With little attention from national media or Congress, the pieces are falling into place for the United Nations to build a brand-new building next door to its current 39-story tower. That’s fast work, considering the U.N. has yet to provide the Obama administration or Congress an official cost estimate for the project or a detailed justification of the need for this building.
Thus far, the action has been concentrated in New York. Earlier this summer, both houses of the state legislature approved a bill authorizing New York City to “sell, lease or otherwise transfer such land and interests therein to the United Nations development corporation” as are needed for the construction of a new office building on the Robert Moses Playground just south of the current U.N. building. Governor Cuomo signed the legislation on July 15. The legislation stipulates that a memorandum of understanding (MOU) must be completed and signed by the mayor of New York City, the temporary president of the senate, and the speaker of the assembly by October 10, or the legislative authorization will expire.
Advertisement
New York politicians and the U.N. have been working to overcome resistance from some local residents who strongly oppose the deal. In fact, the U.N. Foundation has hired a public-relations firm, Berlin Rosen, to gin up local support for the project. David Cantor of Berlin Rosen is the spokesman for the Friends of the East River Greenway, a “grassroots” group specifically created to advocate the project.
New York state-assembly speaker Sheldon Silver, one of the three individuals who must sign off on the MOU, and state senator Liz Krueger, who represents the 26th New York Senate district, where the Robert Moses Playground is located, are also represented by Berlin Rosen.
Once the MOU is complete, New York will enter into formal negotiations with the U.N. to sell the playground. Local politicians have presented the project as a financial windfall for the city. The New York Times quotes state senator Liz Kreuger as saying, “It is a very rare occasion where I would ever find myself supporting the alienation of open space in my district. But we think mathematically this is a win. It helps New York City make good on its commitment to a green ring around Manhattan. We’re in bad economic times. I just don’t see any money appearing on the horizon for something like this.”
Indeed, New York expects to make $200 million to $400 million from the deal. Much of that would be used to fill in the largest remaining gap in the Manhattan Waterfront Greenway, from 38th to 60th Streets on the East River. The greenway is considered a legacy project by Mayor Bloomberg.
Woohoo — free money from the United Nations, right? Not exactly. Remember, the U.S. taxpayer pays 22 percent of the U.N. budget.
Earlier this decade, construction of a new U.N. building was estimated to run about $400 million. And New York wants $65 million for the playground property. Add those two figures for a lowball estimate. The cost could go much higher, however. After all, the current renovation of the U.N. building was initially estimated at $600 million. It’s now expected to wind up costing more than $2 billion.
The U.S. taxpayer will likely be expected to shoulder 22 percent of the increased expenses resulting from the new U.N. building. This works out to just over $100 million under the lowball estimate, but could easily be three or even four times that amount. And it should surprise no one if we’re also asked to assume sole fiscal responsibility for security upgrades related to the new building. After all, as we saw in 2010, the U.S. was expected to pay for $100 million in security-related expenses — above and beyond our regular “fair share” contribution for the renovation project.
What New York is really proposing, then, is for American taxpayers from around the country to pay hundreds of millions of dollars so that Manhattan’s bikers and hikers can have a scenic pathway along the East River. If the citizens of New York won’t pony up for their own esplanade, why should taxpayers in Ohio or Nevada or Florida or anywhere else? This may be a “win” for New York and the U.N., but it certainly makes the rest of America look like a loser.
Thus far, the Obama administration has stayed mute on this issue. It should speak up and oppose this project before things progress too far and the American taxpayer is stuck with another extravagant bill. In a time of fiscal austerity, neither the administration nor Congress should silently assent to this unnecessary increase in America’s contributions to the U.N.
— Brett D. Schaefer is the Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs at the Heritage Foundation.
This is a perfect opportunity for the UN to move outside the US. If the super committee doesn't see this a reason to cut US funding of the UN they're blind.
Why not use this as the excuse to move the UN back to Switzerland? Last I heard, the old League of Nations buildings are still vacant and need a little updating. I'd be happy to pay to get the UN out of our country.
Please get the UN out of the USA.
Perhaps Geneva or Vienna or whereever would be OK. I understand New Yorkers; their male and female prostitutes hotels and restaurants are enjoying financial advantages from the American taxpayers. Actually, the property where the UN stands should be purchased back from the UN(it was donated by the Rockefellers originally). Please get them out!
I'm with Roger. My quick, non-scientific, informal survey indicates that 7 out of 10 taxpayers would gladly pony up for moving vans, docking fees, and one-way tickets to ship the entire useless organization elsewhere.
In that win-win scenario, we could use a small portion of that 22% share to build NY its greenway, get rid of the leeches and terrorists of the UN, and still not "alienate" any current open space.
This at a time when an ever increasingly anti-US UN rampages on against the best interests of liberty and security in the world. I would gladly pay for that esplanade with the proviso that it never contains an expanded UN campus. I would pay even more to get rid of the one that is already there.
Move the darn organization to Europe where there ideals fit better. All we have at the UN is tin-horn dictators running a socialist movement, by extorting funds from the USA taxpayers. They publicly admonish the USA for everything, but have their beaks out like baby birds in a nest waiting for meal. Tear down the current structure and make it a park with lots of trees where dogs can give it a proper demonstration!
How about some 3rd world dictatorship? If they are good enough to be members and criticize Israel and the US, the UN should be happy to move there too. Might even mean that they would meet less and waste less time and resources on bad ideas.
Gee, if the UN moved somewhere else, that would mean that the petty dictators of the would would have to bash America from soap boxes on someone else's soil. Hmmmmm...
We should have taken the opportunity to show them the other places to have a UN such as Iran, N Korea, France any country in Africa . Why didn't the worlds worst despots offer their country;s land to build a new Un on? At least 80% of the countries that make up the UN are ruled by azzwipes like Chavez so let them build in Venezuala.
Speaking of Chavez, maybe we could have the current UN building condemned because it stills smells of sulpher!! EPA regs, you know. Venezula would be a great place to locate all the free-loaders that don't carry their weight of financial support and let Chavez deal with all the parking tickets. He could also nationalize the male and female prostitutes and help his revenue stream.
A new UN?
We don't even want the old UN. Take it to Uganda for all I care. They haven't been in our corner for 40 years. They live like kings, on our dime, they flaunt our laws. Who the he double hockey sticks needs them anyway?
I say that we the people send a clear message to congress, do not fund a new UN building!
