According to Bill, he's not spending his past compensation very wisely--I do think there's a public interest in not having a fool in charge of the site. Just kidding, but not really.

Also, as Bill suggested, it should be the Port Authority's call. I don't know the financial machinations involved in buying a building from someone and then leasing most of it to the seller for 99 years. Since Silverstein only owned it 6 months before it came down around his ears (or he "pulled it"), what is his genuine equitable interest in the property (as opposed to strict legal title)? It's really quasi-public land, and the place of a great American tragedy, can he really do what he wants with it? Like build "9/11 World"?

Our constitution doesn't say the public can't take land from private owners, just that it can't be taken without just compensation. (George Bush got that stadium land on the cheap through abuse of the eminent domain laws.) I say there's a prevailing public interest (whether by the PA, as selma suggested the Feds, or the City) in taking the land away from Larry. Compensate him (minus any wasted legal fees) and send him scooting. How much you pay him--all lost future revenues?--to be worked out in court.

- tom moody 6-10-2004 10:45 pm






add a comment to this page:

Your post will be captioned "posted by anonymous,"
or you may enter a guest username below:


Line breaks work. HTML tags will be stripped.