Ex-Rep. Vito Fossella Gets 5 Days In Jail On DUI Rap

The former darling of the GOP, Rep. Vito Fossella instead turned out to be living a double life when he was arrested for driving under the influence. He's going to spend five days in jail.

Former Staten Island Congressman Vito Fossella pleaded guilty in Virginia this morning to DUI.

During an appearance in an Alexandria courtroom, Fossella was expected to appeal his December conviction of a misdemeanor drunken-driving charge.

By state law, such an appeal triggers an automatic retrial before a jury, a proceeding set to start today.

Instead, Fossella, 44, pleaded guilty and will serve a five-day sentence that was originally imposed on him following last year's bench trial.

Rangel Misses More Votes Than Anyone In NY Delegation

So, what are we to make of the fact that Harlem Democrat Charles Rangel misses more votes in the House of Representatives than any of the other New York delegates?

Harlem Rep. Charles Rangel missed more votes than any other New York House member, according to a study released by Congressional Quarterly.

Rangel, 78, missed 16 percent of House votes in 2008, partly due to a hospital stay last spring, while the state's full delegation missed an average of only 5 percent of House votes.

How exactly is he supposed to carry out his obligations as Chairman of the House Ways and Means committee if he's ill and keeps missing votes? How exactly does that show leadership?

It doesn't.

Then again, every day that Rangel spends away from the House is another day that taxpayer wallets aren't under assault. I'll take my breaks where I can get them for the moment.

Rangel, of course, still faces numerous ethics investigations and no one knows for sure what his tax situation is either.

Second to Rangel in time missed this session? Disgraced Republican Vito Fossella, who didn't run for reelection.

Rasmussen: 59% of Voters Would Vote To Replace All of Congress

59% of those polled would vote to replace all of Congress:

Congress was front and center in the national news last week and the American people were far from impressed. If they could vote to keep or replace the entire Congress, 59% of voters would like to throw them all out and start over again. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 17% would vote to keep the current legislators in office.

Today, just 23% have even a little confidence in the ability of Congress to deal with the nation’s economic problems and only 24% believe most Members of Congress understand legislation before they vote on it.

That runs counter to the old adage - "I hate Congress but love my Congressman or Senator."

After all, how else is someone like Rep. William "Cold Cash" Jefferson (D-LA) or Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) or Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) or Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) currently able to run for reelection and will be able hold onto their seat despite apparent criminality, scandal, tax dodging, doing nothing to avert fiscal crisis when they had the power to limit the damage from toxic paper, or any number of other issues? Around these parts, you had Newark's former Mayor and a state senator Sharpe James convicted of multiple charges of corruption, and yet many wouldn't have had a problem reelecting him. Or Rep. Vito Fossella (R-NY) who acknowledged that he had a mistress and love child and was forced from the ticket in November, but who is trying to get back on the ticket.

The fact is that constituents will overlook and ignore the problems with their representatives and vote for who they've always voted for - often because of the (D) or (R) next to their name. In fact, most members of Congress run essentially unopposed in general elections and most elections even in primaries are not competitive, enabling an entrenchment in political positions across the country.

There's a reason that Congress has such dismal ratings - even lower than that of President Bush, but no one is willing to do anything about their own member of Congress, who they'll reelect without any reservations.

UPDATE:
To prove my point, Rep. Jefferson had a runoff election yesterday in Louisiana to determine the Democrat nominee for the general election. Jefferson won.

Despite the dual impediments of an upcoming federal trial on public corruption charges and a slew of well-financed opponents, U.S. Rep. William Jefferson ran first in Saturday's Democratic Party primary for the 2nd Congressional District seat that he has held for 18 years.

He will battle former TV news anchor and first-time candidate Helena Moreno of New Orleans in the Nov. 4 contest. With two-thirds of the district's voters registered as Democrats, the winner of the party runoff is almost certain to claim the congressional seat.

Fossella Drops Reelection Bid

It isn't entirely unexpected, but Rep. Vito Fossella (R-NY) has chosen not to run for reelection after not only being arrested for a DUI in Virginia, but for engaging in an extramarital affair and fathering a child out of wedlock.

He joins a long string of other prominent politicians from the NYC metro area who have either had to resign in disgrace or not run again because of scandal or criminality, including Sharpe James, Jim McGreevey, and Eliot Spitzer.

