A blog for all seasons; A blog for one; A blog for all. As the 11th most informative blog on the planet, I have a seared memory of throwing my Time 2006 Man of the Year Award over the railing at Time Warner Center.
Justice. Only Justice Shall Thou Pursue
In the end, it wont be because of anti-Muslim sentiment that the Park51/Cordoba House project to build a prayer space and community center near Ground Zero.
Con Ed claims that the developers owe more than $1 million in back rent.
The developers claim that Con Ed retroactively raised the rents to 2008 and that puts a cash crunch on the developers:
Park51, which leases the substation from Con Ed, wants the two buildings so it can knock both down and build a $100 million, 15-story community center.
But the plan hit a major obstacle in August when Con Ed raised the rent from $2,750 a month, a rate set in 1972, to $47,437 a month, retroactive to July 31, 2008, The Post has learned.
When the mosque failed to fork over the $1.7 million, the utility fired off a letter demanding the money by Oct. 4 and threatening to evict.
Park51 principals responded with a lawsuit to stop the increase, calling Con Ed’s rent demands “outrageous.”
“Whether it is bowing to political pressure or seeking to retain the valuable premises for itself, Con Ed appears intent on proceeding with its wrongful termination,” argued Sharif El-Gamal, the lead Park51 developer.
The primary questions will be factual in nature - whether Con Ed is legally entitled to retroactively raise the rent, whether proper notice was given, and while negotiations are continuing, El-Gamal has a temporary restraining order preventing eviction. The issues will be before the court in November.
It is interesting to note that the parties had come to an apparent agreement on the valuation of the property but El-Gamal contends that the utility improperly valued the rents at nearly double what they should have been.
Anti-Muslim blogger Pamela Geller is at it again. When she's not busy battling the Park51 project near Ground Zero, she's busy trying to stop what she calls the Islamization of America (she enables a group by that name - SIOA).
Her latest bid is to demand that the MTA post an offensive advertisement that calls Muslims savages. Not some small segment of Muslims who engage in terrorism, but all Muslims. There's no fine line she's skirting here.
She's labeling the entire religion as savages, and it's little wonder that the MTA is not amenable to posting these offensive ads on their buses and subways.
Geller claims that the ads are truthful and speak to the craven actions of Islamic terrorists who have had a nonstop assault on Israel since it was founded and on Western targets for decades.
But she's again tarring the entire religion, and sees this as a clash of civilizations, rather than a small subset of the religion that seeks jihad. She also thinks that this is a free speech issue.
It is a free speech issue, but one that runs headlong into hate speech, and that's precisely the nature of this particular ad. It's hate speech at its most banal.
It also violates the MTA advertising guidelines, but as Benjamin Kabab points out, Geller has managed to get the MTA to pick up prior ads directed at Park51 - and the MTA benefits from the advertising fees ($10,000).
At the same time, the MTA doesn't need to deal with fending off a lawsuit at a time when its budget can ill afford to deal with this kind of craziness. But then again, one has to feel that the whole purpose of putting out this hateful advertisement and the MTA's refusal to post it has been newsworthy enough that Geller and her cohorts have gotten their money's worth from free publicity and news and blog accounts to make their point without having to get the MTA carry the advertising at all.
Oh, and for what it's worth, the Park51 project, a Muslim interfaith center with activities for the Lower Manhattan community opened up with no fanfare and no comment from the local community, although a Muslim prayer space has been operating for about two years. Funny how that worked out for Geller. With all their vitriol, the Park51 project, which was to convert the former Burlington Coat Factory building on Park Place into a major community center, was completely unsuccessful in stopping the project - but was completely successful in exposing the hateful ways of Geller and her cohorts.
The Park51 project intends to demolish the existing structures and replace it with a new center, but that portion is on hold pending financing.
As I noted last November, I thought that Derek Fenton had a great chance of winning back his job because he was exercising his First Amendment rights for free speech to protest against the construction of the Cordoba House/Park 51 community center and mosque near Ground Zero. New Jersey Transit fired Fenton and the New Jersey chapter of the ACLU took up his cause. Gov. Chris Christie had supported the firing because of the intolerance that Fenton showed in his actions.
Note that Fenton was fired for actions carried out while he was off-duty and not in uniform. The outcome of the case would have been quite different had he been on duty when he burned the koran or had been wearing a NJ Transit uniform when burning the koran.
The First Amendment protects political speech no matter how distasteful and hateful. Fenton's speech was protected, and NJ Transit had overstepped its bounds and authority in firing Fenton for speech undertaken outside his employment.
Pamela Geller, who had been leading the opposition against the construction of a mosque and community center near Ground Zero, the Park51/Cordoba House project, is busy equating building mosques with the second wave of 9/11 attacks.
This couldn't be any further from reality or the facts. There's nothing about the Cordoba House project that is related to 9/11 other than the proximity to Ground Zero. Those involved in the development of the community center and mosque (which received all the necessary approvals from the local community board and Landmarks Preservation Commission) have no relationship to the 9/11 attackers other than their religion being Muslim.
What Geller and her supporters are suggesting is that all Muslims are behind the attacks, rather than a specific subset of Islamists who seek to impose their worldview on all nonbelievers - including fellow Muslims who do not practice Islam the way they do.
