What began as a national tragedy is now morphing into a worldwide disgrace. Terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center, but the failure to make progress redeveloping the site is our fault alone.

Mayor Giuliani had the right idea when he suggested the entire trade center site should become a park. That would have been both elegant and efficient – providing a reasonably priced memorial to remember and honor the 3,000 office workers and rescue workers who were killed.

Instead of sticking with a simple plan that could be well under way if not finished by now, Governor Pataki insisted on an ambitious rebuilding plan that includes the most expensive memorial in the history of the world. And we’re now finding out the memorial is fraught with the same controversy surrounding the rest of the area.

I first reported a year ago that Mr. Pataki was exploring ways to give the government total control over the site. Little has happened since then, but a lot has been said – with Mayor Bloomberg now taking a more active role in what happens downtown and Port Authority bureaucrats now exerting more control over the site their agency owns.

The final plan for the site was theoretically determined three years ago. Mr. Pataki has set a deadline of less than two weeks from now for what will hopefully be the final, final plan. We’re sure to hear a lot about this issue over the next couple of weeks. What follows is an FAQ to help people decipher what’s really going on:

Who is in charge of the World Trade Center Site?

No one is in charge of everything. That’s the problem. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey owns the land, but Larry Silverstein signed a 99-year lease for the office buildings on the site just six weeks before the terrorist attacks. He has the right and the obligation to rebuild, but the Port Authority still retains some control as the actual owner.

After the attacks the governor established the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation to oversee the rebuilding. It held the design competitions and has funneled money into memorial. This group is controlled by the governor but also provides the mayor’s only official voice in what happens on the site. Ultimately, though, the LMDC has very little tangible authority and is basically just another layer of bureaucracy.

If Governor Pataki isn’t in charge, why does he act like he has the final say?

He does have the final say over a lot. For example, he picked the master site plan – over the objections of a committee he appointed. He also decided which cultural groups could have a presence on the site.But in part he had this power because nobody tried to stop him.

Why is the process taking so long?

Supply and demand generally drive the real estate market, meaning developers rarely build new office towers without signing up anchor tenants in advance. But the World Trade Center site is being driven by insurance money that exists regardless of actual demand to replace what was destroyed. (Mr. Silverstein has been unable to rent most of the nearly finished WTC 7.)

Why was Mr. Silverstein able to rebuild Tower 7, across the street from where the Twin Towers stood, before any progress at all has occurred on the site itself?

The site itself is subject to the master plan designed by Daniel Libeskind. Because Tower 7 is across the street, Mr. Silverstein was able to move quickly without navigating government bureaucracies. He deserves a lot of credit for making the building happen – everything from design to construction to occupancy – within five years of the attacks.

If Mr. Silverstein is so good, why are government officials talking about reducing his role at the site?

Follow the money. Government officials initially rallied around Mr. Silverstein only because the World Trade Center insurance money flows through him. Mr. Silverstein under-insured the site for $3.5 billion, on the reasonable but wrong presumption that there was no realistic way the entire complex could be destroyed. Because two separate planes were used in the attacks, Mr. Silverstein hoped he would receive two separate payouts – doubling his insurance proceeds and providing enough cash to rebuild everything. But courts ruled Mr. Silverstein would receive only about $4.5 billion, making his involvement less valuable than if he had $7 billion on hand.

Mr. Silverstein has a valid lease. Why isn’t he yelling and screaming about officials’ efforts to sideline him?

He is angry and about a year ago made that anger well known. Mr. Pataki’s team responded with a warning to Mr. Silverstein and his advisers that the more they complained, the more likely they would lose.

If Mr. Silverstein doesn’t have enough money to rebuild, who will pay?

Mr. Silverstein wants the city and state to give him more than $3 billion in financing via tax-free Liberty Bonds, part of the $20 billion dollar relief package Washington promised New York after the attacks. Mr. Pataki is on board with half the cash, but Mr. Bloomberg is holding back the city’s half.

Why are the mayor and the governor divided?

They have different priorities. Mr. Pataki needs movement now, because he’s out of office at the end of the year. Mr. Bloomberg has more time. Consistent with their personalities, Mr. Pataki is focused on symbolism and Mr. Bloomberg is focused on practical concerns.

In a nutshell, what are their different priorities?

Mr. Pataki is concerned about the Freedom Tower, the memorial and a new transit hub linking subway lines and a planned train link to JFK. These are iconic structures the world will notice. Mr. Pataki feels the rest of the site will fit in around these priorities, which he’ll surely highlight if he does run for president.

Mr. Bloomberg is more concerned with the functionality of the entire site than any specific element of the design plan. Current plans call for five office buildings, but Mr. Bloomberg wants at least one of them to be used for apartments and a hotel. He worries the area won’t come to life unless there are a variety of facilities that combine to create a 24-hour community.

Given that the Master Plan was approved three years ago, why did the mayor wait until a few months ago to weigh in?

Two reasons. The mayor had been pre-occupied with creating a new neighborhood on the far West Side, but that plan was sidelined when the stadium deal fell through last summer. He now has more time to focus on downtown. Also, discussion about the World Trade Center site is fraught with emotion. Mr. Bloomberg didn’t risk inserting himself into this debate until his reelection looked assured.

Is the Memorial in jeopardy?

Too soon to tell. There is new concern that a primarily underground Memorial doesn’t make much sense. And there are lingering questions in the architecture community about the value of finalizing a Memorial so soon after the tragic event.(The World War II memorial, for example, was not built until more than 50 years after the war.)

Also, fundraising for the Memorial is way behind schedule – and prominent New Yorkers have consistently refused to take a leading role in raising money for the project. Mr. Bloomberg created a new concern this week by speculating the Memorial could cost twice the initial estimate of $500 million. But bear in mind that Mr. Bloomberg has always been troubled by the concept of tremendously expensive memorials, preferring to spend money on endeavors – including medical research, education and arts – that benefit people’s lives.

When will we know for sure what is happening?

The next few months will prove decisive, and not necessarily because Mr. Pataki has made this month the deadline for a final plan on the office buildings. More significantly, the worldwide press will start paying attention as the fifth anniversary of the attacks approaches late this summer. Mr. Pataki will also want everything on track before he leaves office. And Mayor Bloomberg will want plans set before a new governor takes office and begins exerting control downtown.

Mr. Goldin’s political column appears weekly.