Gov. George Pataki took the following oath of office: “I do solemnly swear that I will support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of New York, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of Governor, according to the best of my ability.” He was willfully derelict in his duty to the people of New York. As is stated below, the record shows that he directed a deliberate effort to frustrate the will of the people by misrepresenting our options and putting an embargo on debate. The way he commandeered the rebuilding effort was not a matter of executive privilege — it was a direct assault on the political process.

In “Sixteen Acres” Philip Nobel wrote that ““Though it would always run at least 50 percent in scientific polls (online it did much better), the idea of replacing the Twins never really had a fair trial…” And, according to The New York Times Book Review, architecture critic Philip Nobel’s account is: “Estimable… Nobel steps in where [others] fear to tread—by making sense of the spectacle.” And the New York Press said:

In July 2002, a New York Post full-page headline announced that “Half of New York Wants The Twin Towers REBUILT”. Coming less than a year after the attacks, with many people still shell-shocked by the enormous tragedy, that was an impressive statement. The other half was splintered in their preferences.

Now that the official plan is such a disappointment, all indications are that the proportion would no doubt be higher. But, in any event, that 50% in 2002 would have been enough to put a Congressman or a President into office; it should certainly have counted for much more than it did with those who were elected to serve our best interests. Instead a selfish minority has been indulged at the expense of the majority. But, why?

We challenge anyone to point to one official statement that honored the popular support for rebuilding what was stolen from us and explained why officials felt compelled to choose a different course. There may have been a good reason to overrule the popular will. But what was it? And what kind of governement wouldn’t at least feel the responsibility to recognize and address it? It was 2006 before anyone even went on the record regarding the choices that were made, when Stefan Pryor, then head of the LMDC, could only say that it was “an imperative” to restore the street grid. He wasn’t kidding…

I won’t ever look in that direction again if the towers aren’t rebuilt. There’ll be nothing there to see.
                                                                               — Daniel Stadnyckyj, Brooklyn, NY

In Back to Basics: Twin Towers II, eminent New York Times architecture critic, the late Herbert Muschamp, wote in 2004 that “abandoning the flawed ground zero design process altogether in favor of reconstructing the twin towers more or less as they were… The reduction to essentials is a great New York tradition, evident in our engineering and in our art. It is the correct tradition to invoke here.”