Now, this means that the GOP might be able to run a credible candidate in his stead, but the deck is stacked against the GOP this election season. A previously safe seat is now in doubt.

Fossella Wont Fold

Despite the fact that Republican Vito Fossella was arrested for a DUI in Virginia and later was outed as having an affair and love-child with another woman, Fossella is determined to run again for office.

"I got every indication that he plans to run again," said Guy Molinari, Fossella's political mentor, who's been in close contact with the embattled 43-year-old politician.

Fossella is up for re-election in November.

"He's not just inclined to run. He plans on running," said Molinari, a former congressman and Staten Island borough president who was succeeded by Fossella as the de facto leader of the borough's GOP.

Fossella's statements not only defy national party leaders, who have said they will not back him, but suggest the congressman may be in denial.

He even expressed shock that other Republicans are eyeing his seat.

"What's this all about?" Fossella asked Molinari, of news reports naming potential GOP candidates.

He said he was "surprised" and "puzzled" that party colleagues are being mentioned as possible replacements, Molinari said.

Those close to Fossella continue to support him, Molinari said. "Vito is surprised and emboldened by the support he's been getting."

"He's gotten a lot of encouragement," said Molinari. "I told him nobody is going to run a primary against him if you decide to run again."

The congressman told Molinari he felt "pretty good" despite the public pounding he's taking over his double life.

Fossella confessed last week to having a 3-year-old daughter with gal pal Laura Fay, a 45-year-old retired Air Force colonel who signed him out of the drunk tank the morning after a drunken-driving arrest in Alexandria, Va. The congressman and his wife, Mary Pat, have three children.

Well, here's the thing. Governor David Paterson admitted to affairs with other women during his time as State Senator - and announced as much in preempting the story following the departure of Gov. Spitzer from the scene after Spitzer was found to have paid for call girl services.

Both Paterson and Spitzer are Democrats. So far, Fossella's only crime here is the DUI - the affair is a moral and ethical mess, but no different than Paterson's situation. In fact, Paterson's problems included being caught using campaign funds to pay for the rooms where Paterson's trysts took place.

Some point to the fact that Fossella should step down because as a "family values" candidate, he's no longer in a viable and tenable position.

I'll simply point out the hypocrisy among Democrats who are busy yapping away for Fossella to step down. Where were they when Paterson admitted not only to the affairs, but misuse of campaign funds?

Fossella's Folly

If you're going to run as a family values candidate, make sure that your own family values are up to snuff. Rep. Vito Fossella (R-NY) didn't heed that warning, and we're now learning of his love child and extramarital affair after a DUI arrest in Virginia.

Embattled Staten Island Rep. Vito Fossella finally came clean yesterday - admitting he's been living a double life and has a love child through a longtime extramarital romance.

"I have had a relationship with Laura Fay, with whom I have a 3-year-old daughter," the married Fossella acknowledged in a statement after days of evasion.

Nice. Stay classy Vito.

UPDATE:
Fossella's hometown paper, the Staten Island Advance is calling on him to resign.

Another Opportunity to Play Name That Party

Clyde Haberman takes note of the long list of New York politicians who have felt the sting of handcuffs, investigations, and convictions in the past several years as part of a story noting the most recent addition to the rogue's gallery - Rep. Vito Fossella, who was arrested for DUI in Virginia over the weekend.

He makes special note to mention that Fossella is a conservative Republican, while leaving out the party affiliations of all the other crooked politicians listed.

The latest entrant in the rogues’ gallery is Representative Vito J. Fossella of Staten Island and Brooklyn, who was arrested a few days ago in a Virginia suburb of Washington and charged with driving while intoxicated. His blood-alcohol level, the police said, was 0.17 percent, more than twice Virginia’s legal limit for drivers.

He was so sloshed, they said, that he had trouble reciting the alphabet. That’s pretty drunk. But perhaps, to be charitable, he had not been put to a fair test. The officers who stopped him say that he blew it when he was asked to rattle off the letters from D to T. But it could be that the congressman, a conservative Republican, was thrown off his stride by being ordered to start with the letter D. No doubt, D automatically meant Democrat to him. The demand probably unnerved him. Hey, it could happen to anyone.

