So Silverstein "pulled" his buildings so he could go broke rebuilding them?

Travis

Misanthrope of the Mountains
Travis
Joined
Mar 31, 2007
Messages
24,133
http://www.1010wins.com/pages/4436381.php?


Silverstein officials argue they have turned over $2 billion -- in monthly rental payments for the undeveloped space and a share of Sept. 11 insurance money -- to the Port Authority since 2001, and said the agency has failed to rebuild on time anything it is responsible for.

An elaborate, $3.2 billion transit hub sitting in the middle of Silverstein's towers has been under construction for four years, and is five years behind its original schedule. Ground was broken in 2004 for the tallest skyscraper planned at the site, but it was redesigned and moved; it may open in four more years.

"We are not asking the Port Authority for their money. But in order for us to justify letting the port keep the $2 billion they have collected from us ... we are asking for their assistance,'' said Janno Lieber, who heads trade center construction for Silverstein.
Click to expand...

Things are quite a mess down there right now.
 
That's about the long and short of it according to the conspiracy theorist mindset. The cold, hard financial math exonerated Silverstein years ago, but that hasn't stopped Truthers from slandering him.
 
Maybe the NWO made him go broke because he almost spilled the beans with his little slip of the tongue back then... ;)
 
Oh what tangled webs we weave when first we practice to carry out ridiculously convoluted conspiracies for some vague reason.
 
Last edited:
Now, now, now Silverstein doid not "pull" the buildings.

He told the FDNY to pull the buildings.
 
From the Post

THE GROUND ZERO SUMMIT

May 21, 2009
http://www.nypost.com/seven/05212009/postopinion/editorials/the_ground_zero_summit_170324.htm

The latest tie-up takes the form of a dispute between Silverstein and the PA.

Silverstein says he needs the authority's help, given the current economy, in financing the three towers he's meant to be building on site.

But the PA -- the joint New York-New Jersey venture responsible for regional transportation needs -- says it simply can't afford that; it's offering to help with just one, while reducing the others to unsightly "stumps."



Indeed, it's hard not to sympathize with Silverstein: Years of public-sector delay in building the site's underlying infrastructure is the principal reason he couldn't secure financing and start building when the market was still flush.
Click to expand...
 
Can you explain how demanding more public money and refusing to commit any of his insurance proceeds to the project will lead to his "going broke"?
 
Can you prove that he has refused to commit any of his insurance proceeds to the project or that they are demanding public money?
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
Can you explain how demanding more public money and refusing to commit any of his insurance proceeds to the project will lead to his "going broke"?
Click to expand...

You got a spare two billion lying about? He paid two billion dollars for NOTHING. No revenue at all for the space he rented and continues to rent for 8 years now. Not only did he not collect the full amount owed him from his insurance on the buildings, but he has been required to keep paying the leases on them, and no new buildings have been built he can sublet and make money on.

Guy got screwed.
 
RedIbis said:
Can you explain how demanding more public money and refusing to commit any of his insurance proceeds to the project will lead to his "going broke"?
Click to expand...

The $2 billion in rent that he's paid came from his insurance funds. Which is why he's upset that it took the PA so long to prepare the building sites so that he could start construction.
 
dtugg said:
Can you prove that he has refused to commit any of his insurance proceeds to the project or that they are demanding public money?
Click to expand...

Two weeks ago, Mr. Bloomberg and Sheldon Silver, the Assembly speaker whose district includes Lower Manhattan, said that work should proceed on two of Mr. Silverstein’s three towers and the developer should invest some of his own money in the buildings.

Mr. Silverstein, who regards the insurance proceeds as his money, has shown no intention of doing so.
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/nyregion/21zero.html

The developer of the new World Trade Center wants more money from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.
Click to expand...

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/05/21/am_wtc/
 
Travis said:
The $2 billion in rent that he's paid came from his insurance funds. Which is why he's upset that it took the PA so long to prepare the building sites so that he could start construction.
Click to expand...

How does that suggest that it will make him go broke?
 
And from the OP's link:

Bloomberg last week suggested that the agency would have difficulty negotiating with Silverstein, who ``doesn't have any skin in the game'' because the towers are backed with bonds and Sept. 11 insurance money.
Click to expand...

I don't think you have to worry much about Larry going broke.
 
RedIbis said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/nyregion/21zero.html,
Click to expand...

Uh, that link isn't saying what you think it's saying.

A little reading comprehension, please.

It's saying that the money already invested (the insurance money), Silverstein counts as his own. What the others are saying (Bloomberg and Silver), is that some of Silverstein's PERSONAL FUNDS should be invested.

Mr. Silverstein, however, is saying that the insurance payout is part of his funds, and that it's already been put back (rental payments, etc).
 
TriskettheKid said:
Uh, that link isn't saying what you think it's saying.

A little reading comprehension, please.

It's saying that the money already invested (the insurance money), Silverstein counts as his own. What the others are saying (Bloomberg and Silver), is that some of Silverstein's PERSONAL FUNDS should be invested.

Mr. Silverstein, however, is saying that the insurance payout is part of his funds, and that it's already been put back (rental payments, etc).
Click to expand...

So if Silverstein continues to resist investing his "PERSONAL FUNDS" it's not likely he'll be going broke.

Now, try and spin Bloomberg's comments.
 
dtugg said:
Shockingly (not) you leave out the very next sentence:



Do you have a personal rule telling you that you must be as dishonest as possible?
Click to expand...

I like how you go right for invective and overlook a perfect example of what you so "skeptically" asked for.
 
RedIbis said:
I like how you go right for invective and overlook a perfect example of what you so "skeptically" asked for.
Click to expand...

Except it wasn't. It was you dishonestly cherry picking it to make it look like it was.
 
RedIbis said:
How does that suggest that it will make him go broke?
Click to expand...

RedIbis said:
So if Silverstein continues to resist investing his "PERSONAL FUNDS" it's not likely he'll be going broke.
Click to expand...

Larry Silverstein owes the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey $10 million a month in rent.

Without new buildings on the site from which to lease office space, Silverstein has no way to recoup that $10 million a month.

$10 million per month X an indeterminate amount of time = eventually broke.


Let me guess: You're not an accountant, are you?
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
So if Silverstein continues to resist investing his "PERSONAL FUNDS" it's not likely he'll be going broke.

Now, try and spin Bloomberg's comments.
Click to expand...

He will.

Because he still has to pay rent on space not being used. Just because the insurance money is currently covering it doesn't mean he's not going to go broke. Far from it. The longer he has to pay rents out of the insurance money, the less available to build.

The longer it takes to get something built, the more money owed.

He is going broke. He'll be lucky to break even.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom