The explosion was a reminder that there is no room for complacency.
Housing offices, hotels and residences, these buildings are so difficult to defend against acts of terrorism that the FBI calls them "soft targets." And though much of the real estate industry has moved aggressively to upgrade security after 9/11, many landlords are reluctant to accept responsibility for creating a safe and secure environment out of fear of legal liabilities, while tenants weigh the effects of too much security on foot traffic coming into their business.
No business that depends on foot traffic wants to rent in a building that feels like a fortress, says Ann Planning, a real estate lawyer and partner with Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman.
The real estate industry formed its own "information and sharing center," or ISAC, to facilitate information exchange on possible terrorist activities with agencies in the federal government. ISAC operates on the same principles as centers set up by the energy, telecommunications and financial industries.
The hotel industry also has taken security issues to heart, says Josh Romanow, a lawyer and travel security expert with Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman. Hotels are beefing up security, using a variety of personnel and high-tech surveillance methods.
There are no federal security guidelines that commercial buildings must adhere to. However, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has published a reference manual on how to mitigate potential terrorist attacks against buildings.
Still, owners and landlords often have different security requirements and differing levels of willingness to take responsibility for ensuring a secure environment, despite or perhaps, because of the events of 9/11.
A Government Accountability Office report on building security, released in 2002, noted that one of the big hurdles faced by government agencies leasing space in privately owned commercial buildings was "difficulty getting the lessor to allow security countermeasures in buildings not fully occupied by federal employees." The primary reason for this reluctance to upgrade security? "[T]he lessor does not want to inconvenience the private tenants," the report says.
In addition, a high-profile tenant, such as the diplomatic corps of a foreign country, may have specific security demands it needs met. In such instances, the landlord may agree to installing security upgrades, but from a landlord’s perspective, they don’t want to assume the legal risk or liability if the security measures don’t thwart a terrorist act. For example, a tenant may want extra security cameras installed, but in these cases, the landlord is likely to build in a clause that absolves him or her from any guarantee that the cameras will catch the bad guys or that the cameras will even be monitored.
Buildings are assigned a "class" A through C. Class "A" buildings are the top of the heap; the kind of building you’d associate with high-priced law firms, powerful lobbying organizations, ritzy hotels and the British Consulate.
It’s the marble and glitz and spit and polish and level of security and amenities that sets a class "A" building apart from a B or a C.
And when a landlord does open up the checkbook for security improvements, those costs are usually passed on to the tenant in some form. Moving into a class A building, tenants aren’t directly billed for security measures, but rent will likely be higher reflecting the fact that it was more expensive to build the building and operate the building with increased security.
Gary Green, CEO of Classic Security, a New York-based firm that provides security guard services, said the level of security that people are buying now has leveled off or diminished.
