Downtown Express
Talking point
The memorial’s cost problems have not been solved
By David Stanke
While Frank Sciame and a team of experts have worked over the World Trade Center memorial for cost reductions, the revenue side of the equation remains unanswered. Who is going to pay for Reflecting Absence and the 9/11 museum? With a $500 million cost estimate, the Memorial Foundation will still need to raise $170 million. But that does not cover maintenance costs. After savings identified by Sciame, maintenance costs may be nearly $50 million per year, requiring additional hundreds of millions up front.
Other memorials in this country are funded by private, voluntary contributions. Unfortunately, 9/11 doesn’t play by the same set of rules. The $500 million cost is still a high price to pay for “Absence.” America, with our strong tradition of modesty, will not contribute for over-the-top displays. This memorial will be heavily subsidized by government sources, especially the Port Authority.
Mayor Bloomberg’s voice has been most needed in introducing financial sanity to memorial considerations. He filled the leadership vacuum which allowed every decision to be second guessed. He has indicated that he will be looking for additional savings. His success at controlling costs is the best bet to energize fundraising.
Big name donors are apparently tapped out for now. Some sources walked away from the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation when two cultural institutions were eliminated. Other sources may have been scared away by the politicization of the “Take Back the Memorial” propaganda attack. Others have to question the enormous cost. At $130 million, private fundraising has already been successful, by any standard measure. But at the W.T.C., success is never enough. Miracles are expected.
The response from the general public has been lackluster. New York State taxpayers only contributed $150,000 to the memorial by checking a box on their return. The W.T.C. memorial was the second least popular of seven charitable check-off options. This should have been a wake-up call. New York is the state most affected by 9/11 in every way. The people most likely to “get it,” as some critics have phrased it, will not direct their dollars to the memorial.
The Lower Manhattan Development Corp. has already dedicated $200 million to the memorial. These funds were meant to undo the economic damage of the terror attacks and to ensure that Al Qaeda’s attempt to bring down the United States’ financial district did not succeed. Pulling more of these funds is an insult.
Another source of public money for the memorial is Port Authority spending. Ultimately, P.A. expenses are a tax on New York and New Jersey transportation costs. The P.A. will officially pay for $100 million infrastructure costs. Another $50 million of the original $300 million infrastructure will likely be pushed on the Port.
The federal government may be asked to cover more of the memorial’s costs. The 9/11 name drives a lot of federal decisions. The cost of the war and rebuilding Iraq dwarf the $20 billion for Downtown and the $3 billion for the Victims Compensation Fund. So what’s a couple hundred million for this country to pay for a memorial? Fortunately, government does not justify projects by comparison to war costs. National public opinion will not be sympathetic to contributing more.
New York State is already spending $80 million on the visitors center. The cost of this center is not even included in the current round of estimates. This expense was put directly on New York State taxpayers by Gov. Pataki to avoid embarrassment at the overall cost of the memorial.
A partial solution is to charge admission to the museum and visitors center. But many family members have rejected this idea. They are confident that 9/11 tourists will spend hundreds of millions and drive a Downtown financial boom, but do not want these tourists to pay for their prime destination. The Tribute Center (funded by the L.M.D.C.) will not even charge visitors. Those opposed to fees prefer charging people who aren’t actually going to the museum.
Do not expect contributions from other obvious sources of funding. Preservationists have driven up costs through uncompromising determination to preserve an expanse of artifacts. The Sciame costs do not include the “Survivor’s Staircase,” which has been put on the National Registry of Endangered Artifacts. The preservationist community has done a lot of talking and little more.
Do not expect a lot of sympathy from Downtown. We have already seen 50 percent of the W.T.C. site, all previously part of our public space, dedicated exclusively for the remembrance of 9/11. That is an extremely generous forced contribution.
The 9/11 families who have demanded these memorial facilities and acres of “sacred ground” are not generating funds. While their media access remains strong, their fundraising power is spent. There have been enough rumors of extravagant spending of Victims Compensation Funds to deter contributors. Additional money would be better spent on college for kids who lost parents than on an over-sized memorial.
David Stanke, who lives and writes Downtown, is a member of the L.M.D.C.’s Memorial Center Advisory Committee.
I don't think Al Qaeda cared or could care about destroying downtown Manhattan. 9/11 was a publicity stunt and they attacked where they could get the most publicity.
So, rebuilding has never been about Al Qaeda winning or losing. They already won by getting the publicity and political fallout (sort of) they wanted.
