The pie keeps getting a little smaller. Since the block grant money was given to be spent, there’s no point to griping its being used, though some have taken issue with how fairly — or not — it has been distributed. The only way to find out how, or to protest, is to review the latest Partial Action Plan (PAP) (No. 8), which is still in the public review and comments period (closes September 8 — this is your only chance to comment; there are no public meetings or hearings for this process). This PAP is the first major allocation for the planning (for the cultural facilities) and the pre-engineering and continued design development (for the Memorial and Memorial Center) of the non-commercial portions of the site.
The document provides limited insight into how the development and long-term manangement of the site will proceed. A new 501(c)(3) organization is being formed, the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation, Inc., to be the fund-raising and coordinating entity for the Memorial, Memorial Center, and the Cultural facilities. But it appears that the LMDC is still the overseer, and, presumably, the PANYNJ is still the landowner. Fundraising for memorials is a pretty straightforward affair, but asking for donations under the rubric of 9/11 memory that will fund arts groups may rankle some. Likely, fundraising will be directed, meaning donors can allocate their donations as they like, but since no formal, public plans have been issued regarding the collective administration of the facilities, some awkward conflicts may occur.
The largest portion of fundraising is needed for the Memorial and Memoiral Center. Since they are intergrated into the site, there is a certain amount of ‘must do’ for this portion to enable the overall redevelopment to proceed. With a price tag in the $350 million range, this is not an inconsiderable sum to raise. The World War II memorial raised $195 million, and that took 11 years, and substantial donations from the state and federal governments. Additionally, the routine upkeep of the site, which will likely have costs that are much steeper than most memorials (due to security, and its tight integration into a transit and commercial hub), is not budgeted anywhere, and will require routine funding (being self-supporting through tee-shirts and coffee mugs is a rather noxious inevtiability).
What contingencies are in place for funding and progress? The LMDC still has enough money in block grants (the air link money is all coming from Liberty Bonds, a seperate pool) to fund the all this construction, but are they going to hold reserve funds to cover the all the various structures in the event that fundraising falters, which means not disbursing up to half of its balance over the next 3-5 years?
And what of the four cultural groups? Will they have fundraising targets they must meet to initiate construction? What contingencies are established should they fail? One, the ‘Freedom Center’, can’t be said to truly exist yet, which potentially puts the Drawing Center (its stablemate) at a disadvantage. Since there is much political will for the the Freedom Center (which may change over the next two — presidential and state — election cycles), it seems the most certain, but its nebulous mission is going to wreak havoc in schematic planning (what kind of space will they need, how much, etc.). And who goes upstairs in each building? Will they flip a coin? Have a fundraising race? Who will be funding the fundraising? This is not a flip as it sounds. Asking arts groups to raise $200 million (not a stated figure, only a speculation of what the facilities may cost) to build buildings they won’t own is a little cheeky (of course, there is also talk about the space being rent free), as well as pricey. If the Drawing Center really thought they could raise $50 million on their own, wouldn’t they have tried already?
LMDC chair John Whitehead has already admitted they don’t have as much money as they need for everything they want to accomplish. While his comment may have been only symbolic or an attempt to placate the dissenters, it may very well be a statement of potentially dire consequence. Given that one of the main goals of the rebuilding process is to remove the blight of a hole in the ground — though there are still many who would debate the wisdom of this point, or its subsequent planning — it doesn’t seem that the mechanisms or plans have been put into place to realize even this limited goal.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
Follow the money.
The pie keeps getting a little smaller. Since the block grant money was given to be spent, there’s no point to griping its being used, though some have taken issue with how fairly — or not — it has been distributed. The only way to find out how, or to protest, is to review the latest Partial Action Plan (PAP) (No. 8), which is still in the public review and comments period (closes September 8 — this is your only chance to comment; there are no public meetings or hearings for this process). This PAP is the first major allocation for the planning (for the cultural facilities) and the pre-engineering and continued design development (for the Memorial and Memorial Center) of the non-commercial portions of the site.
The document provides limited insight into how the development and long-term manangement of the site will proceed. A new 501(c)(3) organization is being formed, the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation, Inc., to be the fund-raising and coordinating entity for the Memorial, Memorial Center, and the Cultural facilities. But it appears that the LMDC is still the overseer, and, presumably, the PANYNJ is still the landowner. Fundraising for memorials is a pretty straightforward affair, but asking for donations under the rubric of 9/11 memory that will fund arts groups may rankle some. Likely, fundraising will be directed, meaning donors can allocate their donations as they like, but since no formal, public plans have been issued regarding the collective administration of the facilities, some awkward conflicts may occur.
The largest portion of fundraising is needed for the Memorial and Memoiral Center. Since they are intergrated into the site, there is a certain amount of ‘must do’ for this portion to enable the overall redevelopment to proceed. With a price tag in the $350 million range, this is not an inconsiderable sum to raise. The World War II memorial raised $195 million, and that took 11 years, and substantial donations from the state and federal governments. Additionally, the routine upkeep of the site, which will likely have costs that are much steeper than most memorials (due to security, and its tight integration into a transit and commercial hub), is not budgeted anywhere, and will require routine funding (being self-supporting through tee-shirts and coffee mugs is a rather noxious inevtiability).
What contingencies are in place for funding and progress? The LMDC still has enough money in block grants (the air link money is all coming from Liberty Bonds, a seperate pool) to fund the all this construction, but are they going to hold reserve funds to cover the all the various structures in the event that fundraising falters, which means not disbursing up to half of its balance over the next 3-5 years?
And what of the four cultural groups? Will they have fundraising targets they must meet to initiate construction? What contingencies are established should they fail? One, the ‘Freedom Center’, can’t be said to truly exist yet, which potentially puts the Drawing Center (its stablemate) at a disadvantage. Since there is much political will for the the Freedom Center (which may change over the next two — presidential and state — election cycles), it seems the most certain, but its nebulous mission is going to wreak havoc in schematic planning (what kind of space will they need, how much, etc.). And who goes upstairs in each building? Will they flip a coin? Have a fundraising race? Who will be funding the fundraising? This is not a flip as it sounds. Asking arts groups to raise $200 million (not a stated figure, only a speculation of what the facilities may cost) to build buildings they won’t own is a little cheeky (of course, there is also talk about the space being rent free), as well as pricey. If the Drawing Center really thought they could raise $50 million on their own, wouldn’t they have tried already?
LMDC chair John Whitehead has already admitted they don’t have as much money as they need for everything they want to accomplish. While his comment may have been only symbolic or an attempt to placate the dissenters, it may very well be a statement of potentially dire consequence. Given that one of the main goals of the rebuilding process is to remove the blight of a hole in the ground — though there are still many who would debate the wisdom of this point, or its subsequent planning — it doesn’t seem that the mechanisms or plans have been put into place to realize even this limited goal.