Larry locks city into pricey WTC rentals

Reminds me of the oldies radio tag line: "And the hits just keep on comin'!"

Enjoy!

Larry locks city into pricey WTC rentals

And excerpts!

That's put the administration in a peculiar position. It's looking to get rid of 400,000 square feet of unused space as part of a broader initiative to cut costs by $500 million and downsize the government.

But it will also have to start making arrangements to fill the new space in Tower 4 by early 2014 -- which would be right after Bloomberg has left office.

Taxpayers will be shelling out tens of millions of dollars extra over the 15-year term of the lease compared with properties the city now rents.

Lovely!

Over the life of the lease, the city will pay Silverstein $577 million for office space.

A bargain!

This from Wiki under "Larry Silverstein":

In January 2001, Silverstein, via Silverstein Properties and Westfield America, made a $3.2 billion bid for the lease to the World Trade Center. Silverstein was outbid by $50 million by Vornado Realty, with Boston Properties and Brookfield Properties also competing for the lease. However, Vornado withdrew and Silverstein's bid for the lease to the World Trade Center was accepted on July 24, 2001. This was the first time in the building's 31-year history that the complex had changed management.

The lease agreement applied to One, Two, Four, and Five World Trade Center, and about 425,000 square feet (39,500 m2) of retail space. Silverstein put up $14 million of his own money to secure the deal. The terms of the lease gave Silverstein, as leaseholder, the right and the obligation to rebuild the structures if destroyed.

Upon leasing the World Trade Center towers, along with 4 World Trade Center and 5 World Trade Center, Silverstein insured the buildings. The insurance policies on these four buildings were underwritten by 24 insurance companies for a combined total of $3.55 billion per occurrence in property damage coverage.

"$14 million of his own money" Not a bad deal and as we all know when it comes to real estate it's "location, location, location". Oh and like in comedy, timing too. "This was the first time in the building's 31-year history that the complex had changed management."

Larry Silverstein's $3.5B Definition

The three-judge court sitting in Manhattan was hearing arguments in the World Trade Center insurance litigation in which Larry Silverstein, who holds a 99-year lease for the buildings that were destroyed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, is claiming that he is entitled to recover $7.1 billion from the 22 insurers of the properties, twice the ostensible policy limit, on the ground that the attack of the center was two occurrences, not one. Otherwise, he would be stuck with the $3.55 face value of the policies.

And:

In fact, by Sept. 11, there was no final policy, just a series of preliminary agreements known as binders. But Wachtell insisted that the progress of the negotiations indicate that they would have adopted the Travelers form, and, without a definition, the court must enforce the definition supplied by New York law. That definition would define the World Trade Center attack as two occurrences.

Brilliant!

Silverstein Makes a Huge Profit off of the 9/11 Attacks

"The Process of Creating a Ruin"

When the World Trade Center was bombed in February, 1993, at the age of twenty, it had finally begun generating profits to offset the chronic losses the PA sustained running the PATH commuter line. But it was already passing its prime as office space, overtaken by a generation of more recent, cybernetically "smart" buildings with higher ceilings and greater built-in electrical capacity. To maintain the trade center as class-A office space commanding top rents, the PA would have had to spend $800 million rebuilding its electrical, electronic communications, and cooling systems.

One would think with his real estate savvy that Silverstein was hip to the Towers being white elephants, so to speak. It would seem everyone else knew.

Silverstein Will Get Most of His Cash Back In Trade Center Deal

Does it get any better than that? And now he's positioned to siphon another half billion in rent out of NYC as Bloomberg leaves the stage. Location, location, location and timing of course.

Did you ever wonder why he UNDER-insured the WTCs? Why did he have to pay $120 million a year for a hole in the ground, to pay for leases? Also, do you include the amount it would cost to rebuild the WTCs? The amount Larry asked for wouldnt even cover the whole cost, hang on let me find the numbers:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I wonder what happened to the missing trillons rumplstitltskin said were missing from the day before..
you know the evidence being in building seven and all..
or the missing SKIDS of money in Iraq

any one who thinks Silverstein lost money on this has never heard the term "Jewish lightning"
and should maybe look it up in a colloquial dictionary

Ya gotta hand it to Silverstein... he knows how to be one of the elite swines.. finding all sorts of ways to swindle monies... I wish we could get away from people like him, and live a more peaceful life in a more peaceful world.. Money doesn't rule..

I wonder what happened to the missing trillons rumplstitltskin said were missing from the day before.. you know the evidence being in building seven and all..

