Late last week, the New York Times reported that the Port Authority, which has been reluctant to backstop construction of any of the developer's planned three towers at Ground Zero, responded to a Feb. 10 offer from SPI. According to the Times, The Port offered to financially support SPI's first tower, known as Tower 4 and currently under construction, and back Tower 3 after the developer pre-leased 500,000 of its 2.5 million square feet.

In return, the Port wants SPI to raise $300 million in new private capital, pool the remaining construction funds from tax-free Liberty Bonds and the insurance money from the 9/11 attacks and continue paying full rent at the site until the insurance proceeds run out, the Times reported. There would also be a financial contribution from the city. A similar account appeared in the New York Observer on Thursday.

Neither SPI nor the Port would comment on the details of the published accounts. However, a spokesman for SPI tells GlobeSt.com, "We are pleased that the Port Authority has responded to our Feb. 10 offer with their own proposal, which we are currently studying. We will continue to work with the Port Authority and other stakeholders in order to achieve an agreement that will protect the public's interests and ensure the World Trade Center is rebuilt in a timely manner."

According to published reports, that Feb. 10 offer entailed SPI putting up between $150 million and $250 million to fund the second tower, up from the $50 million the developer originally proposed. Similarly to a clause in the Port's counter-offer, SPI and CEO Larry Silverstein offered to pool the Liberty bond and insurance funds to build two towers; these monies were originally supposed to finance all three. Additionally, SPI substituted Tower 3, also known as 175 Greenwich St., for the more costly Tower 2, a move intended to save more than $260 million. Tower 2, also known as 200 Greenwich St., is larger by 15 stories and approximately 330,000 square feet than Tower 3.

In his weekly radio segment after the SPI offer was made, Mayor Michael Bloomberg endorsed the developer's plan and challenged the Port to make a viable counter-offer. Silverstein, Bloomberg said, "had a very rational plan, and I can tell you at this point it is the Port Authority who has to come back. And if they don't come back rationally with something that is doable and doable now, we're going to have a hole in the ground."

However, when the Port's counter-offer was made public, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie—one of the two state governors to whom the Port must answer—appeared to take the authority's side. "We simply cannot delay any longer on the World Trade Center site, which is why I have worked with the Port Authority to put together a thoughtful and substantive counterproposal," Christie said in a statement late last week. "Now is the time for all interested parties to quickly and responsibly finalize an agreement that both protects the memories of those we lost and the overstretched taxpayers of New York and New Jersey. This is a good first step we must all quickly build upon, so we can come to a timely and meaningful conclusion."

In addition, the General Contractors Association weighed in with a statement of its own on Friday, firmly backing the Port. "We need to rebuild the World Trade Center site, but we need to do so in a way that does not bankrupt the Port Authority and curtail critically needed investment in the Port's transportation infrastructure," says GCA managing director Denise Richardson in the statement. "The Port Authority's funding, which is generated by fees paid by the public, needs to go to public purposes, which is infrastructure, not to private development." Richardson's predecessor at the GCA, Chris Ward, is the Port's current executive director.

Instant Insights /

Port, Silverstein Inch Toward Agreement

Related Stories

Recommended For You