So when is the WTC going to be rebuilt?

[GoPackGo]

Whether its in the same location or not, the World Trade Center needs to be rebuilt.

There are billions of dollars in insurance money just sitting doing nothing.

Come on, its been almost three years and the economy in new york and the rest of the country depends on it.

 

[tnitsuj]

They are still litigating the insurance issues, and thier is much planning to be done yet.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
They are still litigating the insurance issues, and thier is much planning to be done yet.

But its just one(or two) building?

 

[SuperTool]

When they know it won't be taken down again?

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
When they know it won't be taken down again?

And if they tear it down we will rebuild again

and if that one is tore down we shall rebuild...until they learn that no matter how many times they try they will not win.

Hell shall surely freeze before we give in.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Whether its in the same location or not, the World Trade Center needs to be rebuilt.

There are billions of dollars in insurance money just sitting doing nothing.

Come on, its been almost three years and the economy in new york and the rest of the country depends on it.

Freedom Tower on WTC site will echo the Statue of Liberty

NEW YORK ? A new design for the Freedom Tower at the World Trade Center site gracefully slopes into a spire rising 1,776 feet, echoing the Statue of Liberty
-------------------------------------------------
The thing I find disturbing is that they are taking perfectly fine private buildings away from owners under eminent domain to demolish those buildings to give the land to Silverstein's new WTC site plan.

He would not be able to get 1.7 million sq feet of Office Space at the same time as having the Memorial because of the size of the 2 building footprints plus the Memorial area so they are taking other property and buildings away from the other owners to give to Silverstein.

This is so wrong.

The refined WTC Plan

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
This is so wrong.

Why?

 

[slick230]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
This is so wrong.

Why?

You don't read too well, do you?

they are taking perfectly fine private buildings away from owners under eminent domain to demolish those buildings to give the land to Silverstein's new WTC site plan.

He would not be able to get 1.7 million sq feet of Office Space at the same time as having the Memorial because of the size of the 2 building footprints plus the Memorial area so they are taking other property and buildings away from the other owners to give to Silverstein.

This is what is wrong. Taking away property from someone for no other reason than to hand it over to a developer so he can build his "freedom" tower. I'm not against rebuilding the site, I just don't agree with the "eminent domain" bullsh!t that the city is going to pull.

My property is MY property. If some developer wants to build on my property, let him make me an offer and buy me out. But for the city, or state, to just take it away from me under some bullsh!t rule is just wrong.

 

[DBL]

There is plenty of activity at the site. They just opened a temporary path train station as well as having about 12 floors of 7 world trade already built. Just b/c you do not hear about it on the news doesn't mean they are not doing anything. I believe the final designs for the new Trade center are still being hammered out although final designs are 90% finished.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: DBL
There is plenty of activity at the site. They just opened a temporary path train station as well as having about 12 floors of 7 world trade already built. Just b/c you do not hear about it on the news doesn't mean they are not doing anything. I believe the final designs for the new Trade center are still being hammered out although final designs are 90% finished.

The goal is to have the "Freedom Tower" completed by the 5 year anniversary of 9-11-01.

 

[Klixxer]

I love how the "Freedom" buzzword is being thrown around, Freedom Fries, Operation Iraqi Freedom and now a Freedom Tower.

Just take any word or any name and put the word Freedom in front of it and you are in business.

Freedom computers for everyone?

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: slick230

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
This is so wrong.

Why?

You don't read too well, do you?

they are taking perfectly fine private buildings away from owners under eminent domain to demolish those buildings to give the land to Silverstein's new WTC site plan.

He would not be able to get 1.7 million sq feet of Office Space at the same time as having the Memorial because of the size of the 2 building footprints plus the Memorial area so they are taking other property and buildings away from the other owners to give to Silverstein.

This is what is wrong. Taking away property from someone for no other reason than to hand it over to a developer so he can build his "freedom" tower. I'm not against rebuilding the site, I just don't agree with the "eminent domain" bullsh!t that the city is going to pull.