I completely agree. The terrorist "won" on 9-11 - "won" the game they're playing. They accomplished (mostly) what they set out to do: shock and scare Americans. The terrorists are crazy but they're not stupid. They knew they weren't going to permanently "bring down the United States' financial district". I think it's foolish to think that was the intention.Originally Posted by JMGarcia
I think you're quite wrong. The longer the affects of their efforts linger, and the longer Americans come by to cry, and the more it gets used to keep people scared and self righteous the better. I don't see how you could think otherwise.
Did they plan on an American Political blunder of astronomic proportion? No. Are they laughing about it? Maybe not in caves in Pakistan, but in the more open world, yes. This is a lingering victory for Al Queda and an indictment of the American Political system.
The Al Queda strategy is to cause vaste damage with minimum expense. We have magnified their success in many ways for 5 years.
Self pity is the first sign of a failing society. Ground Zero is a magnificent exercise in self pity. Some people call it respect for the dead, but that is simply the cover for what it is all really about.
If you want to understand the proper way to respond to terrorism, go to Israel. You don't highlight the enemy's success in any way. America has fallen over itself backwards to emphasize this lapse in our self-defence. And we have shown no resilience or determination or ability to rise above it.
Last edited by davestanke; June 26th, 2006 at 07:51 PM.
Remember the fallen without commemorating the success of the enemy.
Not an easy thing to do, and definitely not something that can be done on a scale such as this.
"Keep it simple, Stupid" is the most appropriate phrase I can think of.
Momma always said, "Stupid is as stupid does."
There are simple displays about 9/11 everywhere, perfect displays which subtly pay respect without caving into emotional pandering. Firehouses have pieces of the Trade Center. A museum in Albany has an exhibit that I hear is moderate yet very effective. I haven't seen it, but it is no where near the scale of this.
The Police memorial in Battery Park City respects the dead without in any way paying tribute to the murderers or inflicting damage on its surroundings. The right way is very simple, moderate in costs, respectful in tone, and well integrated.
Fireman's 9/11 Memorial. Simple.
It's been a tourist attraction for almost 5 years. The photo story posted
along the fences with the list of names is very tasteful. Something like
that wouldn't take up much space on the plaza level. And St. Paul's has
become a museum. Why not give them some money. They're still talking
$500 million plus millions in maintenance. So they'll charge admission
June 27, 2006
9/11 Memorial Faces Setback Over Names
By DAVID W. DUNLAP
Most relatives of those killed on 9/11 will not endorse the World Trade Center memorial plan, even in its revised form, until officials give up their insistence that the names of the dead be randomly arrayed, advocates for the families said in recent interviews.
The names issue puts the families in conflict with Gov. George E. Pataki and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who maintain that the names should be arranged randomly. Fund-raising for the memorial would probably continue to be difficult without the strong support of the victims' relatives.
They want the 2,979 names arranged by the towers in which the victims worked and died, by affiliation (their employers, typically), and by floor, with their ages next to their names, said Edith Lutnick, the executive director of the Cantor Fitzgerald Relief Fund.
"This is a memorial to these people," Ms. Lutnick said in an interview on Thursday. "Shouldn't the point be to give their loved ones what they need? At no cost."
Thomas S. Johnson, the chairman of the executive committee of the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation and a director of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, said, "This issue is so important to so many family members."
His son Scott M. Johnson, 26, worked on the 89th floor of the south tower, at Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, and was killed on Sept. 11, 2001.
"If there's any nonnegotiable issue, this is it," Mr. Johnson said yesterday. "An acceptable way of listing the names has to be there, or I'm afraid the families aren't going to be there."
Neither will the firefighters' union, the Uniformed Firefighters Association, said its president, Stephen J. Cassidy.
"There'll be no support from me if they say, 'We'll get back to you on the names after the project is complete,' " he said yesterday. "We're going to have to have this resolved upfront."
Among institutions, the Fire Department suffered the second-largest loss of life — 343 members — in the attack.
The greatest death toll was at Cantor Fitzgerald, a financial services company on the 101st through 105th floors of the north tower. It lost 658 employees, including Ms. Lutnick's brother Gary, 36, who was a partner. Her other brother, Howard W. Lutnick, is the chairman and chief executive of Cantor and a director of the memorial foundation.
In 2004, Mr. Pataki and Mr. Bloomberg said that names would be arrayed randomly. There was to be no other designation except for insignias of service next to the names of uniformed rescue workers.
The notion, supported by the memorial's architect, Michael Arad, was that a random listing imposed no hierarchy and reflected what Mr. Arad said was the "haphazard brutality of the attacks."
