The Battle For Ground Zero, Part XVIII

Halfway There. The Drawing Center looks like it will be withdrawing from the cultural center component to the Ground Zero master plan. This is a good development for those concerned about the overall tone and tenor of the discussion. The Drawing Center was always going to be controversial because of its anti-US bent that would spill over to its displays. It is far easier to eject The Drawing Center from the site now than after the cultural center is built.

It remains to be seen what the IFC will do. They may go the route of The Drawing Center, in which case additional memorial space will be available - though the LMDC may seek other cultural groups to fill the space.

I hope that the LMDC takes this opportunity to increase the size of the memorial to include the cultural space provided to the IFC and The Drawing Center as display space for some of the many thousands of items recovered from Ground Zero in the weeks and months following the collapse.

Again, for emphasis, both organizations should have every right to display whatever they want, even if we don't like it (and we don't). But not at Ground Zero.

So it remains for Pataki to make right his original mistake: He has to convince the IFC to follow the Drawing Center out the door, so to speak. This will, of necessity, require yet one more major adjustment of architect Daniel Libeskind's moonbat vision for Ground Zero — which, in turn, might bring Pataki a ration of grief from people close to him.

But if the IFC is unwilling to go voluntarily, then Pataki must come to terms with the fact that there is no way to enforce the assurances he seeks — and then give the IFC the boot.

I don't think this will require an adjustment of the master plan since the space is contiguous with the memorial. It would simply permit expanding the memorial space to include the musuem space.

In related rebuilding news, The MTA is preparing condemnation proceedings against owners whose properties lay in the path of the proposed Fulton St. Terminal. Buildings affected include the historic Corbin Building, which was built at the turn of the century. The $825 million project, scheduled for completion in 2008, is designed to facilitate easier transfer between multiple rail lines and expand service to Lower Manhattan. It is this kind of project that eminent domain was designed to address - a taking of private property for a public good and not a Kelo v. New London situation where private developers sought to condemn land held by private owners to build new condominum developments. Here, it is not the economic interests of a private developer pushing the condemnation process, but a public authority acting within its powers to improve transit service to Lower Manhattan.

If you're one of the private owners affected by the condemnation, that's small comfort. However, it is a world of difference in the application of eminent domain law.