Question : Is the Ground Zero Mosque Insured for Damages it May Cause?
Would it be Fair to Make the Mosque Promoters Post an Insurance Bond?
This would be an insurance forfeiture bond in case the mosque was a source of massive damage to New York City or the people there from Explosion or from Toxic or Radioactive materials of any kind.

The insurance bond would be paid for out of the charitable donations that support the Mosque’s creation and development.

In that part of town, within very close blast range of 25 Federal agencies, two stock exchanges, and two major telecom hubs (one of which handles inter-regional bank check clearances), a bond that included consequential damages, pain and sufferring, loss of life, and loss of commercial use would run at least $ 500 Billion. So, it could cost $ 50 Million a year to maintain unless the full sum were put up in cash upfront.

This would not be a problem for the muslim world. They get $ 50 million in oil money from us every week.

It would be very helpful to victims of this project if there are any.

Keep in mind that no recovery of any kind was ever made from any muslim nations, especially Saudi Arabia, for the massive destruction that occurred on 9/11.

It being so difficult to recover money from overseas sources after the fact of harm being done, perhaps a bond posted upfront from those overseas sources who will be funding this mosque would be appropriate.

Why should American taxpayers have to pick up the tab — again?

We may or may not be able to stop our politicians from doing astonishingly improvident things, but insurance could buffer USA from some small part of the potential consequences of poor decision making by highly confused persons.

What do you think. That’s my question. Would it be fair to have a bond be posted?
Almost all the terrorists (not Tim McVeith) worldwide for the past 30 years have been muslims. Imam Rauf is a partner of the Imam at the Northern Virginia mosque, sometimes called the 9/11 mosque (but it could also be called the Major Nidal/Ft. Hood mosque, or the Christmas Day bomber mosque).

Now come the persons who imagine themselves to be logical.

They tell me that muslims are actually non-violent, and that this mosque at 51 Park is not likely to blow up with 5 kilotons of force and take out an 8 block by 8 block area.

There are hundreds of insurance companies in NYC. Surely one could be found that would be “logical” (like my critic) here and just go ahead and insure that the mosque will not blow up or otherwise harm residents and businesses in NYC.

But, if not a single insuror ANYWHERE IN THE UNIVERSE is willing to take that risk AT ANY PRICE, then it’s possible that maybe logic suggests a highly elevated risk here.

So why does Bloomberg rush out to embrace that!
telecom cost recovery

Best answer:

Answer by Robert T
They should be paying for the security/ police & medical services already expended not to mention future requirements. I see this as Product Liability.