My property is MY property. If some developer wants to build on my property, let him make me an offer and buy me out. But for the city, or state, to just take it away from me under some bullsh!t rule is just wrong.

No, I don't understand why this is so wrong. The buildings that will be razed were not only highly damaged by the WTC collapse, but they are not of historical importance. The Deutsche Bank building alone suffered a 24 story gash in its facade... and it is only 40 stories high to begin with. On top of that, the owners will be fairly compensated.

If the Deutsche Bank wanted, they could make this into a huge PR campaign, about the contribution they made to aid in rebuilding after the WTC disaster.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

They are still litigating the insurance issues, and thier is much planning to be done yet.

But its just one(or two) building?

I think the litigation is over whether or not the attacks were one event or two. I saw some guy (don't remember the name, but he seemed to know what he was talking about) on Charlie Rose a while back saying the way the insurance contract was worded allows for max damages to be paid for each event, not necessarily for each building.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: slick230

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
This is so wrong.

Why?

You don't read too well, do you?

they are taking perfectly fine private buildings away from owners under eminent domain to demolish those buildings to give the land to Silverstein's new WTC site plan.

He would not be able to get 1.7 million sq feet of Office Space at the same time as having the Memorial because of the size of the 2 building footprints plus the Memorial area so they are taking other property and buildings away from the other owners to give to Silverstein.

This is what is wrong. Taking away property from someone for no other reason than to hand it over to a developer so he can build his "freedom" tower. I'm not against rebuilding the site, I just don't agree with the "eminent domain" bullsh!t that the city is going to pull.

My property is MY property. If some developer wants to build on my property, let him make me an offer and buy me out. But for the city, or state, to just take it away from me under some bullsh!t rule is just wrong.

No, I don't understand why this is so wrong. The buildings that will be razed were not only highly damaged by the WTC collapse, but they are not of historical importance. The Deutsche Bank building alone suffered a 24 story gash in its facade... and it is only 40 stories high to begin with. On top of that, the owners will be fairly compensated.

If the Deutsche Bank wanted, they could make this into a huge PR campaign, about the contribution they made to aid in rebuilding after the WTC disaster.

You don't see a problem with eminent domain and that the government could, if it wanted to, tear down the house and sieze the land that it yours? THIS time it isn't your hous and your land, next time it might be.

How ironic it is that the "freedom tower" will be built on government siezed land.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: slick230

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
This is so wrong.

Why?

You don't read too well, do you?

they are taking perfectly fine private buildings away from owners under eminent domain to demolish those buildings to give the land to Silverstein's new WTC site plan.

He would not be able to get 1.7 million sq feet of Office Space at the same time as having the Memorial because of the size of the 2 building footprints plus the Memorial area so they are taking other property and buildings away from the other owners to give to Silverstein.

This is what is wrong. Taking away property from someone for no other reason than to hand it over to a developer so he can build his "freedom" tower. I'm not against rebuilding the site, I just don't agree with the "eminent domain" bullsh!t that the city is going to pull.

My property is MY property. If some developer wants to build on my property, let him make me an offer and buy me out. But for the city, or state, to just take it away from me under some bullsh!t rule is just wrong.

No, I don't understand why this is so wrong. The buildings that will be razed were not only highly damaged by the WTC collapse, but they are not of historical importance. The Deutsche Bank building alone suffered a 24 story gash in its facade... and it is only 40 stories high to begin with. On top of that, the owners will be fairly compensated.

If the Deutsche Bank wanted, they could make this into a huge PR campaign, about the contribution they made to aid in rebuilding after the WTC disaster.

You don't see a problem with eminent domain and that the government could, if it wanted to, tear down the house and sieze the land that it yours? THIS time it isn't your hous and your land, next time it might be.

How ironic it is that the "freedom tower" will be built on government siezed land.

