Larry Silverstein explaining what he meant by 'pull it'

RedIbis said:
And the real estate market improves enough that lower Manhattan needs enormous amounts of square footage at a premium.
Click to expand...

That means what?
Certaintly not that Silverstein has made money yet onthis venture, nor that eight years earlier that the real estate market would have been as Clayton wou ld have us believe, that the towers were unrentable.
 
RedIbis said:
First, it's Silverstein. I thought you were just making a typo, but you've repeated this error.

Secondly, I do appreciate your research and especially your straightforward, even tone. Your approach should serve as a model to the more hostile posters in this very thread.

To the point, here's a quote from a NYTimes article from 2009. Now if you have more conclusive evidence that he is responsible for more than the article suggests, albeit vaguely, I'd like to see it.



That's the best I can address your question, emphasizing in bold that this does not sound like someone who is on the hook for the rebuilding process.
Click to expand...
Sorry for the delay and I don't really have much time now.

I thought I would however share this with you as you don't seem to realize what else was involved in the 2006 deal.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/insurance/2007-05-23-tradecenterinsure_N.htm

Silverstein, who leased the twin towers weeks before they collapsed, took out a $3.5 billion policy with dozens of insurers. He went to court after the attacks, arguing that he should receive two payouts because the two hijacked planes that crashed into the towers represented two attacks instead of one.

Silverstein was awarded $4.6 billion in 2004; two juries decided that some of the insurers had to pay twice the policy because the companies' different insurance policies carried different wording about what constituted multiple events. The insurers have been in court recently to determine exactly how much they would pay.

The money represents more than half of the funding needed to rebuild the trade center site. Silverstein was originally responsible for rebuilding five office towers, but a year ago agreed to split the rebuilding — and the insurance money — with the Port Authority, which will build the 1,776-foot Freedom Tower and another planned tower.
Click to expand...

Were you awaire of this little tid-bit? Don't forget, Silverstein also lost the bid to reduce his $ 10 Million a month rent.

Regardless of when he completes the rebuilding he is required to do so.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis:
I did make a mistake on Silverstein having to abide by the original lease terms. I forgot about some of the specifics of the 2006 deal that more or less split the redevelopment down the middle. (PA has to build 3.8 M Sq'/ Silverstein 6.2 M Sq')

One thing for sure. It's highly unlikely Silverstein will live long enough to see rewards from this project.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
RedIbis:
I did make a mistake on Silverstein having to abide by the original lease terms. I forgot about some of the specifics of the 2006 deal that more or less split the redevelopment down the middle. (PA has to build 3.8 M Sq'/ Silverstein 6.2 M Sq')

One thing for sure. It's highly unlikely Silverstein will live long enough to see rewards from this project.
Click to expand...

How do you figure? He's not likely to rebuild anything more at the site, and even if he does, he will seek private and public financing and subsidies. He's shown no inclination to add anything else from the insurance proceeds. I'm sure you're reading the same articles and the thread Travis posted to see this.

WTC 7 is bought and paid for. What he's developed otherwise is already guaranteed to be leased by the city.
 
Why is anyone even discussing this? Worry about establishing a crime was committed by anyone other than members of Al Qaida first. Then you can worry about motive. You're talking about someone's motive to commit a crime that you haven't established he committed yet.
 
Still waiting for a response from the truther brigade as to why Nigro set up a collapse zone two hours before it collapsed....
 
RedIbis said:
How do you figure? He's not likely to rebuild anything more at the site, and even if he does, he will seek private and public financing and subsidies. He's shown no inclination to add anything else from the insurance proceeds. I'm sure you're reading the same articles and the thread Travis posted to see this.

WTC 7 is bought and paid for. What he's developed otherwise is already guaranteed to be leased by the city.
Click to expand...
It's not his option to build or not. He has too. The next deadline (if memory serves is 2013). He builds or he pays.

What makes you think WTC 7 is bought and paid for?
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
How do you figure? He's not likely to rebuild anything more at the site, and even if he does, he will seek private and public financing and subsidies. He's shown no inclination to add anything else from the insurance proceeds. I'm sure you're reading the same articles and the thread Travis posted to see this.
Click to expand...

It seems like you think the PA is willing to give Silverstein a "free ride". Nothing could be further from the truth.

I know I quoted this before but, it appears you haven't grasped the message the PA was sending.

Tower 4: The continued construction of Tower 4, which is expected to be completed in 2013. With approximately 60 percent of the tower being pre-leased to the Port Authority and City of New York, the Port Authority would provide a master lease for the project supporting the issuance of Silverstein's Liberty Bonds to finance a portion of the tower's construction costs Any Port Authority payments made under the master lease would be reimbursed by Silverstein Properties.
Click to expand...

The PA is helping by pre-leasing space they need so Silverstein can borrow the money to build. They are not doing this out of the kindness of their hearts. They get a lease at close to half the price of comparable leases for that area. The "liberty bonds" Silverstein has to pay back. There are also stiff penalties if he does not meet deadlines.

Tower 3: The immediate construction of the Tower 3 transit and retail podium, with the construction of the office tower to follow so long as Silverstein Properties hits the following private-market triggers: (1) Raises $300 million of private unsupported equity, (2) Pre-leases 400,000 square feet of the office tower, and (3) Obtains private financing for the remaining cost of the tower without a full public backstop. To help Silverstein Properties obtain this private financing without a full public backstop, it would receive a capped public backstop of $390 million from the Port Authority, New York State and New York City, together with $210 million of equity from the City and the State of New York, with each public entity's contribution limited to a total of $200 million. Any payments under the backstop would be reimbursed by Silverstein Properties and the public sector entities would also have a future Tower 3 capital events participation. The City's contribution is to be paid for using foregone revenues that will not be collected if the tower does not go forward. Until the public backstop is removed, Silverstein Properties would not be entitled to take profits out of Tower 3.
Click to expand...

This is almost self explanatory. Silverstein must pay to build this, one way or the other.

Tower 2: The Tower 2 site would be built to at least street level under a plan to be jointly developed by the Port Authority and Silverstein Properties. This plan would preserve flexibility for the future development of the office tower driven by market demand.
Click to expand...

Silverstein is obligated to build this (by the 2006 agreement). If he doesn't, He still has to pay the PA for the space. In other words, he has to give the PA the insurance money for the original tower (or portions of depending on how the project ends up).

Insurance: Silverstein Properties would use its remaining insurance proceeds toward the construction of Towers 3 and 4 and the payment of ground rent to the Port Authority.
Click to expand...

Believe it or not. The PA actually is in control of what Silverstein spends the money on. He can not spend proceeds for any other purpose than for what they were intended. They're funny like that.


Liberty Bonds: Silverstein Properties would use all of its Liberty Bonds for Towers 3 and 4.
Click to expand...

And they're not free. He has to pay them back before he can draw a profit from any of the buildings.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis:

Not to be beating this whole thing to death but, another point you might not be aware of. When the press quotes that "Silverstein properties" was awarded X billion in insurance, thier name was not the only one on the check.

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/345/154/550575/

This case arises out of the devastating tragedy that occurred at the World Trade Center ("WTC") in lower Manhattan, New York, on the morning of September 11, 2001. At issue in this case is the amount of insurance that is recoverable for the total destruction of the WTC that occurred after the buildings were struck by two fuel-laden aircraft that had been hijacked by terrorists. The appellants are numerous entities that have varying property interests in the WTC, including the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (the "Port Authority"), which owns the property in fee simple, and Silverstein Properties, Inc. and several related entities ("Silverstein Properties"). In the spring of 2001, Silverstein Properties was the successful bidder on a 99-year lease for the property from the Port Authority. In July 2001, Silverstein Properties obtained primary and excess insurance coverage for the WTC complex from about two dozen insurers (most of which constitute the appellees and other counter-defendants in this case) in the total amount of approximately $3.5 billion "per occurrence." Because Silverstein Properties is the party that actually obtained the insurance coverage at issue in this case and was the primary insured, for ease of reference all appellants will hereafter be referred to collectively as the "Silverstein Parties."
Click to expand...

There are many hands in the pot. The biggest one is the PA. After all, it is their property.
 
Last edited:
It's been a while since I asked this question, but did Redibis ever provide evidence for his claim that Silverstein "Made out like a bandit"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom