9/11 Memorial goes back on its word, charges reservation fee

Well, I never thought I'd have something to start a thread in here about but this just rubs my fur the WRONG way. They got hundreds upon HUNDREDS of millions of dollars to build this memorial to those who died that day. Whatever anyone thinks caused it, the deaths aren't much in question and this is about that.

Should they be charging? Well..Some may say yes, why not?? To that? I'll post the article and see how folks feel in a moment.

“They made . . . a vow that no one would ever be charged for going to the memorial, but money is the bottom line here,” she fumed.

“They’re making money off the people that died. It’s disgusting,” said Jim Riches, a retired FDNY deputy chief who lost his firefighter son, Jimmy, on 9/11.

This story is truly rank and rotten. The numbers detailed are absolutely atrocious. They apparently assured everyone while taking tax payer funds and private donations that they WOULD NOT charge for access. PERIOD. Not that they'd only charge for this or that....but that they would NOT. Well? Does anyone's word mean anything whatsoever anymore? I guess not?

The nonprofit claims on its Web site that it “does not receive city, state or federal funding for its operations.”

But from 2006 to 2011, it pulled in about $295 million in taxpayer-funded grants for construction.

Source

Honesty is also apparently lacking from their master plan and agenda. The article goes on to show the $200,000 - $300,000+ the people running the Memorial Foundation are pulling in per year. Wow.. Nice work if you can get it . I'll leave off who the chair of that board is, since my personal feelings for the man would not be helpful here and I'm mad enough already.

It's taken them almost 3/4 of a billion to build the Museum and Memorial. They also claim it's going to take at least $77 million a year to run it by the costs I just see itemized there. 12 million in security alone. (How ? What? HUH??!)

Again, this isn't about theories to how these people lost their lives in the pre-impact period. It's about how this has been handled since. I've been sick of hearing about money on 9/11 from almost day 1. From the outright disgusting actions of the National Red Cross and others who took in obscene amounts of money tagged as 9/11 relief and support funds ..then diverted to general operating costs for all disasters (thats one reason I wouldn't give them a dime now if it meant saving their whole organization) to the outrageous advantages taken in every step of cleanup costs, planning costs and rebuilding costs ...it seems EVERYONE has made their money off the bodies of those who died in that place.

Now? The article mentions a possible $20-$25 General Admission fee at the bottom as well ....after saying on their website that the couple dollars in advance reservation fees are just while construction and such is still ongoing around it. Well, it sounds like they can't even get their lies straight. Anyone else count multiple contradictions or near contradictions in this thing across JUST this ONE article??

We need not even touch how long it's been now and this is still being screwed with. I think if people had said in 2001 that it would be 2013 and still working to open the basic memorial? The public would have greeted that with disbelief. Then again, this is the 9/11 site and the public in 2001 had no idea what a golden goose the tragedy would be held as to just about everyone who had any contact with it.

- One disgusted Rabbit

***************************

Note: See additional post below for more information in clarification to follow - I'm still researching and confirming a couple things which won't make it under the editing time limit. The originating Media source was not entirely "clear" in their presentation of facts here.

I'm wondering who is this "they" referred to in the article and the OP. Who is"they", and do you have a written letter stating this "vow" to not charge? It happened 12 years ago. If you wanted to go see it for free, you had plenty of time to do so. I personally think it's silly to charge people to visit a memorial, but what right do I have to set the price of admission?

There is no charge to visit the Lincoln or Jefferson memorials, there is no fee to visit the Iwo Jima memorial or the The Viet Nam memorial either.

Maybe there is a required number of American deaths before the memorial becomes free to the public?
I think we could probably count all the Iraq and Afghanistan deaths as a direct result of 9/11 though.

Oh well, can't say I'm surprised.

Originally posted by DaTroof
I'm wondering who is this "they" referred to in the article and the OP. Who is"they", and do you have a written letter stating this "vow" to not charge? It happened 12 years ago. If you wanted to go see it for free, you had plenty of time to do so. I personally think it's silly to charge people to visit a memorial, but what right do I have to set the price of admission?

try reading the article if you want to know who "they" refers to.

i remember hearing that there would be no admissions fee when the construction first started. a public memorial funded through taxes gives everyone a right to free admission, that is, if this country wasn't run by crazies.

reply to post by DaTroof

It happened 12 years ago. If you wanted to go see it for free, you had plenty of time to do so.

I usually ignore your asinine posts but this one was one of your better efforts. Even someone as ignorant as you must realize that family and friends of those killed at that site still go there and not just visited once?

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


I read the article. Joe Daniels is a he, not a they. If "they" means the entire foundation, then please present an official statement from the foundation vowing not to charge fees.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


They should have never have built this memorial.

It would have been far more human and forgiving to tell people the truth about what really happened that day.

Once again, capitalism rears its' ugly head.

Research is done. I had no original intention of putting multiple hours into this but it's an underlying topic that deserves a story to be done right, not just 'good enough'. After reading all I now have, I'll never visit the site myself. I can at least insure my cover of this aspect is better than the source the OP was based on.

While the majority of that was accurate, what was outright misrepresented by both distortion and omission of material facts is ALMOST as obscene as the whole memorial/museum story itself is. I can't believe how long it took to get what I'm now comfortable with presenting as fact.

Anyway, I'm starting with a blank screen for my own typing of content so gimmie a bit longer but it won't be much. I type at conversational speed and know precisely what and how I want to say things at this point.

-Disgusted and infuriated Rabbit.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


If this is concerning my request for the contested statement, I appreciate your effort to validate the story. I am man enough to take back my dismissal of the story should an official statement regarding fees (or lack thereof) be presented.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't charging a reservation fee change their tax status from a public charity to a private foundation? Here is the link for their application letter.

Letter

reply to post by DaTroof

I read the article. Joe Daniels is a he, not a they. If "they" means the entire foundation, then please present an official statement from the foundation vowing not to charge fees.

lately i have a hard time believing that you read anything.

The foundation, chaired by Mayor Bloomberg, says the memorial and museum will cost $60 million a year to operate once complete.

Add that to the nonprofit’s swanky salaries: Ten of the 12 directors raked in more than $200,000 in 2011. Daniels pulled down $336,224 in salary and benefits, and Museum Director Alice Greenwald made $351,171, tax filings show. One former employee, Joan Gerner, got a $300,000 severance after leaving the foundation — on top of her $439,463 salary.

Memorial officials also want federal handouts, and are hoping to revive a Senate bill that would force the National Park Service to shell out $20 million a year.

Okay, this is the additional material referred to in my OP. What began as a short story turned into a rather epic research effort given how much else I'm supposed to be doing ...but darned if this could be left once I could see it wasn't correct. Here goes... By the way, this is sourced in a variant of M.L.A. Inline and proper M.L.A. format citation. I'm so angry and burnt on this, I'm not playing games with it. It gets done RIGHT.

-------------

First, to answer the first point on the thread. DaTroof, you were correct in this instance. Absolutely unbelievable but this has been so badly misrepresented and so many times repeated, a fair portion of the last 2 hours was spent confirming THAT specific point. Here are the facts of it.

First, Joe Daniels is the President and CEO of the National September 11 Memorial and Museum (NBC-1). Simply put, his job appears to be insuring this is a solvent and if at all possible profitable venture. More on that later, but that's his position. He's making statements on behalf of that organization and the 9/11 Memorial Foundation as shows in every article where statements attributed to the foundation appear. He's the one making them and without dispute or challenge from anyone, anywhere, at any time I could see.

Second, The discussion of free access is a somewhat confused one for someone cold into the subject. It's *NOT CONFUSING* after 2 hours reading about it. It should NEVER have been confusing for a media organization with years of continuing coverage, the families spokespeople or anyone else directly involved. The stories for charging go back almost to the inception of the Foundation itself and specifically date to 6/16/2011 on the earliest source I'm using. (NBC-1, NBC-2). The fees back to that point were estimated at $20 and $12 (NBC 1 and 2 respectively) for the underground Museum while the above ground Memorial park area has always been and continues to be a free area for public access. (Crane-1)

So Troof, you hit it. The New York Post, in my personal opinion, was unforgivable in presenting this how they did WITHOUT noting this had always been part of the publicly stated intentions for the ongoing funding of operations after grand opening to the public. EVERY NEWS SOURCE I found covering this story for the last 24 hours was sourcing the NY Post for THEIR information. So this ALL goes back to ONE media source and that source is one I now have absolutely 0 confidence in.

Additionally, I could not find where the 911 Foundation or the Memorial site claimed no Federal funding was used. Another "accident" of reporting for the Post? Well.... I'll say the Memorial and Foundation organizations have been VERY upfront and forthcoming in this being a Public/Private Partnership and the use of public funds being critical from the start. (All Sources Used)

-------------

Here are some facts that seem consistent.

First, the operating budget for this will be roughly $60 million per year. (CBS-1) Within that cost is $4.5-$5 Million for the fountains and $12 million for site security for confirmed, stated costs. (NBC-2). The families, who operate more than one group of their own would like to see the whole site taken over by the Federal Parks Service and run as the Iwo Jima, World War II and Vietnam memorials function.

For comparison, these are the costs of other memorial/monument locations within the Federal system (North-1):

The anticipated cost has bothered some critics and raised concerns even among the memorial's allies that the budget may be unsustainable without a hefty government subsidy.
By comparison, the National Park Service budgeted $8.4 million this year to operate and maintain Gettysburg National Military Park and $3.6 million for the monument that includes the USS Arizona Memorial at Pearl Harbor. Running Arlington National Cemetery, which has more than 14,000 graves and receives 4 million visitors a year, costs $45 million annually.

(NBC-2)

Personally, I agree entirely. There are big things like the fact the foundation ran years over time on this and largely sourcing back to a dispute between Bloomberg and Cuomo over funding and planning specifics (CBS-1), exceptionally HIGH salaries for board members compared to other locations:

The group of family members also says the salaries of the non-profit's executives are excessive. Four received total compensation of more than $300,000 in 2009 — including Daniels, who was paid $371,000 — and four more earned more than $200,000, according to tax records.

(North-1, WSJ-1)

vs.

Salaries for directors of the National Park Service's two large facilities in the New York area — the Statue of Liberty and the Gateway National Recreation Area — range from $128,000 to $155,000 depending on years on the job, according to the park service.

(North-1)

. . . Continued

(Sources all list by Inline citation on last page)

Additional to the issues above, this came at a cost which started at $530 Million (CBS-1) and has ended up around $700 Million. (NBC-2).

This is ONLY the Memorial Plaza/Park, The underground Museum and the fountains/water features. This is not the buildings above it. Thats almost 3/4 of a billion. Although this is a case where you'll find plenty who got their piece of the pie from it. In fact, it would seem everyone did.

The nonprofit agreed to pay D'Amato's lobbying firm, Park Strategies, $50,000 for a six-month stint that began in January, foundation spokeswoman Lynn Rasic said.

Retired Sen. Alfonse D'Amato to lobby for 9/11 Memorial Foundation - for $50G

Everyone makes something, but it's just wrong, in my opinion, to be running every dollar possible. In one quote that is common across the sources I read, it shows the general interest here.

If an entrance fee is charged, it would be comparable to ticket prices at other major museums in New York City, said Daniels, who noted that many of the institutions charge about $20. There would be discounts for school groups, he said.

