The nationally defeating selection processes of Ground Zero’s rebuilding.

There were 4 main selection processes within the rebuilding process of the Ground Zero’s new WTC. The resulted selection of each one of them defeated the national interest while serving a personal interest. The final product of this inferior and corrupted rebuilding process is being constructed as you are reading this.
First selection process was to choose an architect from a list to prepare six designs for first round of designs. The six designs were to be narrowed down to one design that was supposed to be built. The administrator of the process bypassed well known architects from list whose experience was far more relevant to the task in hand than the chosen architect. Then the choice was made much worse when the administrator of the process coerced the joining of his friends to prepare 3 of the 6 deigns. Then it was made far worse when the developers had their architects to join in to work in 2 of the designs (SOM was one of those). The first design process was a disgraceful failure highlighted as such in every reputable news-media outlet in America and the world. This design process was junked altogether and the LMDC started a new design process.
The 2nd selection process took place when the new design process copycatted a list of architects who submitted a study project which was curated and published by the NY Times Magazine. After eliminating the most significant architects of the list and adding an obviously wrong choice which was SOM. (The interest of developers stands in a startling conflict with the American national interest in the rebuilding process. In a published essay SOM pledged the allegiance as developer Silverstein's architects as early as November 2001.) Six teams were introduced to the world as the design competition's entrants. Then -as usual- the administrator of the process added his same friends as a seventh team. The 7 teams were to introduce a design scheme each and the designs were to be judged in design competition settings. Almost all the authors who wrote about the rebuilding process wondered why the most significant architects of world did not or were not allowed to join the competition.
Thirdly, the 7 teams were allowed a choice of a program from a 6 to 10 million square foot program rang for commercial program. If the competition was for real all entrants should have used the lower end of the program to win it. The lower end of the program range was also the national choice; a more national choice was not to build at all in the WTC site. Vinoly submitted a commemorative entry without a commercial program. Renowned Foster was only architect to use the smallest program. SOM -predictably- violated the program range and submitted a scheme with 130 % the maximum allowed program. It seems that SOM realized the inevitability of a humiliating rank and withdrew their entry before judging. The other 4 teams chose a program around the maximum allowed program.
The fourth selection process was when Vinoly and Libeskind became the finalists and were asked to refine their entries and the one of their schemes will win and be constructed. On the eve of the day where the winner was to be announced NY Times wrote that vinoly won. During the afternoon of this eve governor Pataki reversed the choice and made Libeskind the winner and Libeskind it was. After Libeskind won, he was coerced to collaborate with SOM (SOM was the biggest loser of the competition). This highly publicized collaboration was bitterly negative and a scandalous. Libeskind role diminished remarkably after this collaboration. SOM solely designed the being constructed now WTC1 that was the subject of collaboration completely ignoring Libeskind scheme.
The rebuilding process concluded with the choice of lebsikind scheme to be constructed. When Libeskind scheme was completely ignored, questions are coerced; if his scheme was good why not build it, if it was bad why win the design competition. I remember the extensive first page coverage of the rebuilding process on NY newspapers I remember years of TV coverage of the same process. I remember the millions in New York, America and the world following the rebuilding process enthusiastically. All of these came to no avail as the rebuilding process led to no design and developers took over. Compelling a question why should government fund that kind of failure? The rebuilding process could be compared to a process where a sports team allocated the bulk of their resources to hire a franchise player yet this player never played a single game.