Mr. Fossella could be jailed for five days if convicted. Not good. Perhaps worse for him, his future political life may be in peril. It is generally not considered advisable for a politician to be identified in tabloid headlines as Vino Fossella.

What could happen to anyone who isn't a Republican is that a story listing other disgraced politicians leaves out the party affiliations of all those other characters. Fossella deserves whatever criminal sanctions warranted as driving under the influence can have deadly consequences but New York Times readers deserve better than what was reported.

Border Security Includes Port Security

If someone told you more than four years after 9/11 that the US would be on the verge of turning over port security to a foreign national company from the Middle East, you would probably shake your head in dismay (and followed quickly by anger, fear, and the shroud of the Dark Side falls).

Does someone think that this is really such a good idea? Apparently the Bush Administration thinks so.

I don't get it.

Port security is of the utmost concern and we've repeatedly been told of security issues and problems securing the ports against terrorists. So, instead of finding a US company to provide this security, the US government was going to turn over security at eight major ports to a company based in Dubai. That means that foreign nations will have access to our national security and border control policies and procedures. It may needlessly put Americans at risk because of lax security in the Middle East. Terrorists could penetrate the company involved and assist compatriots in the US without being detected.

The U.S. government should urgently review the security implications of a $6.8 billion deal granting a Dubai-based company management over key ports including New York, U.S. lawmakers said on Thursday, citing terrorism concerns.

Analysts and port sources doubted the takeover of British company P&O by Dubai Ports World would have any impact on security. They cited multiple layers of screening and protection involved in global shipping, particularly among such major operators.

P&O shareholders voted on Monday in favor of the multibillion-dollar bid, giving the United Arab Emirates-backed firm control over the management of P&O's global operations, including in the major U.S. ports of New York and New Jersey, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New Orleans and Miami.

Of course those shareholders would support such a move - it's a huge plus to the company.

It's benefits to US national security? Not so much.

And while the Bush Administration is defending this deal, there's bipartisan support for Congressional review:

Rep. Vito Fossella, R-N.Y., urged congressional hearings on the deal.

"At a time when America is leading the world in the war on terrorism and spending billions of dollars to secure our homeland, we cannot cede control of strategic assets to foreign nations with spotty records on terrorism," Fossella said.

Critics also have cited the UAE's history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"Outsourcing the operations of our largest ports to a country with a dubious record on terrorism is a homeland security and commerce accident waiting to happen," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. "The administration needs to take another look at this deal."

Separately, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said Thursday it will conduct its own review of the deal and urged the government to defend its decision.

In a letter to the Treasury Department, Port Authority chairman Anthony Coscia said the independent review by his agency was necessary "to protect its interests."

The lawmakers pressing the White House to reconsider included Sens. Schumer, Tom Coburn, R-Okla., Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., and Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Reps. Foley, Fossella and Chris Shays, R-Conn.

You've got to wonder just how much review was done, when the Port Authority wasn't even involved in the process of screening participants who might take over operations at the Port of New York and New Jersey.

UPDATE 2/17/2006:
Welcome Michelle Malkin readers. Take the time to check out my site, and be advised that I'm working on a followup to this postinga new posting is up.

All Over But the Whining - The IFC Is Defunct

As I noted earlier today in Part 46 of the Battle for Ground Zero, Gov. Pataki finally put the International Freedom Center out of our misery. Minutes later, it declared itself out of business, claiming that there was no other site appropriate for it to operate.

That, in and of itself, should signal that its intentions were never honest or just. The IFC, if it were to truly discuss facets of freedom could have found a home somewhere else in New York City. However, its raison d'etre was to deride the US at the site of the worst terrorist attack on US soil.

"The I.F.C. cannot be located on the memorial quadrant," Mr. Pataki said in a statement issued shortly before 5 p.m. That quadrant, at the southwest corner of the trade center site, contains the footprints of the twin towers. It is regarded by many as sacred ground, too hallowed for a museum dealing with 9/11 in the context of greater geopolitics and social history.

"There remains too much opposition, too much controversy over the programming of the I.F.C.," the governor said, "and we must move forward with our first priority, the creation of an inspiring memorial." Mr. Pataki said he had instructed the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation to "work with the I.F.C. to explore other locations."

But 42 minutes later, the center said in its own statement that there was no other location to explore, since the memorial quadrant was "the site for which the I.F.C. was created, at the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation's request, and as an integral part of Daniel Libeskind's master site plan."

"We do not believe there is a viable alternative place for the I.F.C. at the World Trade Center site," the center's executives, Tom A. Bernstein, Peter W. Kunhardt and Richard J. Tofel, said in the statement. "We consider our work, therefore, to have been brought to an end." The Freedom Center was designated for the site in June 2004.

The surprising tumble of events raises new questions around the redevelopment of ground zero: What will go into the cultural building, designed by the firm Snohetta, on the memorial quadrant? (The Drawing Center, its other designated tenant, is already looking for other space.) Will the cultural building be constructed at all? How will that affect plans for an underground 9/11 museum?

I have a very simple and elegant solution for this supposed conundrum. Expand the 9/11 museum and memorial to incorporate the Snohetta designed building as its above ground expression. There was never any need for the cultural center at the Ground Zero site in the first place, and its demise means that a major deficiency in the master plan can be rectified.

And the NYT article once again minimizes the circumstances over how and why the Drawing Center backed out of the IFC/cultural center project. The Governor had issued an ultimatum to submit their plans to a panel of 9/11 families who would have essential veto say over the plans. The Drawing Center refused, backed out, and got the LMDC to pick up the tab for finding alternative space to the tune of $150,000 despite the fact that the Drawing Center already has space in Lower Manhattan. It is now seeking space closer to Ground Zero.

Other politicians and notable figures have weighed in on the news:

``Goodbye and good riddance,'' said Rep. Vito Fossella, one of three congressmen who had threatened hearings on federal funding if the museum stayed where it was. ``The IFC will not stand on the hallowed grounds of the World Trade Center site.''

``I am so happy,'' said Jack Lynch, a member of the family coalition opposed to the freedom museum. ``Don't get me wrong. I think the concept of the Freedom Center is wonderful, but it's in the wrong location.''

Pataki said the cultural building meant for the freedom center would now only tell the story of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who gave conflicting statements in recent days about the museum's future, said Wednesday, ``Although I understand Governor Pataki's decision, I am disappointed that we were not able to find a way to reconcile the freedoms we hold so dear with the sanctity of the site.''

Two other cultural groups, the Joyce International Dance Co. and the Signature Theatre Co. are still scheduled to move into a performing arts complex elsewhere on the site.

UPDATE:
Take Back The Memorial is happy to see this day that was long in coming. Michelle Malkin also weighs in and wonders why it took Pataki so long to do what was obviously necessary:

What's more than a bit disturbing to me is that it took Hillary Clinton's announced opposition to the IFC before Rudy Giuliani and Gov Pataki finally drove the final (we hope) nail into the Ground Zero guilt complex. But better late than never.

UPDATE:
Others continue to weigh in. Wizbang! is thankful that this has come to a close. They note that there is no word over what was so objectionable about the IFC.

UPDATE:
Captain Ed also questions the motivation behind the IFC disbanding so quickly after Gov. Pataki pulled the plug.

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

The Battle For Ground Zero, Part 42

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday dealt a crushing blow to the International Freedom Center planned for Ground Zero, saying she wants the project canned for failing to listen to the 9/11 families.

"I cannot support the IFC," Clinton declared last night in a strongly worded statement in response to an inquiry from The Post.

Her tough comments are Clinton's first significant remarks about the controversy raging at Ground Zero over the Freedom Center, which 9/11 families and other critics fear will become a center of anti-Americanism.

"While I want to ensure that development and rebuilding in lower Manhattan move forward expeditiously, I am troubled by the serious concerns family members and first responders have expressed to me," Clinton said.

"The LMDC [Lower Manhattan Development Corp.] has authority over the site and I do not believe we can move forward until it heeds and addresses their concerns."

The family members of victims, as well as unions representing the city's cops and firefighters, want nothing less than the Freedom Center being booted from Ground Zero.

The crushing blow eh? Okay. Whatever it takes to end this sad chapter in the rebuilding of Ground Zero. It's a curious political step for Hillary to take, but getting on the good side of cops and firefighters is a shrewd political move with a Senate campaign (and possible Presidential aspirations) looming next year. Even the NY Post editorial page is impressed for her stand against the IFC. While this is sure to upset some of the more her more liberal backers, the opposition to the IFC now has a broad bipartisan makeup:

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) also voiced concern yesterday and called for a compromise — although he didn't state flat-out opposition to the Freedom Center.

"There's got to be a way to meet the families' sincere and real needs and build a center that honors the freedom that the victims died for. We hope that the LMDC will find some common ground quickly," Schumer said.

Gov. Pataki — who wields strong influence over the LMDC, which will soon decide the Freedom Center's fate — is traveling abroad and has yet to take a stand on the Freedom Center's latest proposal. Pataki has said thathe won't support any plan that offers a forum for anti-Americanism.

Clinton's opposition means that the anti-IFC push is now a bipartisan cause. Three New York Republicans — Reps. John Sweeney (Saratoga), Peter King (L.I.) and Vito Fossella (S.I.) — are already challenging it as a "blame America first" project.

Yesterday, the trio of Republicans formally requested a congressional oversight hearing as a step toward blocking the IFC from getting any of the $2.7 billion in federal funds allocated for Ground Zero.

As Andrea Peyser notes, the IFC would be an affront to the memories of those murdered on 9/11 by putting all kinds of other issues before getting to why this center even was being built in the first place - the hijacking of planes, the destruction of the WTC, and the murder of nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11.

And the plan demonstrates, beyond doubt, that if the Freedom Center is built at Ground Zero, it will serve to dishonor, demean and insult the memory of the thousands who died on 9/11.

It will do so by completely ignoring their own particular brand of sacrifice. Or worse — degrading it as unimportant.

There's a planned "Freedom Walk" — where people can walk through a representation of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, see Gandhi leading the Salt March, watch Martin Luther King Jr. write his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" and watch the Berlin Wall fall.

The victims of 9/11 are less than an afterthought.

After naming all the historic celebs you will meet on the Freedom Walk, the document finally gets to 9/11.

Technorati: World Trade Center, WTC, Pataki, LMDC, urban policy, Freedom Tower, IFC, Drawing Center, Ground Zero.

The Battle For Ground Zero, Part 41

With the Governor's deadline only 24 hours away, the New York Times suggests that opposition to the IFC (International Freedom Center) is limited:

The International Freedom Center, a proposed museum that is facing expulsion from ground zero under pressure from angry relatives of 9/11 victims, will make a forceful new appeal today to stay at the World Trade Center site.

The museum’s decision to stand firm would force the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation and Gov. George E. Pataki to make a tough choice. They could either infuriate hundreds of impassioned relatives of those who died, or alienate influential cultural, academic and business figures, as well as family members who support the center.

The Freedom Center was chosen by the development corporation in June 2004 to occupy the cultural building on the memorial quadrant. It would portray the history and role of freedom around the world in exhibits and programs. “You could not put it someplace else,” said Tom A. Bernstein, its chairman and co-founder.

But the Freedom Center is now fighting for its life, in part because some victims’ relatives do not want anything around the memorial that smacks of anti-American politics or detracts from the story of 9/11.

Someone ought to do a fact check for them. The New York Post did. There's a lot more than just a few 9/11 families. For starters, we have both the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association (with 50,000 members) and the Uniformed Firefighters Association (with 22,000 members) opposed to the IFC. Then, there's the Take Back The Memorial group, which has gathered the names of more than 47,570 people including 2,269 9/11 family members as of this posting. The New York Times is alone in pushing this particular project, despite the fact that most Americans would oppose the IFC if they knew the full extent of what was envisioned.

So how can Pataki and Bloomberg OK the center — opposed, as it is, by cops, firefighters and numerous 9/11 families?

And how successful can private fund-raising be if Reps. Vito Fossella, Peter King and John Sweeney tie up Washington's share of the necessary cash?

The IFC — founded by the head of a group that's suing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld personally for his role in the "abuse" of terrorist prisoners — is meant to be an academically oriented "educational" center.

You know what that means: Counting how many ways there are to blame America for the world's ills, including the 9/11 attacks themselves.

"Officers regularly put themselves at risk at protests and rallies so that public dissention can occur," Lynch said.

