While it's not clear what the memorial will look like, some parts aren't debatable. The LMDC's mission statement requires the design: recognize each individual victim of the attacks; provide space for quiet visitation and contemplation; set aside a private area for families and victims' loved ones; and create a separate space to serve as a final resting place for any unidentified remains.

The mission statement also states the setting should be distinct from other memorial structures on the site, like a museum, and allow the footprints of the original towers be visible.

Finally, it demands historic authenticity, allowing the memorial and its surroundings areas to include surviving elements of the original towers, like the slurry wall that still surrounds the site.

The LMDC insists there will be room for all of it - no matter what.

“We will adjust the site plan to insure we have an appropriate and exceptional memorial on the site, and if that means having to make changes to the site plan, we will do that," said Rampe.

As for the final memorial, officials are hoping for a design that stands the test of time, with aspects that appeal to everyone.

“Every single desire cannot be in one monument, but people come to it and they find in it something that's important to them,” said Contini. “It may not be the same thing somebody standing next to them will find, but they can find something in it. That's excellence, and that's what we're looking for."

Five final designs will be announced and displayed in the Winter Garden in the fall. The winner will be picked soon after that.

- Rebecca Spitz

September 11th, 2003, 09:14 PM
Victims' kin rip gov

Protesters yell 'liar, liar' over plan to build on WTC footprints


Mary Dwyer of Marine Park, Brooklyn -
whose sister Lucy Fishman died 9/11 -
joins protest over plan to build where towers stood

Protesters remember loved ones who died
and call for preservation of the site for a proper memorial.

Chanting "Liar! Liar!" hundreds of relatives of Sept. 11 victims converged at Ground Zero a day before the anniversary of the terrorist attacks to accuse Gov. Pataki of betrayal.

The families charged that Pataki, who holds the most influence over the rebuilding of the site, broke a solemn promise to preserve the area where the majority of the dead were recovered.

"What if it was his son or his brother or his nephew who died here?" fumed Josephine Castiglia, whose 27-year-old nephew, Paul Salvio, was killed at the World Trade Center. "People's ashes are here."

Yesterday's emotional rally made public the despair the families still endure two years after a pair of hijacked jets slammed into the twin towers.

It also thrust into the spotlight political decisions made over the past year by those who must balance the wishes of victims' relatives with the need to rebuild.

Although the families' position is not shared by all who lost loved ones, it was given a great boost by Rudy Giuliani.

Rudy raps plans

Giuliani, who as mayor guided the city through the aftermath of the attacks, assailed the rebuilding plans, saying "all the designs have missed the point."

He stopped short of criticizing Pataki but made clear he fully supports the families' push for a larger memorial.

"The first thing that should emerge from [the] design is the importance of the place - historically, patriotically, spiritually," Giuliani said at the Marriott Marquis hotel in Times Square. "What has happened is the office buildings have become the dominant theme, and the memorial has been the footnote.

"We have no choice but to accept ... that it's a burial ground."

Pataki declined to directly address the families' charges. His spokeswoman Mollie Fullington said, "The governor understands what a difficult time this is for the families of the victims lost in the horrific attacks just two years ago, and his heart goes out to them."

The cries of "Liar!" broke out from among the crowd of about 300 at Ground Zero after families played a video of a speech Pataki gave in June 2002.

The video showed him vowing, "We will never build where the towers stood."

The families took the governor's words to mean that nothing would be constructed on the towers' footprints, from bedrock on up.

The rebuilding plan preserves the footprints. But the base of the tribute sits about 40 feet above bedrock. The area below would include infrastructure to support the tribute and the site's retaining walls.

Kevin Rampe, president of the Lower Manhattan Development Corp., which oversees the rebuilding, said the memorial "will make our entire nation proud."

Remembering the dead

At 8:46 a.m. today, the time the first plane crashed into 1 World Trade Center, New Yorkers again will pay tribute to the dead. The names of the nearly 2,800 victims will be read. The families will descend into The Pit. And at dusk, the sky will be illuminated by the Tribute in Light.

The morning ceremony will include seven readings - by Pataki, Giuliani, New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey, Mayor Bloomberg and three victims' relatives.

Giuliani will recite the words of Winston Churchill, including, "We shall not fail or falter; we shall not weaken or tire."

Joan Molinaro, who lost her son, Firefighter Carl Molinaro, will share a poem of her own. It ends with the words, "My baby boy is gone."

With Michael Saul and David Saltonstall

Originally published on September 11, 2003

September 11th, 2003, 10:07 PM
*bad word*

I'm sorry to be so vulgar and blunt, but they have no factual reason to complain. There is nothing being built on the footprints besides a small amount of transit infrastructure. Pataki promised no commercial space. He kept his promise.



NyC MaNiAc
September 11th, 2003, 10:12 PM
Apology accepted.

TLOZ Link5
September 12th, 2003, 12:42 AM
Yeesh, give them their larger memorial. At the very least it'll give Silverstein an incentive to build taller at the Deutsche Bank site.