In most typical eminent domain cases, the owners get 3 times the appraised value. Unless they fight it, then they get less or none. The owners of the surrounding buildings will be WELL compensated. Its really the tax payers that are being screwed, as it is with all eminent domain cases, as the tax payer picks up the tab for govt expenditures on the property, even if they resale the land to someone else.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

In most typical eminent domain cases, the owners get 3 times the appraised value.

What are you basing this on?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

In most typical eminent domain cases, the owners get 3 times the appraised value.

What are you basing this on?

Pay no mind to him, he is one of the many "Don't pay any mind the man behind the curtain" type folks we have in here.

They spew fire and smoke and absolutely nothing behind it.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

In most typical eminent domain cases, the owners get 3 times the appraised value.

What are you basing this on?

Ive know several people that have had their properties "seized" as some like to put it. All of them were given 2-3 times the appraised value. Ive also known people that have had 8-10' by 30-50' strips of land "siezed", and were given way more than 3 times the value of it. Its also based on newspaper articles when I lived in Dallas. Only those that fought got little or none, and even most of them recieved the appraised property value.

Is eminent domain abused? Yes, but rarely. And its even rarer for someone not to be compensated with atleast the appraised value.

 

The group who owned the wtc, just bought the Sears towers in Ill for 850 mil.

When the towers are rebuilt, I hope they put a SAM site on top of each one!

johnboy

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

In most typical eminent domain cases, the owners get 3 times the appraised value.

What are you basing this on?

Ive know several people that have had their properties "seized" as some like to put it. All of them were given 2-3 times the appraised value. Also in newspaper articles when I lived in Dallas. Only those that fought got little or none, and even most of them recieved the appraised property value.

Is eminent domain abused? Yes, but rarely. And its even rarer for someone not to be compensated with atleast the appraised value.

It's abused all the time now.

Draw the line in Alabaster

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: slick230

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

This is so wrong.

Why?

You don't read too well, do you?

they are taking perfectly fine private buildings away from owners under eminent domain to demolish those buildings to give the land to Silverstein's new WTC site plan.



He would not be able to get 1.7 million sq feet of Office Space at the same time as having the Memorial because of the size of the 2 building footprints plus the Memorial area so they are taking other property and buildings away from the other owners to give to Silverstein.

This is what is wrong. Taking away property from someone for no other reason than to hand it over to a developer so he can build his "freedom" tower. I'm not against rebuilding the site, I just don't agree with the "eminent domain" bullsh!t that the city is going to pull.



My property is MY property. If some developer wants to build on my property, let him make me an offer and buy me out. But for the city, or state, to just take it away from me under some bullsh!t rule is just wrong.

No, I don't understand why this is so wrong. The buildings that will be razed were not only highly damaged by the WTC collapse, but they are not of historical importance. The Deutsche Bank building alone suffered a 24 story gash in its facade... and it is only 40 stories high to begin with. On top of that, the owners will be fairly compensated.



If the Deutsche Bank wanted, they could make this into a huge PR campaign, about the contribution they made to aid in rebuilding after the WTC disaster.

You don't see a problem with eminent domain and that the government could, if it wanted to, tear down the house and sieze the land that it yours? THIS time it isn't your hous and your land, next time it might be.



How ironic it is that the "freedom tower" will be built on government siezed land.

In most typical eminent domain cases, the owners get 3 times the appraised value. Unless they fight it, then they get less or none. The owners of the surrounding buildings will be WELL compensated. Its really the tax payers that are being screwed, as it is with all eminent domain cases, as the tax payer picks up the tab for govt expenditures on the property, even if they resale the land to someone else.

So they are free to either leave or leave and accept it?

How about this, i live in a house that has been in my family for generations, it is worth one million billions to me and more, and when the government siezes my property, i have no choice, is that freedom?

Thankfully, that kind of freedom does not exist where i live.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

In most typical eminent domain cases, the owners get 3 times the appraised value.

What are you basing this on?

Ive know several people that have had their properties "seized" as some like to put it. All of them were given 2-3 times the appraised value. Also in newspaper articles when I lived in Dallas. Only those that fought got little or none, and even most of them recieved the appraised property value.

Is eminent domain abused? Yes, but rarely. And its even rarer for someone not to be compensated with atleast the appraised value.

It's abused all the time now.

Draw the line in Alabaster

Thats not abuse, according to the US Supreme Court. The ONLY abuse of eminent domain, is when persons are not compensated for their property.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: slick230

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

This is so wrong.

Why?

You don't read too well, do you?

they are taking perfectly fine private buildings away from owners under eminent domain to demolish those buildings to give the land to Silverstein's new WTC site plan.



He would not be able to get 1.7 million sq feet of Office Space at the same time as having the Memorial because of the size of the 2 building footprints plus the Memorial area so they are taking other property and buildings away from the other owners to give to Silverstein.

This is what is wrong. Taking away property from someone for no other reason than to hand it over to a developer so he can build his "freedom" tower. I'm not against rebuilding the site, I just don't agree with the "eminent domain" bullsh!t that the city is going to pull.



My property is MY property. If some developer wants to build on my property, let him make me an offer and buy me out. But for the city, or state, to just take it away from me under some bullsh!t rule is just wrong.

No, I don't understand why this is so wrong. The buildings that will be razed were not only highly damaged by the WTC collapse, but they are not of historical importance. The Deutsche Bank building alone suffered a 24 story gash in its facade... and it is only 40 stories high to begin with. On top of that, the owners will be fairly compensated.



If the Deutsche Bank wanted, they could make this into a huge PR campaign, about the contribution they made to aid in rebuilding after the WTC disaster.

You don't see a problem with eminent domain and that the government could, if it wanted to, tear down the house and sieze the land that it yours? THIS time it isn't your hous and your land, next time it might be.



How ironic it is that the "freedom tower" will be built on government siezed land.

In most typical eminent domain cases, the owners get 3 times the appraised value. Unless they fight it, then they get less or none. The owners of the surrounding buildings will be WELL compensated. Its really the tax payers that are being screwed, as it is with all eminent domain cases, as the tax payer picks up the tab for govt expenditures on the property, even if they resale the land to someone else.

So the US government orders silence and if the people living on the land refuse to be silent they get nothing?

How very free they are. so someone gets to have their land taken away and the tax payers are screwed paying for it, and this is what? Freedom? Freedom to get kicked out of your own house, protest and you will get nothing, if you DO get something, it is what you have already paid for?

Man, i am glad us Germans aren't as FREE as you.

 

[daniel1113]

Have fun in Germany, Klixxer. You're country already has a shining history... I can't wait to see the rest play out

 

[DBL]

Arguing against eminent domain is futile. It's a necessary evil (for the greater good) unfortunately and when used properly, is a very important tool in urban planning. You realize that much of this countries highway system would not have been possible w/o it? Yes, it sucks for those who are affected but as long as they are fairly compensated, I wouldn't call it abuse. It is possible for it to be abused and that is what the courts are for.

Indecently, there is a huge fight raging in Brooklyn over eminent domain w/ regard to a redevelopment plan for downtown Brooklyn proposed by Ratner, which includes a couple of high-rise building and a new arena for the Nets. According to the plans, the city is to use eminent domain to claim 2 or 3 city blocks in order to make the overall plans a reality. Those in the effected blocks have hired a lawyer and are in the process of fighting the plan in court. One of their central arguments is that Ratner owns the much maligned Atlantic Center shopping mall adjacent to the properties and that rather than seizing the proposed 2 or 3 blocks, it would make more sense to knock down the Atlantic Center and alter the plans around this extra space. It's a tough call although I think the redevelopment plan would be a huge boon to the area.


Bring BBall to Brooklyn

MSNBC article