The Battle For Ground Zero, Part 47

As expected, the New York Times editorial page mourns the loss of the IFC.

To almost no one's surprise, Gov. George Pataki banished the proposed International Freedom Center from ground zero on Wednesday, a day before he announced plans to build a half-million square feet of retail space at the World Trade Center site. Any orderly, open process for creating a vibrant, meditative space there has been discarded. Mr. Pataki killed the Freedom Center a few hours before a public forum on its fate was scheduled to be held. He killed it before the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation had a chance to vote on it.

Since late June, it has been clear that Mr. Pataki would no longer support the Freedom Center, except on terms that would render it meaningless. His argument is that the center's plans are simply too controversial, a notion that was also endorsed by Senator Hillary Clinton earlier this week. It seems to have made no difference that this was an idea Mr. Pataki supported early on, or that the Freedom Center's plans are almost precisely what the development corporation proposed in its outline for a cultural presence at ground zero. Nor does it seem to have mattered that the protest against the Freedom Center - or, more truthfully, against any cultural presence at the World Trade Center site - was based on false information and a profound fear of free speech.

At the root of that vitriolic protest was one question: "Why here?" Why imagine creating an institution that would celebrate freedom and foster discussion of its meaning, and the meaning of 9/11, within the memorial quadrant of ground zero? Wouldn't that dishonor the dead? We have never thought so. We believe that the site is sacred to more than death. It is sacred to life and to the principles - as well as the people - attacked there on Sept. 11, 2001. We believe that this country can be made stronger only by free speech. We believe that the power of that site should be used to consider what happened that day and to see what lessons we can derive from it, not only to mourn the dead.

It was always the wrong place, the wrong time, and the wrong group of people involved. When this was brought to light by Debra Burlingame, instead of attacking the facts, the Times editorial page attacked her personally. They called her un-American. There was no false information involved here - the IFC was headed by a bunch of academics who were on the record with a string of anti-American statements, ran a bunch of conferences and discussions that supported anti-American sentiment and ran with groups that support anti-American ideals. The NYT is simply being disingenous.

The NY Post points out that the LMDC is walking a balancing act - and that family groups do not and cannot have a disproportionate say in what happens at the site. The IFC was abhorent, but other aspects of this project will go forward. According to the LMDC, construction on the memorial is expected to begin early next year and completed by 9/11/2009. Steve Cassidy of the Uniformed Firefighters Association relates how the memorial should be a clarion call and a reminder of what happened on 9/11, much as the Arizona Memorial in Pearl Harbor stands the test of time almost 64 years later.

UPDATE:
JunkYardBlog is happy the IFC is shut down, and notes that we need to remain vigilant that some other group tries to impose anti-American views on the site.

Technorati: World Trade Center, WTC, Pataki, LMDC, urban policy, Freedom Tower, IFC, International Freedom Center.