She will be appearing before CPAC, Conservative Political Action Conference next month and headline a panel entitled: "The Ground Zero Mosque: The Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks", which is also a movie created by Geller and Robert Spencer.
After the movie, the duo will discuss how to stop what they characterize as an Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero.
Of course, this isn't a mega-mosque and it isn't at Ground Zero, but the facts are not getting in their way. The site of the proposed community center is 49/51 Park Place, which is two blocks north of Ground Zero and the proposed center would provide all manner of amenities that the Lower Manhattan community and financial district need - a pool, community center, theater, and other public spaces akin to the 92nd Street Y or the JCC of Manhattan. That's what the Park51/Cordoba House project modeled their proposal on, and Geller and Spencer have repeatedly lied and manipulated the media cover to mischaracterize the project.
For example, they say that the project is taking place at Ground Zero, but Park Place is not within the confines of the 16 acres that comprises Ground Zero. Nor will Park51 somehow overshadow and dominate Ground Zero. Mind you that the Park51 site would be a 13 story building that wouldn't even be the tallest on its block, and that the Freedom Tower/1WTC that is being built is now close to 60 stories tall on its way to being the tallest building in the US at 1,776 feet. The other office towers proposed for Ground Zero would each rise more than 1,000 feet and rank among the tallest in the US.
"We are delighted that the judge is allowing the completion of the community center to go forward," said Adam Leitman Bailey, Soho Properties' attorney. "We are looking forward to the final resolution of the case. May all Americans be able to pray when they want, where they want."
Jack Lester, Brown's attorney, now says the TRO would not have had a major impact on the case since lawyers for the developer stated that the existing site would remain intact for the near term. It was not immediately clear when demolition will begin.
"One of the standards for a TRO is there has to be imminent danger or imminent threat," Lester said. "We were trying to get a TRO to prevent demolition of the building. The case is exactly where it was the day we filed it."
Brown filed a so-called Article 78 lawsuit to overturn the 2010 decision by the city's Landmarks Preservation Commission denying landmark status to the site of the Islamic center and mosque.
A separate motion will be considered in February to decide whether Brown is even entitled to be a party to the action (whether he has standing to sue):
Meanwhile a hearing is scheduled for Feb. 22, when lawyers for the plaintiff will fight a motion to dismiss filed last week by Soho Properties.
In that filing, Soho Properties argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed because the firefighter is not an injured party due to the Islamic center plan. The developer also noted that the lawsuit named Soho Properties as a defendant, but failed to name the actual owner of the building, 45 Park Place Partners.
A lawsuit aimed at shutting down the controversial Ground Zero mosque may get tossed on a technicality because opponents failed to properly name the project's owners.
The American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative advocacy group suing on behalf of retired firefighter and 9/11 responder Timothy Brown, had named mosque financier Sharif El-Gamal's company, Soho Properties -- rather than the legal owner, 45 Park Place Partners LLC -- in court papers.
That technicality, argued 45 Park Place Partners attorney Adam Leitman Bailey in papers filed Friday, is one more reason why the suit should be tossed.
The two sides are scheduled to be back in Manhattan Supreme Court tomorrow.
"I think it's a pretty specious argument," countered Brett Joshpe, lawyer for the American Center for Law and Justice.
"Sharif El-Gamal, everyone knows he is the owner of the project. He might have various entities set up, but he was the one served and represented all along that Soho Properties is the owner."
But Bailey said by naming the wrong party, Brown and the ACLJ missed their opportunity to sue because their 120-day window had passed.
Sounds like an issue with Article 10 of the CLPR, including misjoinder of parties and that the plaintiffs could get a stipulation to correct the summons and complaint, but it is bad lawyering on their part to have not named all potential parties to the action.
The motion, filed in State Supreme Court in Manhattan, also asked a judge to allow the plaintiff’s lawyers to conduct discovery, the pretrial phase of a lawsuit in which each party can obtain evidence through depositions and other means.
The firefighter, Timothy Brown, sued the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission on Aug. 4, accusing it of acting “in an arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable manner” when it paved the way for the project by refusing to grant historic protection to the building on the site where the $100 million center would be constructed.
The lawsuit also named the city’s Department of Buildings, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and the mosque’s developers as defendants.
In the motion on Tuesday, Mr. Brown’s lawyers accused Mr. Bloomberg of failing to respond “in a timely manner” to a public-records request that they said would prove the substance of their lawsuit.
The suit wont stop the project, and I consider the suit to be lacking on substance. The LPC heard evidence from proponents and opponents to the siting of the community center and its design and came away with finding that the building was not worthy of being landmarked. That reinforced a decision several years ago that found that the building was not worthy of landmarking.
On that basis, there's no reason to believe that the LPC was being arbitrary or capricious in denying the landmarking status to the building that allowed developers go ahead with the project (subject to finding financing).
This suit is nothing more than a fishing expedition and Brown and his backers are hoping that some possible shred of evidence will come out that supports their contentions.
The backers of the Ground Zero mosque shot down a report Sunday that Saudi King Abdullah would move the controversial development to the closed St. Vincent's Hospital in Greenwich Village.
"No one has contacted me or my husband about it," said Daisy Khan, who has been an adviser on the project. She and her husband, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, are affiliated with the planned construction of a $100 million Park Place prayer space and community center two blocks north of Ground Zero.
