Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: Silverstein's costs for the new World Trade Center, so far?

  1. #1
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    19,683
    Thanks
    341

    From
    Not the South, thank God

    Silverstein's costs for the new World Trade Center, so far?

    So, Larry Silverstein was awarded around $4.5 billion in insurance money to rebuild the WTC site. Though he ceded control of a few of the buildings, including the Freedom Tower.

    But, he has built WTC 7 and is working on 3 more buildings, I believe.

    Besides his $120 million a year ($1.2 billion since 9-11) to lease the site from the PA, what are Silverstein's reconstruction costs to date?
    Last edited by Oscar99; 23rd January 2012 at 11:56 AM.

  2. #2
    Council Member Djinn's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    46,975
    Thanks
    31295

    From
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Oscar99 View Post
    So, Larry Silverstein was awarded around $4.5 billion in insurance money to rebuild the WTC site. Though he ceded control of a few of the buildings, including the Freedom Tower.

    But, he has built WTC 7 and is working on 3 more buildings, I believe.

    Besides his $120 million a year to lease the site from the PA, what are Silverstein's reconstruction costs to date?
    A few of the numbers are off... The courts limited the insurance cap to $4.5B. I'm not sure how much Silverstein received, but it could not have been higher than $4.5B. This contrasts your figure of $6.0B.

    The amount being paid to the Port Authority is $102M per year; not $0.75M per year, as you suggest. These payments are all going to reconstruction efforts.

  3. #3
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    19,683
    Thanks
    341

    From
    Not the South, thank God
    Quote Originally Posted by Djinn View Post
    A few of the numbers are off... The courts limited the insurance cap to $4.5B. I'm not sure how much Silverstein received, but it could not have been higher than $4.5B. This contrasts your figure of $6.0B.

    The amount being paid to the Port Authority is $102M per year; not $0.75M per year, as you suggest. These payments are all going to reconstruction efforts.
    I adjusted my numbers before you submitted your response. I looked on Wikipedia to see the recon. costs, but can't find them.

    But also I read that $8 billion was allocated to NYC for re-building efforts. How much of this went to Silverstein?

    and most importantly, does Silverstein's $4.5 billion settlement only reimburse construction costs that he himself acrues...or does he simply get the money to do with it what he pleases?

  4. #4
    Council Member Djinn's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    46,975
    Thanks
    31295

    From
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Oscar99 View Post
    ... and most importantly, does Silverstein's $4.5 billion settlement only reimburse construction costs that he himself acrues...or does he simply get the money to do with it what he pleases?
    Again - the settlement cap was $4.5B. I don't know how much Silverstein received, save that it was either equal to, or less than $4.5B.

    Furthermore, I'm not sure what restrictions are placed on the funds. The properties were legitimately under his ownership. He made the decision to insure them, and the insurers made the decision to accept the terms of the insurance.

    To the best of my knowledge, he's under no obligation to use the money for reconstruction costs. Certainly, if my house burned down, I would not be required to use the insurance settlement for reconstructing my home. If there are strings, then I don't know about them.

  5. #5
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    19,683
    Thanks
    341

    From
    Not the South, thank God
    Silverstein controls new WTC 2, 4, 5, and 7.

    WTC 2 will cost $2.9 billion.

    WTC 7 cost $700 million. Silverstein received $860 million in insurance for the original building, but owed $239 million in rent for the site.

    As for 4 & 5, I don't see any info.

  6. #6
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    76,560
    Thanks
    5476

    From
    Richmond Va
    Silverstein should be in prison for arson.
    David Ray Griffin writes: "It certainly seems beyond belief that Silverstein, who had made almost $500 million in profit from the collapse of Building 7, would reveal not only that the building was deliberately demolished but that he himself had made the recommendation."[i] Beyond belief or not, Larry Silverstein is on the record saying of Building 7 that on 9/11 he suggested "maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it" and then "they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse."[ii] "Pull" is an industry term for controlled demolition.[iii]
    But that's just one of hundreds of coincidences that went along with 9-11.
    After 9/11, Silverstein demanded double indemnity, claiming that the two plane crashes constituted separate terrorist attacks.[ix] He soon walked away with more than 4.5 billion dollars cash from his 3.5 billion dollar insurance policy.[x] But apparently that four-billion-dollar profit on his six-week investment wasn't enough. On March 27th, 2008, the New York Times reported that Silverstein was back in court asking for another 12.3 billion dollars from airlines and airport security companies.[xi]

    Silverstein's prospective 17-billion-dollar payoff on a 14-million-dollar down payment might qualify as the world's best-ever investment. But had 9/11 not occurred, Silverstein's purchase of the World Trade Center could have qualified as the world's worst-ever investment. According to Trade Center plans, 5,000 tons of asbestos were going to be used in the Twin Towers, [xii] much of that total was actually used, and estimates of the amount that remained in the Towers on 9/11 range from 400 to 2000 tons.[xiii] On May 14th, 2001, Business Insurance magazine reported that the Port Authority had just lost a $600 million asbestos abatement lawsuit against its insurers.[xiv] Given that the Twin Towers were reputed to be money-hemorrhaging white elephants plagued not just with asbestos, but also with low vacancy rates due to their lacking any modern communications infrastructure, and that the Port Authority had reportedly been trying to find a way to demolish them but was prevented from doing so by the asbestos problem,[xv] Larry Silverstein's decision to take out a 99-year-lease on the World Trade Center makes very little sense unless he somehow knew they were slated for quick extra-legal demolition.
    How can anyone NOT be a truther?

  7. #7
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    19,683
    Thanks
    341

    From
    Not the South, thank God
    Quote Originally Posted by Inkslinger View Post
    Silverstein should be in prison for arson.

    But that's just one of hundreds of coincidences that went along with 9-11.

    How can anyone NOT be a truther?
    please keep your Truther bullshit out of this thread.

    this is about the costs of rebuilding the new WTC, that's it.

  8. #8
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    19,683
    Thanks
    341

    From
    Not the South, thank God
    Huh, this article puts the total cost at $11.7 billion.

    http://news.yahoo.com/ground-zero-bu...220637998.html

    But we can cut the cost of WTC 1 out of that, along with the memorial & the museum, and WTC 3 & 6.

  9. #9
    Council Member Djinn's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    46,975
    Thanks
    31295

    From
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Oscar99 View Post
    Huh, this article puts the total cost at $11.7 billion.
    Don't forget - the insurance was based on the value of the original structures; not the cost of new structures. If your insured car gets totaled, the insurance you collect will NOT be sufficient to replace the car with a brand-new one of the same model.

  10. #10
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    19,683
    Thanks
    341

    From
    Not the South, thank God
    Quote Originally Posted by Djinn View Post
    Don't forget - the insurance was based on the value of the original structures; not the cost of new structures. If your insured car gets totaled, the insurance you collect will NOT be sufficient to replace the car with a brand-new one of the same model.
    indeed. however, there are all sorts of bonds and government grants coming into play here.

    I just want to know how much of the insurance money actually goes to rebuilding. its not a simple matter of total costs to Silverstein= costs - insurance pay out.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed