Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Private vs. Public

7 World Trade Center, destroyed on 9/11/01. Today it is a shining tower that is 80% leased. Top rents are $80 per square foot, well above the $50 per square foot its critics said it would never get.

Nos. 1-6 World Trade Center, destroyed on 9/11/01. Today it is… a pit.

What is the difference? The former is owned and operated by a private developer, Silverstein Properties. The latter is owned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Although leased to Silverstein Properties, all major decisions regarding its rebuilding have to be approved by its government owners.

What is the lesson? Draw your own conclusions.

Source: New York Post, "Moody's Takes More", 2/27/07


madmax said...

It really doesn't get more obvious than that. But, of course, altruists and statists will never make the connection.

Galileo Blogs said...

No, they will not, despite some even better examples on a much larger scale:

West vs. East Germany
West Berlin vs. East Berlin
South vs. North Korea
Miami vs. Cuba

Private housing vs. public housing
Private schools vs. public schools

The list could go on. I particularly like the World Trade Center example because I used to watch 7 World Trade Center go up from my office window. During much of the time, there was a large American flag draped on the building, and a large sign that said (if I remember right), "New York rebuilds." The flag and the sign faced the empty pit of the former World Trade Center, a pit that remains empty. Ugh!