That line is getting so old. If you would make the slightest effort you would see it has been explained time and time again. But that would deprive you of a reason to believe in the lies put forth by the truther group.

any one who thinks Silverstein lost money on this has never heard the term "Jewish lightning" and should maybe look it up in a colloquial dictionary

Why do you make this out to be a Jewish issue? Or are you just some who has never made something of themself? You avatar gives the world the impression that you support things like slavery and racism. You should try reading about LS and compare yourself to him before you slander him because of his religion. Here is a place to start.

www.silversteinproperties.com... utive-team/larry-a-silverstein

Mr. Silverstein is a member of the New York Bar and a Governor of the Real Estate Board of New York, having served as its Chairman. He served as Vice Chairman of the New York University Board of Trustees and is the Founder and Chairman emeritus of the New York University Real Estate Institute. As a Professor of Real Estate, his "Silverstein Workshop" became one of the most attended and informative educational sources for learning real estate development and investment analysis.

and

Larry and Klara Silverstein have been married for more than fifty four years and have three children, two of whom are executives at Silverstein Properties. Mr. Silverstein contributes his time and resources to organizations that are dedicated to education and medical research, meeting humanitarian needs and supporting the arts. He is a classical music enthusiast, a passionate yachtsman and a dedicated New Yorker.

Now if you would like to tell us what you have done for the world I will gladly listen.

At the very least Silverstein knew the towers were going to be attacked, he was good friends with Benjamin Netanyahu and in seems inplausible that Atta and his friends weren't on Mossads rader from their Hamburg days onwards. Silverstein, his son and his daughter all worked at the WTC and none of them made it to work that morning. I would love to give Larry a lie detector test and find out what he knew about 9/11.

reply to post by GenRadek


Oh Yeah. Larry Silverstien. Just one of vast many of coincidences regarding the happenings that fateful day.
Everyone is honest, except for the people that question the circumstances.

Originally posted by GenRadek
Did you ever wonder why he UNDER-insured the WTCs? Why did he have to pay $120 million a year for a hole in the ground, to pay for leases? Also, do you include the amount it would cost to rebuild the WTCs? The amount Larry asked for wouldnt even cover the whole cost, hang on let me find the numbers:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

He doesn't have to cover the complete cost, up front.
And UNDER-INSURED? Where did that doozy come from?

Originally posted by DIDtm

And UNDER-INSURED? Where did that doozy come from?

His OWN insurance company.

In its court papers, Swiss Re shows how Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding. His lenders, led by GMAC, a unit of General Motors (nyse: GM - news - people ), which financed nearly the entire cost of the lease, agreed.

www.forbes.com...

Now, does he have to pay all of that up front? No. He does not. However, your math is horrible.

He has a net income of $0 from 9-11 till 2008 when the New 7WTC was opened.

However, he has still had to pay his lease every month since then, and rebuild the site.

When you count up all his income lost since 9/11, his lease payments. and the cost of rebuilding, you come up with a figure.

Take that figure and subtract that from his policy payouts, and you tell me if he is making money or not.

The result will be a negative number, almost guaranteed.

Just in 7WTC he had more thant 200,000,000 lost, not including the lost income from the property.

Originally posted by samkent

Mr. Silverstein is a member of the New York Bar and a Governor of the Real Estate Board of New York, having served as its Chairman. He served as Vice Chairman of the New York University Board of Trustees and is the Founder and Chairman emeritus of the New York University Real Estate Institute. As a Professor of Real Estate, his "Silverstein Workshop" became one of the most attended and informative educational sources for learning real estate development and investment analysis.

and

Again from Bloomberg Business week:

When the World Trade Center was bombed in February, 1993, at the age of twenty, it had finally begun generating profits to offset the chronic losses the PA sustained running the PATH commuter line. But it was already passing its prime as office space, overtaken by a generation of more recent, cybernetically "smart" buildings with higher ceilings and greater built-in electrical capacity. To maintain the trade center as class-A office space commanding top rents, the PA would have had to spend $800 million rebuilding its electrical, electronic communications, and cooling systems.

Larry “Lucky Larry” Silverstein

There’s more. You see, the World Trade Towers were not the real estate plum we are led to believe. From an economic standpoint, the trade center -- subsidized since its inception by the NY Port Authority -- has never functioned, nor was it intended to function, unprotected in the rough-and-tumble real estate marketplace. How could Silverstein Group have been ignorant of this?

The towers required some $200 million in renovations and improvements, most of which related to removal and replacement of building materials declared to be health hazards in the years since the towers were built. It was well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. For years, the Port Authority treated the building like an aging dinosaur, attempting on several occasions to get permits to demolish the building for liability reasons, but being turned down due the known asbestos problem. Further, it was well-known the only reason the building was still standing until 9/11 was because it was too costly to disassemble the twin towers floor by floor since the Port Authority was prohibited legally from demolishing the buildings.

The projected cost to disassemble the towers: $15 Billion. Just the scaffolding for the operation was estimated at $2.4 Billion!

The second article is an opinion piece but I have yet to read of any reliable source disputing that the towers were obsolete. The dispute lies in how much the needed renovations would cost. The first article was published by of all organizations Bloomberg L.P. I think we can take that assessment as non-biased in the least. I'm frankly surprised that it has not yet been pulled from the Bloomberg Business site. Give it time, these things are easily overlooked. As for Michael Bloomberg, one wonders how the 10th richest man in the United States, son of a real estate agent, a life-long New Yorker and like Larry Silverstein also a civic minded mensch, resisted investing in the juicy Twin Towers complex. Well, maybe not so much.

My point is that the towers were not remotely a good real estate investment and that flies in the face of all the published credentials of Mr. Silverstein. I have to think that Silverstein had knowledge of the structural problems with the towers. In my opinion there are only two possible scenarios. He was risking financial ruin on a dubious renovation scheme or the fix was in. I have yet to hear of a planned renovation. If a renovation complete with asbestos abatement were to be divulged that would be extremely helpful to those attempting to get medical help having been exposed working at "Ground Zero" but let's face it, no pre-9/11 discussion or plans for abatement exist. And that flies in the face of the "Silverstein Workshop" being a credible source for "real estate development and investment analysis". Or should we accept that Mr. Silverstein is only human and allow him a bad day, week, month, year or however long he contemplated leasing the towers?

Originally posted by FDNY343


Just in 7WTC he had more thant 200,000,000 lost, not including the lost income from the property.

Thats funny.
Ill let you do the math to see if he lost money on WTC7.

Was paid 861 million dollars insurance money from Risk.
475 million of the new WTC7 was covered by Liberty Bonds.
Owed 400 million to Port Authority for the remainder of the mortgage.
Cost 700 million to rebuild WTC7 was 700 million.
No payment due to Port Authority for another 90 years for WTC7.

No, He didnt make out at all on WTC7, did he?

Originally posted by DIDtm

Originally posted by FDNY343


Just in 7WTC he had more thant 200,000,000 lost, not including the lost income from the property.

Thats funny.
Ill let you do the math to see if he lost money on WTC7.

Was paid 861 million dollars insurance money from Risk.
475 million of the new WTC7 was covered by Liberty Bonds.
Owed 400 million to Port Authority for the remainder of the mortgage.
Cost 700 million to rebuild WTC7 was 700 million.
No payment due to Port Authority for another 90 years for WTC7.

No, He didnt make out at all on WTC7, did he?

861 M
-700 M (rebuild)
____________
161 M
- 400 M (mortgage)
________________
NEGATIVE 239 M

-239 M
+475 M (liberty Bond)
________________

236 M
-475 M PLUS interest has has to repay back ( he doesn't pay taxes on that 475 though)
_________________________________
-239 M + about 7%
-Unknown amount for lost rent from 9/11/01-3/2008
___________________________________________

NEGATIVE NUMBER

Is that simple enough for you?

Originally posted by FDNY343

861 M
-700 M (rebuild)
____________
161 M
- 400 M (mortgage)
________________
NEGATIVE 239 M

-239 M
+475 M (liberty Bond)
________________

236 M
-475 M PLUS interest has has to repay back ( he doesn't pay taxes on that 475 though)
_________________________________
-239 M + about 7%
-Unknown amount for lost rent from 9/11/01-3/2008
___________________________________________

NEGATIVE NUMBER

Is that simple enough for you?

Keep to firefighting, cause you and math don't get along.

861m. Payment from insurance.
-400.m payout mortgage (lease)
----------
461m
+475m Bonds
----------
936m
-700. Contruction
---------
236m In his POCKET

Of which, he gets all leases/rent for the next 90 years. No payment for mortgage due.
Out of those leases/rent he will get for 90 years, he can pay back the long term Bonds.

IS THAT SIMPLE ENOUGH FOR YOU?

Originally posted by DIDtm

Originally posted by FDNY343

861 M
-700 M (rebuild)
____________
161 M
- 400 M (mortgage)
________________
NEGATIVE 239 M

-239 M
+475 M (liberty Bond)
________________

236 M
-475 M PLUS interest has has to repay back ( he doesn't pay taxes on that 475 though)
_________________________________
-239 M + about 7%
-Unknown amount for lost rent from 9/11/01-3/2008
___________________________________________

NEGATIVE NUMBER

Is that simple enough for you?

Keep to firefighting, cause you and math don't get along.

861m. Payment from insurance.
-400.m payout mortgage (lease)
----------
461m
+475m Bonds
----------
936m
-700. Contruction
---------
236m In his POCKET

Of which, he gets all leases/rent for the next 90 years. No payment for mortgage due.
Out of those leases/rent he will get for 90 years, he can pay back the long term Bonds.

IS THAT SIMPLE ENOUGH FOR YOU?

Did you forget to subtract the amount he has to pay back for the liberty bonds and also the lost income for almost 7 years of no occupancy? You sure did!

He has to pay back the liberty bonds. They are not free money. PAY IT BACK means he is BACK into the negative.

Originally posted by FDNY343

Did you forget to subtract the amount he has to pay back for the liberty bonds and also the lost income for almost 7 years of no occupancy? You sure did!

He has to pay back the liberty bonds. They are not free money. PAY IT BACK means he is BACK into the negative.

DID you forget to finish reading my ENTIRE post. I sure DID NOT forget to include him paying back the 475m for the Liberty Bonds. I SURE DID NOT!
Pay it back means he has time and can use the interest (and dividends) he collects on his 236m he POCKETED. Im sure he knows how to invest money. He does seem to be a savvy business man.
He can also use the lease (rent) he receives from the tenants in the new building.
I dont need to include the lost rent for no occupancy. That point is moot.
Take the 236m and subtract say 36m (being very generous here) for the payments he made to Port Authority for the time he was in possession of LAND before he paid the mortgage off.
Still leaves 200 MILLION.

Thats the problem with you non-truthers. You read what you want to and skip what you dont want to hear.
A typical.
For future reference....if you read an entire post, it is easier to COMPREHEND what is being said.

Originally posted by DIDtm

Originally posted by FDNY343

Did you forget to subtract the amount he has to pay back for the liberty bonds and also the lost income for almost 7 years of no occupancy? You sure did!

He has to pay back the liberty bonds. They are not free money. PAY IT BACK means he is BACK into the negative.

DID you forget to finish reading my ENTIRE post. I sure DID NOT forget to include him paying back the 475m for the Liberty Bonds. I SURE DID NOT!
Pay it back means he has time and can use the interest (and dividends) he collects on his 236m he POCKETED. Im sure he knows how to invest money. He does seem to be a savvy business man.
He can also use the lease (rent) he receives from the tenants in the new building.
I dont need to include the lost rent for no occupancy. That point is moot.
Take the 236m and subtract say 36m (being very generous here) for the payments he made to Port Authority for the time he was in possession of LAND before he paid the mortgage off.
Still leaves 200 MILLION.

Thats the problem with you non-truthers. You read what you want to and skip what you dont want to hear.
A typical.
For future reference....if you read an entire post, it is easier to COMPREHEND what is being said.

edit on 27-2-2011 by DIDtm because: (no reason given)

It's STILL a loss. You think that building 7, in the ~7 years, that it would have made less than 236 M in rent?

Typical for truthers, don't do evidence, don't do math either. Explains why Jim is confused as to kinetic energy.

Originally posted by FDNY343

It's STILL a loss. You think that building 7, in the ~7 years, that it would have made less than 236 M in rent?

Typical for truthers, don't do evidence, don't do math either. Explains why Jim is confused as to kinetic energy.

You truly have NO idea what your talking about.
Bottom line is, he made out like a BANDIT with the destruction of all the buildings.
That is what this discussion is about.
You failed miserably trying to refute this fact. Like so many others.
Then cling to the 'typical truthers..dont do evidence'.

Seems you got lambasted in this discussion as well as countless others.

Are you even a firefighter, or is that a lie too.
Because it doesn't seem like you could pass the competence exam.

Originally posted by DIDtm

You truly have NO idea what your talking about.

Simple math. Negative numbers means he LOST money. Do you not understand that? NEGATIVE means LOSS.

Originally posted by DIDtm
Bottom line is, he made out like a BANDIT with the destruction of all the buildings.

No, he didn't. Your own numbers prove that. Just because you don't count the fact of the lost rent for ~7 years, and the repayment of the lIberty Bonds, doesn't mean it's my fault.

It's like the typical truthers who ignore the Penthouse collapse.

Originally posted by DIDtm
That is what this discussion is about.

Gee, I thought we were discussing the pros and cons of owning a boat.

Originally posted by DIDtm
You failed miserably trying to refute this fact. Like so many others.
Then cling to the 'typical truthers..dont do evidence'.

Yep, and I stand by that. Just like truthers ignore the Penthouse collapse.

Originally posted by DIDtm

Seems you got lambasted in this discussion as well as countless others.

Citation required.

Originally posted by DIDtm
Are you even a firefighter, or is that a lie too.[sic]
Because it doesn't seem like you could pass the competence exam.

Nice ad hom, but that again, is typical.

Why don't you start quizzing me about firefighter operations?

You can do it via U2U if you would like.