"I remain committed to the idea of the creation of a multifaith community center in lower Manhattan," the imam said.
The mosque isn't moving from its proposed Park Place site, a source close to mosque developer Sharif el-Gamal said.
The Rudin family real estate developers are currently in talks to buy the hospital property to turn it into housing with a medical component.
It is interesting that no other major developers are interested in buying the St. Vincent's hospital properties other than the Rudin family. Adding additional prospective buyers would drive up the asking price though, so I wouldn't be surprised that the sellers are hinting at additional buyers so as to get an increase in bids for the properties.
Moreover, the proposed Saudi "plan" would be a more interesting use of the hospital properties, and would provide significant community benefits - including opening a hospital in a underserved area.
A Manhattan lawyer with ties to the Saudi royal family is sounding out officials and community leaders about a plan to move the controversial Ground Zero mosque to the West Village.
Attorney Dudley Gaffin is claiming King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia might want to buy shuttered St. Vincent's Medical Center and transfer the mosque to a new Islamic cultural center he would build on a plot at the site, say sources who have heard Gaffin's pitch.
The king, worth more than $20 billion, would also save the hospital, reopening most of the units that closed when St. Vincent's filed for bankruptcy on April 14, the sources said.
They say that Gaffin, who heads his own firm in lower Manhattan, is floating the idea to gauge what the reaction might be -- and to ready a bid to rival the Rudin Organization, which is trying to snap up St. Vincent's in bankruptcy court with an eye on tearing down six hospital buildings for luxury housing.
"He's asking what it would take to put in a bid," said one community leader who did not want to be identified.
The hospital closed earlier this year because of being massively in debt and unable to reorganize its expenses. The hospital complex in the West Village is some choice land, and real estate developers are hoping to scoop up the property to turn it into luxury housing (and figure 20-30% of the housing units will be deemed affordable housing). The hospital had been trying to redevelop its properties - turning several buildings in to new medical space, while building new housing, but those efforts failed to garner the necessary support and approvals.
If the Cordoba House developers do go in this direction, it would not only result in a community center far from the community where it was originally proposed, but it would no longer touch the nerve of being so close to Ground Zero. The West Village might prefer a new hospital complex to the St. Vincent's reorganization plan. It isn't clear whether the King would outbid the other real estate developers interested in the property.
One of the criticisms over the proposed Cordoba House/Park51 community center and mosque near Ground Zero is the sourcing of the financing for the project.
It's expected to run about $100 million. That money has to come from somewhere, and opponents claim that Imam Rauf and the project backers would take money from terror-groups.
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf told "60 Minutes" that to reduce fears that terror organizations would contribute to the project, he'll ask US officials to approve the sources of funding.
Rauf added that the mosque and Islamic cultural center will have a board of directors that will include Muslims, Christians and Jews.
The olive branch from Rauf came as another proposed mosque in the city -- this one in Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn -- became embroiled in controversy yesterday with dozens of protesters waving anti-Islamic signs at the site.
Opposition to building mosques isn't confined to the area around Ground Zero - there is opposition in various locations around the country. A mosque project on Staten Island was killed after local opposition to the sale of a convent raised its profile. However, in that instance, the opposition was warranted because of the group's ties to the Muslim American Society, which had shady ties to fundraising groups with ties to Hamas and other terror groups. The proposed Brooklyn mosque would also be a Muslim American Society project, which can explain some of the outrage.
The opposition to the Cordoba House project has been a clarifying moment - it reveals that the opposition isn't merely about the siting of a mosque near Ground Zero - but goes to whether people are comfortable with Muslims living and praying and congregating in their communities. Some people are still not quite comfortable with the notion of religious freedom and the free exercise of religion. Claiming opposition is based solely on the site’s proximity to Ground Zero when there is similar ongoing opposition to the construction of mosques and Muslim community centers all over the country shows that the issue isn't the proximity to Ground Zero, but a general unwillingness to accept the construction of mosques in areas where there is a growing presence of Muslims.
Lab reports indicate that accelerants were used to start and spread the fire, which destroyed an earth mover and damaged three other vehicles at the future site of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, ATF spokesman Eric Kehn said.
There are no suspects in the arson, which occurred early Saturday morning, Kehn said. The investigation is ongoing and the ATF and FBI are offering a $20,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of a suspect or suspects, authorities said at a Friday press conference at the construction site.
"Somebody here in Rutherford County knows what happened here," said Keith Moses, an FBI assistant special agent based in Nashville, at the press conference, which featured representatives from the Islamic center.
"Whether or not we have a civil rights hate crime will be determined once we have a suspect or suspects and a motive," Moses said.
It's an emotionally charged issue, but emotion has nothing to do with the clear boundaries of the law. A person has the right to free speech and the conduct of burning a Koran falls within the protections of the First Amendment.
It may be hateful speech and stupid speech, but it is protected speech nonetheless.
Derek Fenton's 11-year career at the agency came to an abrupt halt Monday after photographs of him ripping pages from the Muslim holy book and setting them ablaze appeared in newspapers.
Fenton, 39, of Bloomingdale, N.J., burned the book during a protest on the ninth anniversary of Sept. 11 outside Park51, the controversial mosque slated to be built near Ground Zero.
