WE CAN DO MUCH BETTER — www.WTC2011.com

Taking the High Road | Those who are trying to force their botched version of a new World Trade Center on the rest of us must have noticed that nothing they are doing has gone smoothly. They should start asking themselves if that is because it’s just not meant to be. For those of us who know why we should rebuild the Twin Towers, but wonder if it can actually be accomplished, just remember that building 21st Century Twin Towers is superior to the current approach in every way. So, when spin finally gives way to reason and the win-win nature of the Twin Towers alternative is considered, there is no sound reason why many of those who are currently opposed would not reassess their positions.

After all, those who want to make the WTC a magnet for people and commerce just need to open their eyes to the fact that the plan favored by New Yorkers and visitors from around the country and the world, as well as the easy favorite among construction workers, and first responders — rebuilding the Twin Towers alongside a fitting memorial — is going to be the far better bet for all concerned. And no amount of fancy PR footwork can hide the truth that it is the only noble course.

Next Steps | None of the gerrymandering at the WTC site since 9/11/2001 was done with the support of the people or the diligent oversight of their federal, state, or local representatives. In reviewing what took place, it is clear that the public land giveaway and the likely misappropriation of billions of dollars was the result of a staggering abuse of power by the Executive branch and dereliction of duty by the Legislative branch. The obvious way to unravel it would be through the involvement of the Judicial branch.

There are a number of glaring irregularities that took place, but none as outrageous as making the whole rebuilding process dependent on reintroducing the pre-WTC street grid. There can be no doubt that if carving up the “superblock” had been evaluated as part of the Environmental Impact Study — instead of as an underlying assumption — and therefore subject to public hearings, it would have been rejected as environmentally retrograde and politically unpopular. This shadowy initiative amounted to a confiscation of public land. To stipulate its inclusion was an obvious built-in defect. And, as the NYPD objections in 2005 highlighted, it introduced vulnerability into a site that would be much more secure if the moat around the WTC were preserved.

So, who put that stumblingblock in the way of what people wanted and made it a done deal without debate? And why wasn’t the public involved in the decision? There are legal hurdles to overcome when challenging this and other improprieties that took place, but if there is a way, at this late date, we will find it. Why should the fate of the World Trade Center hang on technicalities at the expense of fulfilling the public’s mandate? How can that be defended?

Certainly, a judge’s injunction would be the most direct way to stop this wrong-headed development. We would like to achieve success in that area, but that is not our only option. We are working a couple of political angles that could also make the difference. But, the bottom line is that if legalisms are allowed to frustrate the will of the people and political cronies slap each other on the back while giving the rest of us the finger, then what goes up in place of the Twin Towers would be a giant step towards the United States becoming just another Banana Republic.

We don’t think it’s going to come to that, but this is a very tough battle that people should not have to wage against their own government and those who are responsible ought to be made to answer for it. We expect to find that the disbursement of tens of billions of taxpayer dollars were rubberstamped, as well as the promise of government leases to almost half of the “Freedom Tower,” when it would not otherwise be viable. We think the record will show that oversight and accountability at every level has been inadequate at best.

The Memorial | The cartoon above is worth a thousand words. The famous goalposts that said “New York, New York” for over thirty years were not disposable symbols. Those who are invested in remaking the World Trade Center into something completely different are quick to ridicule the notion that the current inferior plan is essentially a monument to terrorism. Hard to believe. It takes very little imagination to understand that materially changing the 9/10/2001 skyline, when we could have already so easily restored it, is a capitulation to Bin Laden. It takes very little intelligence to appreciate that his admirers will applaud if we allow officials to wantonly ratify the removal of those Towers. To deny that is to be willfully ignorant. To accept that is a failure of character.

As politically incorrect as the cartoon may seem to some, it effectively conveys why so many object to leaving those footprints empty — in ultimate acknowledgment of the diseased mindset behind the destruction. Who can explain why putting the Towers back where they belong would be anything but a tribute to the heroes and victims — as if we really need to see the “footprints” to mourn the day.

Many feel that it would be a betrayal of those who perished on 9/11 to leave the footprints visible — because the subtext of looking down into those voids is the triumph of Osama bin Laden’s assault. Who can deny that? The Twin Towers Alliance position is that there are better ways to honor those who died on 9/11, but we do not intend to let the issue of the footprints defeat the rise of new Twin Towers.

They are not mutually exclusive, which is why we are promoting the “Twin Towers II” plan on this site in “The Restoration Alternative” pages. This is the plan the Donald Trump supported back in 2005 and, besides being likely to be overwhelmingly favored in a head-to-head match with the Silverstein buildings, has the benefit of including a memorial that is preferred by many 9/11 family members to the current design, which many of them find dismal and utterly unacceptable — for good reason.

Unfortunately, the current dubious memorial plan is being driven by Mayor Bloomberg, who is “doing a Pataki” by using the WTC to promote his obvious political ambitions and to hell with those who think better. We expect that the snide and misleading way he has of saying “you can’t please everyone” — when he never cared to even try — is going to backfire on him, because you can’t fool all of the people all of the time — even if you’re a billionaire with your own media company.

How can we faithfully honor the lives that were lost without the Towers to give it all context? If we are going to take eight acres to memorialize the bravery of so many and the anguish of our loss, then it would be much better to take the first four floors in reborn Twins to do it right. Looking down is not where we will find them — we have to look up to catch their essence. To reclaim the last buildings on earth they walked into would be a symbolic victory for both the living and the dead.

Therefore, we are featuring the “Twin Towers II” plan, as illustrating a real alternative to the current site plan. But we are stopping short of endorsing it, because we know that there were a number of very worthy designs on the drawing board back in 2001/2002, some by eminent architects, that were subverted by the Pataki Administration’s manoeuvers. Once this issue finally takes center stage, then everyone who once had a vision for the site should be able to showcase their proposal before we put all our energies into forging a plan.

Larry Silverstein | As Silverstein Properties prepares to shift into high gear at the WTC site, we need to ask why the people should accept a project that has been damned with faint praise by politicians and critics alike. That’s a fair question and we believe that any effort to formulate an answer will illustrate how flimsy the reasons for moving forward with it are. It certainly isn’t acclaimed by the people. And, there is every reason to resist the pressure to build anything that does not live up to the stature of what we lost.

Mr. Silverstein has said that he wants to build a 21st Century Rockefeller Center (which is notable by the way, for its symmetry) — but we are in danger of being saddled instead with a latter-day Penn Station — a tribute to lack of vision. In this case, there is every reason why foresight should be 20-20. The outstanding feature of the current plan is its random quality — a lack of connection between the buildings to each other and the people to our past. That is why it has failed to capture the imagination of the world or attract the Tier One tenants — resulting in the state and federal governments, a/k/a the taxpayers — propping up the “Freedom Tower” because it cannot stand on its own. But we’re not stuck and neither is he.

Mr. Silverstein has been doing his best for all these years to deal with the results of Pataki’s chicanery in the face of his massive investment. Granted, it is alleged that he paid significantly less for the 99-year leases than they were worth, and then he underinsured the buildings, resulting in all the legal wrangling which he has now lost and which is unlikely to be overturned. But if Governor Pataki had behaved as a Governor instead of a shill for certain vested interests — if he had upheld his oath of office, instead of selling us out for imagined political capital — then Mr. Silverstein would be leasing space right now in a marvel of the Western World: fabulous new Twin Towers.

When it comes to the Port Authority vs. Larry Silverstein, he is undoubtedly the one who got the short end of the stick. There is every reason to believe that he originally intended to rebuild the Towers, as his contract explicitly bound him to do, and as his implicit contract with the people of New York required. But Governor Pataki had other ideas. What is it called when a Governor not only doesn’t enforce a contract that supports the public’s interests, but, without bringing the matter to the people, actually abrogates it? Start with “abuse of power”.

But what if his original intent could still be accomplished without impairing his legitimate interests? One way of going about it would be for Governor Spitzer to recognize that the merits and benefit of what we are advocating and to announce that, in consultation with Governor Corzine, he has decided to drop the street grid foolishness, return to the protected superblock, and, to offer to rescind the the 2006 swap — giving Silverstein his Towers — and an enduring legacy — back.

Furthermore, in recognition of the rollercoaster ride he has been on for six years, due to the bad faith of Governor Pataki’s regime, the Port Authority could give Silverstein Properties a break on land elsewhere in the city where he can put up Towers 2, 3, and 4 — singly or together — or would buy the plans from him. He would come out ahead and the architects involved also win by not being in the unenviable position of encroaching on another architect’s domain. And, given the building boom in New York and the strong support in the building trades for rebuilding the Towers, it is doubtful that those with contracts would sue rather than accommodate the changeover. So there are no real impediments.

Mr. Silverstein fought hard to buy the rights to the Twin Towers to begin with, and it wasn’t just for the 10,600,000 sq. ft. of office space. He wanted control of one of the premier landmarks on earth and the only way he will ever have that is to put them back. Otherwise, he will be letting us all down and history will not applaud. This is about so much more than dollars and cents. He says on his website that he is a dedicated New Yorker. This is his chance to prove it.

Perspective | Many notables, including the esteemed Jane Jacobs, expressed the belief that we would be better off if we waited ten or twenty years before rebuilding the site. We don’t agree with that assessment, but acknowledge that the passage of time helps weed out the conflicting interests and politics and correct the blind spots. We can’t afford to forget that we aren’t just building for our generation, but for those that follow.

Eight years after President Kennedy announced the goal of landing a man on the moon, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on its surface. We’re not asking for the moon — just our Towers back. We should be able to cut the timetable for a moon landing in half and put magnificent Twin Towers back where they belong in just under four years, in time for September 11, 2011, if we all pull together in the same direction. There is no good reason why not.

Consensus | We are not stuck with the fake WTC they are forcing on us. There is no getting around the fact that the World Trade Center site is the public’s land and that the billions spent and the billions pledged is the public’s money. In a representative democracy, the majority does not rule, but it does set the agenda. Its opinion matters. If it is to be overruled, there must be good reasons — not high-handed dictates. There have been nothing but dictates for over six years and now it’s time for answers.

Officials would have us believe that it is too late to clean up the mess they made. That is absurd and offensive. If we’re on the wrong track, why would we keep on going in the wrong direction, instead of pulling the emergency brake and figuring out how to get where we really want to go? This is much too critical to be so unconcerned and out of touch. Common sense has been the missing element from the beginning — the predictable result of excluding the public from playing a real part in the recovery. But we can still prevent a terrible mistake. We can do much better. We CAN get there from here.

Click on the banner to make a tax-deductible contribution to help us wage this battle.

Back to Home