The Rebuilding of Ground Zero, Part 39

The latest delay to construction at Ground Zero? The concrete truck driver strike. Those striking drivers have meant that construction projects around the City are unable to move forward with pouring concrete, throwing schedules out of whack.

Meanwhile, families who sued New York City to force the City to remove soil from Fresh Kills that might contain remains from Ground Zero lost their suit. The City is not required to re-sift the nearly 2 million tons of debris from Ground Zero that was brought to Fresh Kills. More than 1,100 people have never been identified from remains. That debris was sifted as it was brought from Ground Zero, but it is possible that some remains smaller than an inch might have made its way into the former landfill.

Judge Hellerstein ruled yesterday that the city was not violating any law or constitutional right of the plaintiffs by leaving the material from ground zero at Fresh Kills. In the decision, the judge urges the city to build a memorial at the site and pleads with the families to participate in the planning process.

"No matter the authority or power of this Court, it cannot bring back the loved ones lost, and it cannot bring peace to the plaintiffs or surcease to society's collective grief around the events of September 11, 2001," Judge Hellerstein wrote. "Not every wrong can be addressed through the judicial process."

The city's corporation counsel, Michael Cardozo, said the city approached the recovery effort after the September 11 attacks "with dignity, care, and respect, and as a result, thousands of human remains and personal items were found."

UPDATE:
Former Port Authority Chairman George Marlin suggests that repeated delays and cost overruns may have constituted fraud.

Mr. Marlin said yesterday that the Port Authority may have misled investors about the costs and schedules for the five towers, the memorial, the performing arts center, and the PATH transit station.

He said he plans to ask the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, Michael Garcia, to open an investigation into whether there was any criminal wrongdoing.

"We need to determine whether there was waste, fraud, abuse, or any wrongdoing that might be called criminal. Things were said that were blatantly not true," Mr. Marlin said in an interview yesterday. "I think it's time for some outside, independent investigators to get to the truth of why this mess had occurred, and whether there was any wrongdoing."

He said the Port Authority may have breached its fiduciary duty to bondholders by providing misleading statements and misrepresenting the financial state of the bistate agency, which owns the 16-acre site.

What's Marlin's angle? Well, he was Port Authority chairman from 1995 through 1997 and is a frequent critic of the glacial pace of Ground Zero redevelopment. He also likely has an axe to grind with Gov. Pataki (who doesn't these days when it comes to Ground Zero).

However, I rate the chances of a criminal investigation occurring to be quite low, because the Port Authority can show that it was trying to meet those deadlines. It might not have been trying very hard, but it would be more than sufficient to overcome the claim of fraud.