Frank J. Sciame, the construction executive whom Mr. Pataki and Mr. Bloomberg chose to find ways to control the memorial's cost, said last week that the names issue was one he hoped to address. "It's something that is important to the families," he said.
Under the revised memorial plan outlined by Mr. Sciame, the names of all 2,979 victims of the 1993 and 2001 attacks would be listed at plaza level on eight parapets around two square pools marking the location of the twin towers.
If the names issue is not addressed, Ms. Lutnick said, "The families will not come out in support of this memorial."
On the other hand, she said, if victims' relatives do support the memorial, the fund-raising efforts might grow more fruitful. "The power of the families to raise money and be supportive is being severely underestimated," she said.
That includes Cantor Fitzgerald, which has yet to make a donation to the memorial. "Howard has told the foundation that the names are critically important to the Cantor family," Ms. Lutnick said, referring to her brother.
The counterproposal to random arrangement is a modified version of an October 2004 plan signed by many 9/11 family advocates and supported by the "vast majority of families," Ms. Lutnick said.
"How you list the names — it's of paramount importance," she said. "You're addressing what everyone asks: "Where did they work? How old were they? What tower were they in? What floor were they on?"
Ms. Lutnick said the names around the north pool would represent those who died in the north tower; those aboard American Airlines Flight 11, which struck the building; and those who died in the terrorist attack of Feb. 26, 1993.
Around the south pool, she said, would be those who died in that building; those aboard United Airlines Flight 175, which hit the tower; those on United Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania, and American Flight 77, which hit the Pentagon; and those who were killed inside the Pentagon.
Within the civilian institutions — like Cantor Fitzgerald, Marsh & McLennan and Aon — names would probably be arranged alphabetically, Ms. Lutnick said.
For victims whose families chose not to list them under a company name, there would be a panel of unaffiliated names at both pools.
"The rescue workers, not just firefighters, would be listed all together under their appropriate affiliation in the south tower," Ms. Lutnick said. As it happens, the number of active New York firefighters who died that day corresponds closely with the number of names (372) that could be expected on any one side of a pool.
That could leave the Fire Department with a space that is essentially its own but at the same time adjoins the longer ribbon of names around the pool.
"I have no problem with that," said Mr. Cassidy, the union president, as long as the names are arranged "as they functioned and died: by division, battalion, unit and rank, with their badge number listed with their name."
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
Completely and unequivocally wrong. They did it for symbolic and publicity purposes. Bin Laden has even so much as said so. They could care less about the long term health of downtown NY as an urban environment.
I agree.
I think it was in the first video released, Bin Laden expressed surprise that the buildings actually collapsed. The point was to draw us into a war in the Middle East to highlight American imperialism. We just picked the wrong country, and they adjusted.
I still believe that a prime reason there has been no major terrorist attack within the US since 09/11 is that there is no need for it.
True. The have us fully engaged in shadow boxing in the Middle East and hemmorhaging financially at a cost that can be measured in lack of services to Americans in need.
With the regard to the names... Although I am incredibly tired of hearing the the words "the victims' families" followed by the word "demand" or "adamant," I don't think the arrangement of names by tower and affiliation is a burden the Memorial Designers cannot handle.
The issue is do they designers say "yes" to this demand and ONCE AGAIN see the victims' families hijack the process once again.
It will take a certain political and inner fortitude, but I think the time has come (after FIVE years) to ignore this group as they simply cannot be satisfied. This is a public memorial and the interests of private individuals have been duly noted. With these continued demands, I think the best we can do is hope that the memorial drags on for another 5 or 10 years as the commercial and transportation portions are rebuilt.
Although I disagree with just about everything else the families have demanded at the WTC site, I think they are actually right on the naming issue. The people who died there did so, in large part, in furtherance of their jobs, whether they were firefighters or bond traders or whatever. (There were some tourists and visitors as well.) To list their names randomly rather than with work identification misses a key part of the story. An even if the families were wrong on this point, since this is one of the few demands of theirs that isn't costing us taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars (there would seem to be no additional cost), the LMDC would do well to cede the point and move on. Slavish allegiance to Micharl Arad's "vision" is really a ridiculous excuse.
Agreed -- Specifics regarding placement as well as age & work affiliation can easily be incorporated into the design and will be of interest to both families and other visitors to the site.
I think the very least should be alphabetical.
How else are they going to be able to find them without walking all the way around one of these monstrocities!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks