In another disturbing sign of our collective inability to rebuild – that, in effect, we’ve maximized the damage of the September 11th, 2001 attacks on New York City – the developer, Larry Silverstein, is seeking arbitration to resolve ongoing financial issues.

We offer no opinion as to the virtues of any argument by any part – only the conclusion that the best proof of our determination and resilience would have been rapid rebuilding, whether or not we returned to the original design, whose weaknesses are, sadly, now more relevant.

From “Eight Years Later,” an editorial in The New York Times

of September 10, 2009:

The horrors of Sept. 11, 2001, are still vivid for many Americans, especially the families of the victims. So it is tragic that on this Sept. 11, when family members, politicians and visitors go to the ceremonies at ground zero, they will be gathering at an unfinished place.

Instead of the two memorial pools designed by the architect Michael Arad, visitors will see their barest outlines. Instead of a circle of skyscrapers, the steel for the tallest tower stretches only five stories high. There are just the first skeletal signs of Santiago Calatrava’s magnificent transportation hub.

Why is it taking so long? That is a question that has been asked every Sept. 11. For the first few years, there were too many feuds — the architects Daniel Libeskind versus David Childs, the families versus the designers and builders, the community versus the demolition squads, the developer Larry Silverstein versus the insurance companies. Even now, Mr. Silverstein is locked in arbitration with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the owner of the site, because he wants more of the authority’s money to build more office towers.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who now supports Mr. Silverstein’s excessive demands for public funds, once recognized the hazards of overbuilding office space in the area. In December 2002, a year after the attack, he bluntly acknowledged that “the twin towers’ voracious appetite for tenants weakened the entire downtown real estate market” — a possibility that today’s real estate experts fear if Mr. Silverstein builds too precipitously.

All this infighting — and confusion over necessities like a subway line and bus terminals and walls to keep out the Hudson River — has obscured the original promise to make use of this vital and iconic space beyond simply replacing 10 million square feet of commercial space.

The centerpiece of the project properly remains the memorial, its park and, eventually, the underground museum. But around that somber space, there should be more than skyscrapers that grow dark at night. There should be a vibrant, 24-hour community of people who live, work, play and thrive in Lower Manhattan.

For those that can bear the details of the dispute, the Times’ coverage is excellent. One wonders if, in their target selection, the attackers knew that our political system would be incapable of proceeding to rebuild and avoid profiteering. Some of the Times’ coverage:

Developer at Ground Zero Seeks Arbitration

Start there – and – if you can manage – a search of the Times’ website will yield these articles from the paper, so to speak, plus the blogs.