He was apparently inspired by Pastor Terry Jones, the Florida clergyman who threatened to burn the Koran that day but later changed his mind.
NJ Transit said Fenton was fired but wouldn't give specifics.
"Mr. Fenton's public actions violated New Jersey Transit's code of ethics," an agency statement said.
"NJ Transit concluded that Mr. Fenton violated his trust as a state employee and therefore [he] was dismissed."
Fenton was ushered from the protests by police on Saturday and questioned, but he was released without charges.
The employee, Derek Fenton, has every right to voice his opinion in that setting. This isn't an instance of an employee carrying out such conduct while in his capacity as an employee or public official.
It looks like NJ Transit stepped over the line in pursuing actions against Fenton for speech Fenton undertook while not on duty. Moreover, it appears that the agency determined that dismissal was the option, rather than probation or other disciplinary measures or undertaking sensitivity training or other such programs.
If you want a reason to get pissed off for a religious institution encroaching on Ground Zero's sacred soil, the group led by Bill Keller fits the bill. New York papers have finally caught on to his story, and are now pursuing it.
The crusade against a proposed mosque near Ground Zero turned Biblical Sunday as a fire-and-brimstone Florida preacher declared that those behind it will "burn in hell."
"All these people will die and burn in hell," Bill Keller told a crowd of 40 people gathered to hear his sermon at the New York Marriott Downtown overlooking Ground Zero.
"Islam is not and has never been a religion of peace," he said. "How could you build bridges with people who ask their Muslim brothers to fly a plane into the twin towers and killed thousands of innocent people?"
It's inflammatory rhetoric like Keller's that has supporters of the mosque most worried: They say it is wrong to tarnish the entire Muslim religion because of the actions of a few.
Many opposed to the Park51 project have also dismissed the Muslim-bashing preacher, fearing they'll be lumped in with his bigoted and racist views.
The News focuses on his anti-Muslim views, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. Then again, so does the New York Times, which notes in passing that Glenn Beck is worshiping a false faith.
Keller is currently operating out of a conference room at the Marriott next door to Ground Zero on West Street. His followers published flyers that were plastered all around Ground Zero promoting his Sunday sermon, but curiously didn't note the hate-filled bilge he was peddling.
Mind you, Keller has every right to peddle that hate (so long as he isn't promoting violence and is within the law) as it is protected both under the freedom of religion and freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.
So, while the attention largely remains on the Cordoba House proposal for a community center and mosque, Keller's hate goes largely unremarked upon.
AOL News has more, including a copy of Keller's "sermon", which includes claims that Gahndi was a nice person, but was in hell presumably because he was not a Christian. A crowd of about 50 showed up, with most members of various media outlets.
Between 40 and 50 people attended the hour-and-a-half long event, which began at 11 a.m. and was held in the ballroom of the New York Marriott Downtown hotel, located across the street from ground zero. Although members of the press made up nearly half of the audience, it was unclear how many of the roughly 20-odd non-media-affiliated attendees there because they wanted to actually worship, versus the number gathered there based on their curiosity of Keller and his goals.
For example, Richard Borowski, who supports the controversial mosque project called Park51, said that he attended the service under the assumption that Keller "was coming out strongly against the mosque," but was surprised to hear the televangelist "pretty much come out in favor of it."
"We have a firewall between church and state to keep our country from being ruled by any one religion," Borowski told AOL News Surge Desk once the service had concluded, "Nothing would uphold and demonstrate that more than the construction of [both of] these houses of worship."
Even the speaker who preceded Keller during the service, Vincent Forras, a 9/11 volunteer and first responder, said he still had "not made his mind up" about the fiery televangelist or his project, although he did confess to being against the construction of Park51. Forras, who credits his Christian faith for his survival during a secondary building collapse on Sept. 11, is co-founder of the Gear Up Foundation, a charity for other 9/11 first responders.
Throughout Keller's sermon, two protesters who appeared to be 9/11 "Truthers," sporadically heckled Keller, shouting various denunciations, including "Liar!" at him from the crowd. At one point, a man rose and unfurled a red flag, before loudly shouting that Keller was "a false prophet," before being escorted out by Keller's bodyguards.
A growing number of New York construction workers are vowing not to work on the mosque planned near Ground Zero.
"It's a very touchy thing because they want to do this on sacred ground," said Dave Kaiser, 38, a blaster who is working to rebuild the World Trade Center site.
"I wouldn't work there, especially after I found out about what the imam said about U.S. policy being responsible for 9/11," Kaiser said.
The grass-roots movement is gaining momentum on the Internet. One construction worker created the "Hard Hat Pledge" on his blog and asked others to vow not to work on the project if it stays on Park Place.
"Thousands of people are signing up from all over the country," said creator Andy Sullivan, a construction worker from Brooklyn. "People who sell glass, steel, lumber, insurance. They are all refusing to do work if they build there."
Don't expect that to stop construction, if this project secures its financing though.
If anyone thought that the proposed community center was uniformly backed by the Muslim community, you'd be wrong. Similarly, if you thought that 9/11 victims families were of one mind on the project, you too would be wrong.
Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani has come out in support of Gov. Paterson's proposal to relocate the site, all while asking tough questions of the proposal's backers. He's got a point about the sensitivity issue - if Imam Rauf and the Cordoba Initiative were truly interested in building bridges between the Muslim community and those who lost loved ones in 9/11, they'd be much more open about their plans and avoid saying insensitive statements, or potentially inflammatory ones (like claiming that they would obtain financing from Saudi Arabia and Iran) or that the community center is nowhere near Ground Zero (which strains credulity) or that some buildings in the City have their own ZIP codes (the former WTC did - 10048).
“This issue of extremism is something that has been a national security issue — not only for the United States but also for many countries and nations in the Muslim world,” Rauf told Associated Press Television News.
“This is why this particular trip has a great importance because all countries in the Muslim world — as well as the Western world — are facing this ... major security challenge.”
Rauf also said he has been working on a way to “Americanize Islam,” although he did not elaborate on what an American version of Islam might look like.
“The same principles and rituals were everywhere, but what happened in different regions was there were different interpretations,” he said. “So we recognize that our heritage allows for re-expressing the internal principles of our religion in different cultural times and places.”
The comments differ greatly from what Rauf said in December 2001. Just two months after the 9/11 attacks, the imam wasn't so quick to condemn radical religious beliefs in his own faith.
"The United States' policies were an accessory to the crime that happened, because we have been an accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world," he said during an interview on CBS's "60 Minutes. "In fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA."
That's the kind of statement that would get him in trouble with the fundamentalists like al Qaeda (Salafists, Wahabis, and even among the mad mullahs of Iran).
UPDATE:
Does John Podhoretz live in New York City? Has he even visited Lower Manhattan in the last few months? Because his latest op-ed is riddled with bogus information. While it is true that the Ground Zero master plan was botched by then Gov. George Pataki and his chosen designer Daniel Libeskind, the Port Authority has moved on with the assistance of SOM, Foster and Partners, Santiago Calatrava, and several other major firms to design skyscrapers and integral features for Ground Zero including the museum/memorial (memorial designed by Michael Arad).
The actual memorials are well underway and will be completed by next year. The fact is that you can't view them from street level because the structure of those memorials are at bedrock - 70 feet below street level. It looks like there's no work done on them because the work is obscured by the security cordons around the site, and the rising Freedom Tower (now at more than 34 stories).
You can see the progress from the World Financial Center and any of the towers surrounding the site. Heck, if John simply read this site on a regular basis (or even the NY Post columns by Steve Cuozzo or Tom Toupousis) he'd know that work is progressing all over the site - with much of it still obscured because it is at or below street level.
The work (or lack thereof) at Ground Zero from late 2001 through the present did not create the conditions in which SoHo Properties could purchase and develop the property. The owners of that building wanted to sell, and found themselves a willing buyer in the SoHo Properties.
The Port Authority didn't control that site. Neither did the City. The LMDC didn't purchase the building and didn't consider it worthy of being purchased. That latter point may well have been an oversight - but given that the LMDC couldn't demolish the former Deutsche Bank building without major catastrophes - fires, deaths, negligence and rampant safety problems - there's no way to say that the building would have been in any better hands.
But there are some troubling statements and items that show insensitivity to those who lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks:
The developer takes issue with the fact that so much has been made of the location of the project, saying it is "nowhere near the World Trade Center site."
"Park51 is a community center. It is two blocks north of the World Trade Center site,” said El-Gamal. “In New York City, two blocks is a great distance. There are some buildings in New York that have their own zip codes. There is such a scarcity of space in New York, especially in Lower Manhattan. Keep in mind this is a small island, so we are nowhere near the World Trade Center site."
I asked El-Gamal if he's been surprised by the backlash against the project and the national attention it's garnered. He chose his words carefully.
Two blocks can be a great distance in the City, and I've pointed out that there are already several mosques in Lower Manhattan such that distance between those locations and Ground Zero as some form of an exclusion zone is unsupportable.
Yet, Gamal either ignores or fails to realize that two of the buildings that had their own ZIP codes were the Twin Towers themselves. They had their own ZIP code - 10048 - because more than 50,000 people worked in the complex. Count on that fact to be picked up by opponents again showing insensitivity to the victims in the attacks.
It's also disingenuous for Gamal to claim he's nowhere near Ground Zero. The Cordoba House site isn't in Ground Zero, but it is close.
Gamal doesn't help his cause with this interview.
But then again, the Observer doesn't help matters either by headlining that "Ground Zero Mosque"
Meanwhile, Gov. David Paterson continues pandering by hoping to change Gamal's mind on location. Good luck with that one. I doubt anything will come of it - and that it wont really matter to opponents either.
Just how far away is sufficient to satisfy the opponents of the project? I'm curious as to what your views on the matter are.
To help with your view, here's a handy dandy map of Lower Manhattan.
UPDATE:
Bear in mind also that when the towers collapsed, the billowing smoke and pulverized towers (all the people, concrete, steel, and other materials in the towers) spread all over Lower Manhattan, across into Brooklyn, and cast away as far as New Jersey depending on which way the wind blew following the attacks. Indeed, one could smell the fires for weeks after up past 14th Street.
In other words, if someone is claiming that because the Burlington Coat Factory was hit by debris from the tower somehow makes it off-limits to construction, the same can be said for any other buildings within the cloud of debris. That would seemingly push construction out of Lower Manhattan altogether, and out of CB1, which approved its siting.
Michael Calderone picks up on a subject I've been hammering home since the outrage began over the Cordoba House proposal hit the big media outlets.
It is not located at Ground Zero (or in Ground Zero). Close, but no cigar. Some media outlets have consistently gotten it wrong.
In covering the growing controversy over the proposed Islamic community center in lower Manhattan, the national media, led by the big cable networks, have by default shaped the increasingly heated debate by repeatedly referring to the project as the "Ground Zero mosque." An MSNBC spokesman said that describing the project is a "show-by-show decision," while a CNN spokesperson said the network guides anchors in written copy to refer to the project as "an Islamic center that includes a mosque that is near Ground Zero, or is two blocks from Ground Zero." Of course, political pundits may stray from the network's phrasing and inaccurately describe the location of the planned building at the center of the furor.
But Phil Corbett, the New York Times' standards editor said, "Given how politically volatile this discussion has been, we think it's important to be accurate and precise," in explaining the paper's consistent references to the planned structure being two blocks from the Ground Zero site.
The "Park51" project, as it's officially dubbed, is in fact planned for a site two blocks from where the World Trade Center towers fell, amid other lower Manhattan establishments whose names have never featured the words "Ground Zero." If built, the 13-story community center and mosque project will be one of hundreds of buildings located within blocks of Ground Zero — a densely populated area that already includes a couple of mosques, along with less "hallowed" institutions, like strip clubs, bars and Off Track Betting operations.
But Park51 is getting all the attention downtown — and now, nationwide. President Obama affirmed the constitutional right to build a mosque on private property Friday, breathing new life into an already long-raging controversy. In covering Obama's recent remarks — and the past couple months of debate — the media's played a pivotal role in framing the issues at hand. Here's a rundown of how the media covered the debate as it took shape.
Location, location, location
News organizations make conscious decisions when they describe a construction work-in-progress as either located on the site of the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history or two blocks away. The New York Times — except for one blog headline — has consistently described the mosque in headlines as not being built at Ground Zero but "near" the site.
Corbett, who oversees the Times standards on such questions, told The Upshot that he hasn't issued any formal guidelines but has discussed that particular phrasing with editors.
"To call it the Ground Zero Mosque not only would give you the impression that it's on the site of the Trade Center," he continued, "but it might even give you the further impression that it's part of the rebuilding process to that site."
The Times appears to be in the minority, judging by headlines related to Obama's remarks.
Many news organizations ran headlines this past weekend describing a "Ground Zero mosque," including the Associated Press, Huffington Post, Washington Post, Fox News, New York Daily News, Politico, and AOL's Politics Daily site. (Yahoo! News, linking to an AP story on the remarks, similarly went with "Ground Zero mosque.")
Several other news organizations routinely place "Ground Zero" in quotation marks, which is more of shorthand way of describing the debate without pinpointing the location.
Still, shorthand also plays a significant part in how the media frames debates. Anyone who's picked up a newspaper or turned on cable news has likely heard about the "Ground Zero mosque" and the controversy surrounding it. It's perhaps the simplest way to jump into a story that's now lasted more than two months.
It's little wonder that there is so much opposition to the project when you've got people thinking that the project is happening within Ground Zero.
And via Newsday, Rep. Steve Israel, the Democrat in NY-2, said, "While they have a constitutional right to build the mosque, it would be better if they had demonstrated more sensitivity to the families of 9/11 victims. I urge them to do so before proceeding further."
Rep. Tim Bishop, whose NY-1 district has three GOP challengers duking it out, said, "As a New Yorker, I believe ground zero is sacred ground and should unite us. If the group seeking to build the mosque is sincere in its efforts to bring people together, I would urge them to seek an alternative location which is less divisive. I dispute the wisdom of building at that location, not the constitutional right."
It's almost a given that everyone is operating under the belief that the proposed project is located at (or in) Ground Zero, rather than near it, and that there's somehow an area beyond Ground Zero that is sacrosanct for such construction.
It's political pandering. Pure and simple. And it's still wrong.
Yet, there are some politicians who are demanding an end to the pandering. That includes New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who got slammed by some on the right wing for taking the principled stand.
Community Board 1 approved the project. Community Board 1 governs all of Lower Manhattan and all of the Financial District, the area around Ground Zero and Battery Park City. Where else in Lower Manhattan would this center be acceptable? Three blocks away? Four?
Some people simply wont be satisfied with any distance, but it isn't the distance - it's the religion of those proposing the project. For them, it wont matter where it's located near Ground Zero.
The latest idiocy comes from none other than a former sports writer who fancies himself an opinionist, Mike Lupica.
He would much rather ignore the US Constitution and its guaranteed protections for free exercise of religion and put the decision of whether to build a mosque near Ground Zero in the hands of the families of victims of the 9/11 terror attacks.
Does Lupica know that there are few issues on which 9/11 families would agree?
Does he realize that some families wanted to see absolutely no construction of office space in Ground Zero?
Does he realize that some families wanted the 2 million tons of debris carted off to Fresh Kills returned to Ground Zero because of the possibility of remains of their loved ones being found pulverized among the debris and that they wanted their loved ones' final resting place to be at the site?
Does he realize that some families backed a proposal to rebuild the Twin Towers as they were - but up to modern building codes and the most advanced construction techniques?
Does Lupica realize that some of those murdered by the 9/11 terrorists were themselves Muslims?
Who exactly was Lupica going to have in charge of the families? Debra Burlingame, whose opposition to the mosque near Ground Zero is on the record, despite the fact that two other mosques are in close proximity to the Park Place site?
No, the final decision for building isn't up to Mayor Bloomberg or even President Obama. It was up to the local community who not only lived through the 9/11 terror attacks, but has ended up thriving and expanding in population significantly. It is the local community who felt that the benefits of a community center with all manner of amenities outweighed other possible detriments. It is the local community who wants to see the community center built, even as outsiders demand that no such construction take place because the backers of the project are Muslim.
Some of the same people who are complaining that a Muslim community center and mosque near Ground Zero would be an affront to the memory of the 9/11 victims or somehow violative of the sanctity of Ground Zero ignore that the community around Ground Zero includes all manner of salacious businesses.
Opponents of a proposed lower Manhattan mosque and community center speak in hushed tones about the sanctity of the "shadow of Ground Zero."
Tell that to the patrons of the Pussycat Lounge, a strip club where a photo of a nearly naked woman marks its location just two blocks from where the World Trade Center stood.
Or the Thunder Lingerie and peep show next door, where the marquee sports an American flag above a window display of sex toys and something called a "power pump."
Many come to the scene of the worst terrorist attack on American soil to pay tribute to pain and unspeakable tragedy. They're welcomed by solemn memorials and a visitors center amid the noise of reconstruction.
Heck, Park Place is home to a bar (the Dakota Roadhouse) next to where the Muslim community center and mosque would be built. Yet, there's nary a peep about that.
Here's a look at how the opposition to the mosque grew, and who was behind the opposition, including Pam Geller. Note too that many of the opponents purposefully conflate the location of the proposed mosque and community center with Ground Zero so as to make it appear that it is being built in Ground Zero, rather than merely near it. News reports continually make the same error even though it is all too clear that the site is nearby. It's laziness for the media, but mendacity for the opponents who are savvy enough to take advantage of that situation.
Is it any wonder that so many people oppose the proposal when they think that the construction will occur within Ground Zero and not near it? Is it any wonder that some people think that the mosque will overshadow Ground Zero and its construction, when it wont even be the tallest building on its own block?
Is it any wonder that some people are complaining bitterly about the choice of location for the community center and voicing their opposition despite the fact that two other mosques are nearby, and predate this proposal by decades?
But as to why so many people are opposed to the project, maybe it has to do with the fact that so many people have gotten their information from a media that continues to botch the facts. That goes for Charles Krauthammer too, who ought to know better.
Moreover, the same people who claim that the mosque doesn't belong near Ground Zero (that is when they aren't conflating matters by claiming the mosque will be in Ground Zero) don't care that there's a strip club about the same distance from Ground Zero or that millions of square feet of office space are set to rise from Ground Zero - the space where nearly 3,000 people were murdered.
Despite all the focus elsewhere, the Freedom Tower is growing about three stories every week.
Right now, it's 34 stories tall, and the tower cranes are starting to peek over the Battery Park City buildings, which means that it wont be long before the tower itself is visible from across the Hudson River.
The Port Authority's photo stream is here. This photo shows the WTC Memorials and the footprints coming to fruition. If you're at street level, you can't see what's going on around the site because of the updated blue wraps that deter people from looking into the site. That includes the Santiago Calatrava designed transit hub for PATH.
Most of the work around Ground Zero is still below ground level, but 1WTC (Freedom Tower) and 4WTC (diagonally across the site) are rising with new steel added daily.
Demagoguery over the issue of constructing an Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero continues despite the fact that the local community board approved the project, the Landmarks Preservation Commission rejected landmarking the building, and even the owner of one of two properties - Con Ed - will not block the project (as some may hope through the regulatory process). Opponents are holding out hope beyond all hope that somehow the state will swoop in and condemn the building through eminent domain as the racist and misogynist ex-Tea Party candidate Carl Paladino thinks should be done.
Opponents are running transit ads against the project, which include 9/11 imagery and makes the direct connection between the proposed Islamic center and Ground Zero, even if it isn't located in the site of the former World Trade Center.
In to that mix, Christopher Hitchens writes about the demagoguery as only he can.
This kind of capitulation needs to be fought consistently. But here is exactly how not to resist it. Take, for example, the widely publicized opinion of Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League. Supporting those relatives of the 9/11 victims who have opposed Cordoba House, he drew a crass analogy with the Final Solution and said that, like Holocaust survivors, "their anguish entitles them to positions that others would categorize as irrational or bigoted." This cracked tune has been taken up by Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin, who additionally claim to be ventriloquizing the emotions of millions of Americans who did not suffer bereavement. It has also infected the editorial pages of the normally tougher-minded Weekly Standard, which called on President Obama to denounce the Cordoba House on the grounds that a 3-to-1 majority of Americans allegedly find it "offensive."
