‘TRIA and Tribulations’

Re: “TRIA and Tribulations,” Editorial, May 20, 2005. Yes, it’s true, as you say, that “terrorism is hard to insure. It’s too unpredictable. There’s no reliable way to know what the risks are, or what the costs associated with those risks might be, so there’s no reliable way to set premiums.” But you fail to point out that terrorism is a close cousin, if not brother, of war, and no one assumes the private sector should be providing insurance against the risk of war. You also correctly point out that “construction projects in the city worth over $2 billion are facing an uncertain insurance future when TRIA expires on December 31.” Left unsaid is the effect this will have on jobs and state and local tax revenues lost when projects don’t move forward.

It is also true “the market is making tentative steps in developing tools like mutual risk pools or catastrophe bonds,” but it is difficult to find any indication that these tools could “eventually form the basis of a private terrorism reinsurance market.”

You failed to mention some of the ironies to the debate now going on in Washington about terrorism insurance. For instance, the government now provides direct, “first dollar loss,” insurance to the airline industry to protect against terrorism, yet seems to balk when debating a “reinsurance” program for the buildings and their inhabitants that can be potentially attacked by those airplanes. Additionally, our government now provides terrorism insurance through the Overseas Private Investment Corporation to American businesses seeking to operate in troubled spots around the globe while, at the same time, questioning the need for such a program here at home.

Most importantly, however, the central reason for the program in the first place was not just to keep the economy on track in the face of a terrorist threat. President Bush said it best when he signed the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act into law: this important legislation was intended also to “enable our economy to rebound more quickly following a future terrorist attack.” Ending this program would be a blow to economic growth and jobs now and would be particularly problematic for the economy following any future terrorist strike. These are exactly the targets the terrorists have in their crosshairs.

JEFFREY D. DeBOER
President and Chief
Executive Officer
The Real Estate Roundtable
Washington, D.C.

‘Into the Movies’

The New York Sun’s piece on Katherine Oliver, who runs the Mayor’s Office of Film, left me fuming [“Getting New York Into the Movies,” Elizabeth Peek, Business, May 20, 2005]. Ms. Oliver represents what is wrong with city officials – not what is admirable about them. I live in Greenwich Village. My block has been tortured by no fewer than four multi-day film projects so far this year. Film crews are notoriously disrespectful: They film late into the night, block traffic, make noise, leave litter, break trees and wickets, and generally make the lives of taxpaying residents miserable.

Would Ms. Oliver consider limiting the pain? Who knows, since she refuses to discuss these matters with residents.

JAY NEWMAN
Manhattan

---

Please address letters intended for publication to the Editor of The New York Sun. Letters may be sent by e-mail to editor@nysun.com, facsimile to 212-608-7348, or post to 105 Chambers Street, New York City 10007.Please include a return address and daytime telephone number. Letters may be edited.