"Just as we do not see political rallies at Arlington National Cemetery . . . or performing arts at Oklahoma City National Memorial or debate at the Pearl Harbor Memorial, we should not see those activities . . . at this sacred site." Hear, hear.

Sufficient funding for the project has long been a concern of public officials. On Tuesday, the state Senate passed a bill to let taxpayers donate to the project by checking off a box on their tax returns; the Assembly passed the bill earlier.

Meanwhile, competition for funding from Hurricane Katrina has cut further into the memorial's pot.

But now comes the threat by Fossella, King and Sweeney to shine a spotlight on the entire "$2.7 billion in federal funding that will be spent at the site."

"It's now or never for the IFC," Fossella said. "The museum has until Friday to do what is right . . . We will not allow the American people to subsidize a museum that blames [America] for . . . 9/11."

The leadership of the IFC hasn't changed, and will not change its views on the US, or how it should have the artistic and cultural freedom to blame America first and foremost for 9/11. They will, however, obscure and obfuscate their intentions so that they can sneak in under the radar and by then the damage will have been done. Once the IFC gets entrenched in the Ground Zero plans, it will be too difficult to remove them. Therefore, this particular battle is crucial to the long term outlook for the site.

As for the NYT assertion that blocking this particular group from operating at Ground Zero will somehow annoy or alienate the business community, I find that laughable. The business community will do what is best to make money, and if the developers at Ground Zero are sensitive to the business needs, they will come there in droves. Foot traffic through the retail portion of the site will get people to come, regardless of what the NYT wishes to be the case. They will, however, withhold money for the memorial because they see what is going on with the IFC, and that is a separate and distinct issue. Cultural groups might find this decision distasteful, but then again, it should never have been made in the first place.

There was no reason to include cultural groups at Ground Zero in the first place. That this was included in the LMDC master plan instructions was a failure of imagination to foresee problems with groups that have specific political agendas. As it is, there are two other groups that are involved in the cultural center at Ground Zero that are largely unaffected by the problems with the IFC (The Drawing Center had dropped out, though they're getting $150,000 to assist in relocating near to Ground Zero).

UPDATE
As for Bernstein's claim that you could not put this particular center somewhere else, that's just plain wrong. There are plenty of places and spaces in the city that could accept this project the way Bernstein wants it to be displayed. If they want to play their revisionist games with history, they can do it wherever there is space that can be converted to exhibition space. The Museum of Modern Art relocated parts of its collections to Queens while the main building underwent a thorough renovation, expansion, and reconstruction. They turned a warehouse structure into a museum. That Bernstein is wedded to Ground Zero is purely a political stunt. He knows that the effect of his project is based purely on the politics of the site combined with his own political leanings. It loses its impact if the IFC is placed somewhere else in the city.

UPDATE:
The NYT also wonders how many people will want to attend the WTC memorial. The projections are needed for environmental impact statements and one has to wonder whether the memorial will actually be big enough to handle the crowds.

The issue of crowd capacity at the World Trade Center memorial is not nearly as intriguing as the current melodrama over the tenancy of the cultural building on the site. Yet capacity has a lot more to do with how visitors will experience the memorial.

What makes this a tough issue is that concrete decisions must be based on widely diverging projections. Like chickens and eggs, capacity and demand have a circular relationship. The number of visitors cannot be reliably estimated until the memorial has been fully designed. But the memorial cannot be fully designed without a reliable estimate. And demand itself will be ever changing.

The projections range from 3 million to 8 million, with higher figures in the first 2-3 years that the memorial is open. I think that those figures are low-balled, and even the Times offhandedly notes the siting of the IFC at the site means that space that could be needed and useful for the memorial is being used for other purposes.

I'm not alone in noting that the memorial is located below grade while the IFC is an above ground feature. People have no above ground marker for the museum or memorial. Oh, and the design of the memorial itself is coming under fire:

Ms. Iken, whose husband was killed on Sept. 11, 2001, asked Ms. Papageorge at the forum, "We wouldn't have, like, a turn-away policy or anything like that?"

Ms. Papageorge answered, "We're planning on implementing timed ticketing in the early years so that people will be able to know in advance when their time-ticket slot is."

As for the relatives of 9/11 victims, Mr. Pryor added yesterday, "No matter what the attendance level is on any given day, family members will not be turned away."

SOME speakers at the forum criticized the decision to reduce the number of ramps in the memorial.

In the original plan by Michael Arad, there were to have been four L-shaped ramps, two for entry, two for exiting, around both pool-filled voids on the twin tower footprints, reaching street level at the far corners of the memorial plaza.

Now, there are to be two switchback ramps that reach street level in the center of the plaza. Entry will be through the north ramp, exiting through the south ramp.

Ms. Papageorge said Management Resources, consultants in the design process, "actually suggested that we have a single entry/exit for orientation purposes because they felt that people would be confused if there were multiple entrances and multiple exits."

But Mary Fetchet, the founder of Voices of September 11th, told the architects who were at the forum that the memorial should have "as many entrances and exits as possible" and said she was worried about "traffic jams" in the new configuration.

With the number of people flowing through the site, this strikes me as being shortsighted; additional points of egress also make sense from a security standpoint - in case the site needs to be evacuated, everyone would have to flow through a limited number of exits - which is the same fault that some families have noted in the past about the original WTC (too few stairwells spaced too close together).

UPDATE:
Jeff Jarvis does a far better job than I on going through the IFC's compromise plan to build the IFC at Ground Zero. He takes the IFC to task every step of the way and reinforces the fact that this is the wrong project for the wrong site.

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

The Battle For Ground Zero, Part XV

Has the LMDC and IFC backed down over their plan to have the IFC built on the Ground Zero site?

According to the New York Post, that's exactly what is going on.

Officials are searching for new locations — some away from Ground Zero — to house a pair of controversial cultural centers slated for construction next to the 9/11 memorial, it was revealed yesterday.
"We're making one last look around the site to see where it is feasible," said John Whitehead, chairman of the Lower Manhattan Development Corp., referring to the hunt for homes for the International Freedom Center and the Drawing Center.

The officials are looking "within the 16 acres" of the World Trade Center "and beyond," he said at an LMDC board meeting.

The World Trade Center Memorial Foundation has asked him to look for a different space for the two centers, Whitehead said.

Interestingly, there is one site where the IFC and Drawing Center could be placed nearby that will soon be under LMDC control - the Deutsche Bank building. That building was heavily damaged by falling debris from the collapsing towers, and has been vacant ever since. It is supposed to be demolished to make way for a security portal for the rest of the WTC site. It is possible that a structure could be built in that area to house the Drawing Center and IFC, though I would argue that neither group is worthy of inclusion anywhere in the LMDC plans.

Meanwhile, the war of words continues to heat up between those who don't want the IFC or Drawing Center involved and John Whitehead, who is the head of the LMDC:

Whitehead, meanwhile, took aim yesterday at three directors on the foundation's board who have publicly criticized the proposed cultural projects.

"The misrepresentations they have offered have done serious damage," he said without naming names. "The public is confused about the elements of the site."

Monika Iken, Debra Burlingame and Lee Ielpi — each of whom lost a family member on 9/11 — have opposed the cultural centers.

The public has "been told that the campaign is to 'take back the memorial' — as if it ever went away," Whitehead said in an apparent reference to the critics' Take Back the Memorial campaign.

Last night, Burlingame accused Whitehead of having violated the memorial board's code of conduct, unanimously adopted this week.

"It is regrettable that the ink is barely dry on the code . . . [yet] the chairman would slander three of the board members while at the same trying to muzzle us," she said.

The Post's Editorial Page slams Whitehead and Pataki for allowing this farce to continue. Their position is echoed by a letter penned by Republican Representatives Vito Fossella, Peter King and John Sweeney.

COUNT us among the large number of observers outraged at the thought that a museum at Ground Zero would tell a story unrelated to the events of that tragic day. And the statements to date from the International Freedom Center have not put that outrage to rest.
The most prominent critics have been some 9/11 family members — which is entirely appropriate. Though the center is supposed to represent the ideals of freedom and liberty, it's to be established in the hallowed location of Ground Zero. Those who lost loved ones must have an integral voice in this process.

But all New Yorkers were touched in one way or another by what happened on 9/11, and as federal representatives, we have a duty to ensure that the tax dollars being used to support such a project reflect the true spirit of our nation's ideals.