Where to start with this part-pathetic and part-sinister appeal to demagogy? To begin with, it borrows straight from the playbook of Muslim cultural blackmail. Claim that something is "offensive," and it is as if the assertion itself has automatically become an argument. You are even allowed to admit, as does Foxman, that the ground for taking offense is "irrational and bigoted." But, hey—why think when you can just feel? The supposed "feelings" of the 9/11 relatives have already deprived us all of the opportunity to see the real-time footage of the attacks—a huge concession to the general dulling of what ought to be a sober and continuous memory of genuine outrage. Now extra privileges have to be awarded to an instant opinion-poll majority. Not only that, the president is urged to use his high office to decide questions of religious architecture!
Nothing could be more foreign to the spirit and letter of the First Amendment or the principle of the "wall of separation." In his incoherent statement, Foxman made the suggestion that it might be all right if the Cordoba House was built "a mile away." He appears to be unaware that an old building at the site is already housing overflow from the nearby Masjid al-Farah mosque.
The site has been used for some time now by its very owners as an overflow for prayer in Lower Manhattan.
The construction project will move forward contingent upon City Council approval (which is pretty much assured since the Community Board backs the plan) and its backers obtaining the financing to make it happen.
All that will be left in the end is the continued shrill opposition to a community center sorely needed in Lower Manhattan on grounds that it may possibly offend some victims of the 9/11 terror attacks or a general sense of impropriety because of the juxtaposition of a a mosque in such close proximity to where Islamic terrorists carried out the 9/11 attacks - the worst terror attack in history. It further ignores that some of the nearly 3,000 victims were themselves Muslims, and that the attacks did not discriminate between white or black, Asian or European. The roll call of those murdered includes victims from all corners of the planet and all religious creeds.
On Tuesday, the authority signed a tentative deal to move the Condé Nast headquarters to 1 World Trade Center, the 1,776-foot skyscraper now under construction at ground zero. That would make it the building’s largest private tenant so far and one with trend-setting cachet to boot.
In the cold, mournful aftermath of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, it was unclear what companies, if any, would move back to that scarred piece of earth. For a long time, it appeared that government agencies were the only likely tenants.
Mitchell Moss, a professor of urban planning at New York University, said the Condé Nast deal could be a turning point, noting that 1 World Trade Center, which will be the city’s tallest building, sits across West Street from the newly opened Goldman Sachs headquarters.
Think: Anna Wintour, the imperious editor-in-chief of Condé Nast’s Vogue, who inspired the novel and film “The Devil Wears Prada,” and Graydon Carter, the bon vivant editor of Vanity Fair, stepping out of black limousines at ground zero.
“We will have the best-paid bankers and best-dressed editors across the street from each other,” Mr. Moss said. “What young ambitious person would not want to be downtown now?”
Condé Nast is not the only high-profile tenant now considering 1 World Trade Center, expected to be completed in 2013. Bank of New York is also considering it as one of several sites.
The Port Authority declined to comment on any negotiations with tenants. Stephen Sigmund, a spokesman for the authority, did say, “There is clearly momentum both in the building of the World Trade Center site and the growing interest from potential tenants.”
The publishing giant would become an anchor tenant in the Freedom Tower. Condé Nast's current landlord is the Durst Organization, which is currently working to finalize a deal to market and lease the Freedom Tower along with a stake in the building.
Some employees were looking forward to the move, which couldn't come before 2014 at the earliest (the building is still under construction), but as should be expected, others aren't looking forward to the move.
Meanwhile, the outrageous outrage over the LPC rejection of landmark status for the buildings where the Cordoba House proposes a community center and mosque continues.
A lawsuit is being filed against the LPC claiming that politics steered the decision rather than the architectural merits. Those lawsuits have little chance of success because as the LPC member statements show - they understood both the political and emotional arguments for landmarking, but the process still required looking at the architectural merits for landmarking and the buildings simply didn't merit such status.
The fact is that the lawsuit itself is a political gesture to force the landmarking of a structure that doesn't merit landmarking on the merits. But that wont stop them from trying to derail the project, which still has to get approval at the City Council.
Moreover, even if the LPC was forced to reconsider the decision, it would not derail the project. Instead, the LPC could force the Cordoba House backers to simply redesign the facade and take other measures to maintain the historical integrity of the building. It might cost more to carry out those efforts, but it would not kill the project.
As was expected, the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) rejected a call to landmark 47 Park Place, which is the site of a proposed Islamic center and mosque two blocks north of Ground Zero.
The city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission voted 9-0 against granting historic protection to the building at 45-47 Park Place in Lower Manhattan, where the $100 million center would be built.
That decision clears the way for the construction of Park51, a tower of as many as 15 stories that will house a mosque, a 500-seat auditorium, and a pool. Its leaders say it will be modeled on the Y.M.C.A. and Jewish Community Center in Manhattan.
The vote on Tuesday was free of much of the vitriol that had marked previous hearings. One by one, members of the commission debated the aesthetic significance of the building, designed in the Italian Renaissance Palazzo style by an unknown architect.
Christopher Moore, a member of the commission, said the vote was not a matter of religion, though he argued that the building could not be divorced from the memory of the Sept. 11 attacks.
“It is not directly on ground zero, but it is a part of ground zero,” Mr. Moore said.
And even Moore voted against landmarking because the building itself lacked architectural merits worthy of landmarking.
The backers of the project now have to come up with the $100 million+ financing to get construction underway.