(NBC-1)

The attitude is to charge what the market will bear and repeated comparisons are made, not to what other memorials or monuments cost to operate or charge to access (with one 2011 exception for the $12 fee compared to Oklahoma City) but to what other Museums and attractions in New York City charge at the door.



There are several other things like a lack of restrooms that is mentioned in several sources but I can't confirm that and have found too many "facts" presented in major media on this story tonight that come with complete and total contradiction in other sources to even touch.

@ Carreu, the letter you have is from 2008. Everything related to funding, structure and nature of the project changed not just once but multiple times in the years since.

Forgive me...but I'm burned out on this. I'm going to list sources and close this.

(NYC 9/11 memorial museum may charge $20 admission)
NBC - 1 (06/16/2011) - Original Sourcing: Associated Press

(9/11 memorial to cost $60 million a year to operate)
NBC-2 (09/09/2012) - Original Sourcing: Associated Press

(9/11 Museum to be built, but no one can say when)
CBS - 1 (9/11/2012) Original Sourcing: CBS

(Concerns over 9/11 Memorial funding)
North - 1 (10/17/2011) Original Sourcing: NorthJersey.com

(9/11 Foundation's Costs Rise)
WSJ - 1 (12/26/2012) Original Sourcing: Wall Street Journal

(Next challenge: finishing the 9/11 museum)
Crane-1 (08/28/2011) Original Sourcing: Crain's New York Business

I don't believe I'll touch another 9/11 story again, either. This wasn't an interesting little story to post and it sure wasn't one I wanted to make a long deal of. It sure is one of the uglier and nastier stories I've ever done anything with though and reading through the above sources to get context I can't post for needing MORE out of each to quote than space and T&C for that allows is needed to get that part.

The worst thing though? Really is how the media can't even agree on the basics and most simple details of this whole thing. When I've seen that in the past it usually means the B.S. is so deep you need a backhoe to find truth. Hence... I think I'll just read about this topic in the future ..if I even do that.

What should have been a precious national memorial? Pretty well got turned into political compromises and a cash cow in some degree for far too many.

Anyway... I hope that helps clarify some of it and at least, gives plenty more to read outside this.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Well, I never thought I'd have something to start a thread in here about but this just rubs my fur the WRONG way. They got hundreds upon HUNDREDS of millions of dollars to build this memorial to those who died that day. Whatever anyone thinks caused it, the deaths aren't much in question and this is about that.

Should they be charging? Well..Some may say yes, why not?? To that? I'll post the article and see how folks feel in a moment.

“They made . . . a vow that no one would ever be charged for going to the memorial, but money is the bottom line here,” she fumed.

“They’re making money off the people that died. It’s disgusting,” said Jim Riches, a retired FDNY deputy chief who lost his firefighter son, Jimmy, on 9/11.

This story is truly rank and rotten.

- One disgusted Rabbit

***************************

Things don't always work in the way they appear.

Perhaps you may find it profitable see that the charge is intended to be a dis-incentive to visit the memorial.

Perhaps it is that on the one hand they are capitulating to a requirements to build it while on another level they are saying 'up yours.'

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Thank you so much for taking the time to establish just what is and what isn't true from the NYPost article. Generally, I can smell a rat from the get-go, so I apologize for coming on strong. I give you a lot of credit for admitting what you did.

As stated in my original response, I think it's silly to charge a fee for this, but as it turns out, the limited budget was stretched thin. Some would argue that salaries played a large role, but I think the numbers speak for themselves. Those in positions to collect salaries have every right to do so. The problem was an underestimated budget coupled with mayoral succession. Typical city politics, just with a touchy subject -- 9/11 Memorials.

Most of the money going to end up inside some pockets and we are going to pin some medals on them.

Capitalism at work here, you see a memorial, they see profits.


Snf and thanks for the OP.

I have been there multiple times, and the part that truly sickens me about this story is the fact that in the temporary memorial/store they take donations, when you sign up to visit the memorial, they take donations, as you exit the memorial they also take donations. I have always given a couple dollars when I visit because the site and memorial are honestly beautiful and I want to do my little part to help maintain.

For a little more info, the fee is a "processing fee" of from what the local news is reporting as 2 dollars. Being a processing fee is how they get around the non-profit status. The only reason there is this fee is because right now, with all the construction, they have to meter the amount of people allowed in, and there is only one way to get in to the memorial.

Once more of the construction is complete and the sidewalks and roads around the memorial are open, then the entire site will be open freely to the public from any direction with no need to register in advance or go through a crazy security screening to get in.

So while the fee is only temporary, and only 2 dollars, it makes me question if i even want to go there again before it is fully open and free again. Even with how many employees they have staffed for this thing, the in initial money received as well as donations should more than cover it.

reply to post by watchitburn

There is no charge to visit the Lincoln or Jefferson memorials, there is no fee to visit the Iwo Jima memorial or the The Viet Nam memorial either.

Maybe there is a required number of American deaths before the memorial becomes free to the public?
I think we could probably count all the Iraq and Afghanistan deaths as a direct result of 9/11 though.

The ones you mentioned are either actuall wars or on federal property.

WTC is private property and the memorial is to a terrorist event against privately owned buildings.
Hense they need non government funds to run the thing. I feel they over built the memorial. The symbolism is nice but far too expensive to maintain. But as usual they bit off more than they can chew.

I would expect ownership to be transfered to the feds and then to be run by the parks service in the next five years.

reply to post by DaTroof

As stated in my original response, I think it's silly to charge a fee for this, but as it turns out, the limited budget was stretched thin. Some would argue that salaries played a large role, but I think the numbers speak for themselves. Those in positions to collect salaries have every right to do so. The problem was an underestimated budget coupled with mayoral succession. Typical city politics, just with a touchy subject -- 9/11 Memorials.

Your welcome, Datroof. To be frank, if you hadn't challenged my OP and material, I would have taken the original material at face value, assumed the dozen or more other outlets have checked their material or had original material by the google result hits and been confident I was right. Well, I suppose I may have been right but correct would never have been the word. Sometimes a challenge to dig deeper needs to be a bit sharp? I just wish it hadn't been quite that much time ..but that's me.

On your reply, I don't know how to look at this entirely. Salaries are outrageous to my thinking but my thinking isn't New York City. As I've come to accept over the years, NYC is like nowhere else in both very good and bad ways. Costs...that would be a bad one. Higher costs for everything. Absolutely everything. That's what blew me away the most. The sheer costs. 5 million for the fountains alone. Not to build but annually, to keep running.

I guess for Southern Missouri, $200-$300k per year on positions like they hold running the foundation would have citizens out with torches and pitchforks, looking to adjust some take home pay. In New York? Well, maybe that really IS going rate for a privately managed effort like this just as Bloomberg said? If he's right, his point in one article was that paying less would get worse people. Now that is too sobering a thought to want to have seen an outcome for!

reply to post by CalibratedZeus

I have been there multiple times, and the part that truly sickens me about this story is the fact that in the temporary memorial/store they take donations, when you sign up to visit the memorial, they take donations, as you exit the memorial they also take donations. I have always given a couple dollars when I visit because the site and memorial are honestly beautiful and I want to do my little part to help maintain.

Thank you for your reply here. I'd like to ask you as someone who has been to this in it's nearly completed form?

Donation soliciting aside, what is the general feel and atmosphere? I'd read travel site reviews and a couple other similar anecdotal references which were all negative. One, extremely so. The overall theme was just extreme commercialization, if that's the right word. Not a Disney type, where everything just vibrates with "spend! buy me!" but a sense that everything about operating and design was penny wise but dollar poor with there never having been enough along the way?

Is it really that bad? I mentioned in the first page of my clarification material that I had no desire to ever go there and that's why. It seems by what I read, the experience would be really cheapened by that aspect?